The A12 Vortex CPU µarch

When talking about the Vortex microarchitecture, we first need to talk about exactly what kind of frequencies we’re seeing on Apple’s new SoC. Over the last few generations Apple has been steadily raising frequencies of its big cores, all while also raising the microarchitecture’s IPC. I did a quick test of the frequency behaviour of the A12 versus the A11, and came up with the following table:

Maximum Frequency vs Loaded Threads
Per-Core Maximum MHz
Apple A11 1 2 3 4 5 6
Big 1 2380 2325 2083 2083 2083 2083
Big 2   2325 2083 2083 2083 2083
Little 1     1694 1587 1587 1587
Little 2       1587 1587 1587
Little 3         1587 1587
Little 4           1587
Apple A12 1 2 3 4 5 6
Big 1 2500 2380 2380 2380 2380 2380
Big 2   2380 2380 2380 2380 2380
Little 1     1587 1562 1562 1538
Little 2       1562 1562 1538
Little 3         1562 1538
Little 4           1538

Both the A11 and A12’s maximum frequency is actually a single-thread boost clock – 2380MHz for the A11’s Monsoon cores and 2500MHz for the new Vortex cores in the A12. This is just a 5% boost in frequency in ST applications. When adding a second big thread, both the A11 and A12 clock down to respectively 2325 and 2380MHz. It’s when we are also concurrently running threads onto the small cores that things between the two SoCs diverge: while the A11 further clocks down to 2083MHz, the A12 retains the same 2380 until it hits thermal limits and eventually throttles down.

On the small core side of things, the new Tempest cores are actually clocked more conservatively compared to the Mistral predecessors. When the system just had one small core running on the A11, this would boost up to 1694MHz. This behaviour is now gone on the A12, and the clock maximum clock is 1587MHz. The frequency further slightly reduces to down to 1538MHz when there’s four small cores fully loaded.

Much improved memory latency

As mentioned in the previous page, it’s evident that Apple has put a significant amount of work into the cache hierarchy as well as memory subsystem of the A12. Going back to a linear latency graph, we see the following behaviours for full random latencies, for both big and small cores:

The Vortex cores have only a 5% boost in frequency over the Monsoon cores, yet the absolute L2 memory latency has improved by 29% from ~11.5ns down to ~8.8ns. Meaning the new Vortex cores’ L2 cache now completes its operations in a significantly fewer number of cycles. On the Tempest side, the L2 cycle latency seems to have remained the same, but again there’s been a large change in terms of the L2 partitioning and power management, allowing access to a larger chunk of the physical L2.

I only had the test depth test up until 64MB and it’s evident that the latency curves don’t flatten out yet in this data set, but it’s visible that latency to DRAM has seen some improvements. The larger difference of the DRAM access of the Tempest cores could be explained by a raising of the maximum memory controller DVFS frequency when just small cores are active – their performance will look better when there’s also a big thread on the big cores running.

The system cache of the A12 has seen some dramatic changes in its behaviour. While bandwidth is this part of the cache hierarchy has seen a reduction compared to the A11, the latency has been much improved. One significant effect here which can be either attributed to the L2 prefetcher, or what I also see a possibility, prefetchers on the system cache side: The latency performance as well as the amount of streaming prefetchers has gone up.

Instruction throughput and latency

Backend Execution Throughput and Latency
  Cortex-A75 Cortex-A76 Exynos-M3 Monsoon | Vortex
  Exec Lat Exec Lat Exec Lat Exec Lat
Integer Arithmetic
ADD
2 1 3 1 4 1 6 1
Integer Multiply 32b
MUL
1 3 1 2 2 3 2 4
Integer Multiply 64b
MUL
1 3 1 2 1
(2x 0.5)
4 2 4
Integer Division 32b
SDIV
0.25 12 0.2 < 12 1/12 - 1 < 12 0.2 10 | 8
Integer Division 64b
SDIV
0.25 12 0.2 < 12 1/21 - 1 < 21 0.2 10 | 8
Move
MOV
2 1 3 1 3 1 3 1
Shift ops
LSL
2 1 3 1 3 1 6 1
Load instructions 2 4 2 4 2 4 2  
Store instructions 2 1 2 1 1 1 2  
FP Arithmetic
FADD
2 3 2 2 3 2 3 3
FP Multiply
FMUL
2 3 2 3 3 4 3 4
Multiply Accumulate
MLA
2 5 2 4 3 4 3 4
FP Division (S-form) 0.2-0.33 6-10 0.66 7 >0.16 12 0.5 | 1 10 | 8
FP Load 2 5 2 5 2 5    
FP Store 2 1-N 2 2 2 1    
Vector Arithmetic 2 3 2 2 3 1 3 2
Vector Multiply 1 4 1 4 1 3 3 3
Vector Multiply Accumulate 1 4 1 4 1 3 3 3
Vector FP Arithmetic 2 3 2 2 3 2 3 3
Vector FP Multiply 2 3 2 3 1 3 3 4
Vector Chained MAC
(VMLA)
2 6 2 5 3 5 3 3
Vector FP Fused MAC
(VFMA)
2 5 2 4 3 4 3 3

To compare the backend characteristics of Vortex, we’ve tested the instruction throughput. The backend performance is determined by the amount of execution units and the latency is dictated by the quality of their design.

The Vortex core looks pretty much the same as the predecessor Monsoon (A11) – with the exception that we’re seemingly looking at new division units, as the execution latency has seen a shaving of 2 cycles both on the integer and FP side. On the FP side the division throughput has seen a doubling.

Monsoon (A11) was a major microarchitectural update in terms of the mid-core and backend. It’s there that Apple had shifted the microarchitecture in Hurricane (A10) from a 6-wide decode from  to a 7-wide decode. The most significant change in the backend here was the addition of two integer ALU units, upping them from 4 to 6 units.

Monsoon (A11) and Vortex (A12) are extremely wide machines – with 6 integer execution pipelines among which two are complex units, two load/store units, two branch ports, and three FP/vector pipelines this gives an estimated 13 execution ports, far wider than Arm’s upcoming Cortex A76 and also wider than Samsung’s M3. In fact, assuming we're not looking at an atypical shared port situation, Apple’s microarchitecture seems to far surpass anything else in terms of width, including desktop CPUs.

The Apple A12 - First Commercial 7nm Silicon SPEC2006 Performance: Reaching Desktop Levels
Comments Locked

253 Comments

View All Comments

  • Speedfriend - Monday, October 8, 2018 - link

    So you would expect them to use that powerful SOC to deliver real battery improvements, but somehow they can't. No one I speak to complains that their modern smartphone is slow, but everyone complains about battery life.
  • melgross - Saturday, October 6, 2018 - link

    It’s both. The deep dive isolates the SoC to a great extent. It can be done with any phone.
  • eastcoast_pete - Friday, October 5, 2018 - link

    Andrei, thanks for the review! Yes, these are outstanding phones at outrageous prices. I appreciate the in-depth testing and detailed background, especially on the A12's CPU and GPU. While I don't own an iPhone and don't like iOS, I also believe that, phone-wise, the XS and XS Max are the new kings of the hill. The A12's performance is certainly in PC laptop class, and I wonder if (or how) the recent Apple-Qualcomm spat that kept QC's modem tech out of the new iPhones has helped Intel to keep its status as CPU provider for Apple's laptops, at least for now.
    One final comment, and one question: Andrei, I agree with you 100% that Apple missed an opportunity when they decided on a rather middling battery capacity for the XS Max. If I buy a big phone, I expect a big battery. Give the XS Max a 5000 mAh or larger battery, and it really is "the Max", at least among iPhones. At that size, a few mm additional thickness are not as important as run time. Maybe Apple kept that upgrade for its mid-cycle refresh next year - look, bigger batteries.
    @Andrei. I remember reading somewhere that the iPhone X and 8 used 128 bit wide memory buses. Questions: Is that the case here, and how does the memory system and bus compare to Android phones? And, in your estimate, how much of the A12's speed advantages are due to Apple's memory speeds and bus width ?
  • dudedud - Friday, October 5, 2018 - link

    I was sure that only the A$X were 128bit, but i would also want to know if this had changed.
  • RSAUser - Saturday, October 6, 2018 - link

    A12 is definitely not in the laptop class unless you're looking at the extreme low power usage tier.

    Just because it is quite a but faster than the equivalent on mobile does Not mean it can compete at a different power envelope. If that were true, Intel would already have dominated the SoC market. It requires a completely different CPU design. It's wwhy they can use it for the touchbar on the macbook but not as a main processor.
  • ws3 - Sunday, October 7, 2018 - link

    This review did not compare the A12 with “mobile” Intel chips but rather with server chips. The A12 is on par with Skylake server CPUs on a single threaded basis. Let that sink in.

    As to why Intel doesn’t dominate the SoC space, Intel’s designs haven’t been energy efficient enougj and also the x86 instruction set offers no advantage on mobile.
  • tipoo - Thursday, October 18, 2018 - link

    It's already competing with laptop and desktop class chips, not just mobile fare. It's up there per core with Skylake server, and NOT normalized per clock, just core vs core.

    It's like people don't read these articles year over year and are still using lines from when A7 arrived...
  • tipoo - Thursday, October 18, 2018 - link

    Only the A10X and A8X were 128 bit, on mobile that's still power limited for memory bandwidth.
  • juicytuna - Friday, October 5, 2018 - link

    Apple's big cores are like magic at this point. 2-3x the performance per watt of the nearest competitors is just ridiculous.
  • sing_electric - Friday, October 5, 2018 - link

    I know this is almost a side point, but this really goes to show what a mess Android (Google/Qualcomm) is compared to iOS. At the rate Snapdragon is improving, it'll be 2020/2021 before Qualcomm sells a chip as fast as 2017's A11, and Google is shooting itself in the foot by not having APIs available that take advantage of Snapdragon's (relative) GPU strength.

    That's on top of other long-term Android issues (like how in 2018, Android phones still can't handle a 1:1 match of finger movement to scrolling, which the iPhone could in 2008). Honestly, if I wasn't so invested in Android at this point, I really consider switching now.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now