Performance, Power, Area (PPA)

In terms of performance ARM claims it will exceed the A72 in all important metrics relevant to mobile workloads. Examples were scarce but on workloads such as BBench (Website loading benchmark) the A73 is claimed to be up to 10% better performance than the A72 – on the same process and frequency. SIMD/NEON (FFMEG Codec) workloads are supposed to improve by up to 5%, mostly a side-effect from the better memory subsystem. Memory sees the largest gains with up to 15% improvement (JMC Stream Copy 64b).

I asked what we should be expecting in terms of performance degradations and of course the biggest disadvantage will be in micro-benchmarks such as Dhrystone. ARM promises SPEC performance will be the same as on the A72 it’s likely that the downgrade from a 3-wide decoder to a 2-wide one won’t affect many relevant workloads. I saw the same behaviour reflected in the A17 versus the A15 comparison as the former was more than able to keep up with the larger microarchitecture in almost all of the workloads and benchmarks I threw at it, so I have little doubt that the A73 will be able show similar behaviour against the A72.

More importantly it’s power consumption which sees the largest improvements. We see up to 25% power reduction in integer workloads and up to ~30% in floating point and L2 cache memory operations. ARM publishes that the A73 uses at least 20% less power than the A72 at the same process and frequency.

An important addition to power efficiency is the inclusion of hardware-governed retention states. This feature was first introduced in the Cortex A35 late last year and now sees adoption in the A73 microarchitecture. Retention is a microarchitectural clock-gating state that was available for a while now, however it was still software controlled, meaning it still had fairly low granularity and most vendors never chose to implement or expose it to current devices as they preferred to fall back to WFI clock gating and power gating. The addition of a hardware governor greatly improves the capabilities of the retention state power management and ARM says that it can bring very significant reductions in dynamic power consumption.

The A73 is up to 25% smaller than the A72 when implemented on the same process with the same performance targets. The A72 is already getting quite small on new process nodes so the A73 will seem quite tiny on future nodes such as 10nm. 

Where the die size reduction will have the biggest impact however is on the mid-range. A 2-core Artemis cluster is supposed to be as big as a 4-core A53 cluster. We’ve seen a lot of 4+4 A53 implementation from various vendors and frankly the performance was not all that convincing as even high-clocked A53’s lagged a lot behind SoCs implementing big high-performance microarchitectures. It’s only been recently with the Snapdragon 650 and 652 that we’ve finally see performance of the mid-range catch up to that of more expensive flagships. ARM makes a point for replacing these 4+4 A53 SoCs with 2+4 A73+A53 SoCs as they’re able to keep the same area footprint (which in terms means same cost for the vendors) while vastly improving single-thread performance.

While vendors will certainly be able to use the A73 on older process nodes such as 28nm, ARM talked more about future nodes such as 10nm. Here again we see ARM aiming for low power and sustained performance and says we’ll see clock of up to 2.8GHz under a 750mW power budget (SPEC2K workload). This seems a rather conservative figure and I’m not sure if vendors will follow ARM’s guidance here – it’s more likely we’ll see SoCs try to hit and go over 3GHz on 10nm while the 2.8GHz target seems perfectly doable on 16nm. Of course this all depends on if the vendors are able to do a physical implementation that is close to ARM’s POP results, such as HiSilicon’s Kirin 950.

Closing Thoughts

Overall ARM’s decisions with the A73 make a lot of sense. ARM's big cores definitely needed to improve in terms of power and efficiency. A72 was a first step towards that goal and A73 further improves in that regard. In the future we should expect ARM to eventually again return to wider microarchitectures as we hit the wall of diminishing returns in terms of frequency scaling. HiSilicon's Kirin 950 was a game-changer in terms of perception and analysis of ARM’s microarchitectures as we finally have a vendor that was able to hit power figures near those that ARM publishes, lending the latter much more credibility when talking about efficiency goals.

If the A73 is able to hit all of its promised targets then it leaves me with some doubt on what this means for vendors who are currently using their own microarchitectures. Apple has proven that they’re able to execute and deliver outstanding performance at high efficiency, but vendors such as Qualcomm and Samsung aren’t in an as good position. We'll have a more in depth discussion about Snapdragon 820’s Kryo and Exynos 8890’s Mongoose cores in an upcoming deep dive article, but both microarchitectures have trouble in terms of differentiating themselves in terms of performance and power compared to ARM’s own current designs, casting some doubt on how they'll be able to evolve and compete against SoCs using Artemis cores.

ARM states that we’ll be seeing SoCs and actual consumer devices with A73 by the end of the year. This would mark the second year in a row where vendors would be ship within less than a year from announcement of a new ARM microarchitecture, and given the stated release schedule and looking back at last year’s SoCs with A72 cores, it shouldn't be too hard to guess which device and chipset might be able to fit this timeline.

All in all, I’m pretty happy with the direction ARM went with in the A73. It addresses a lot of the issues brought up in the introduction, and while more performance is always wanted, efficiency needed to be in focus this generation, and efficiency we got.

The Cortex A73 Microarchitecture
POST A COMMENT

63 Comments

View All Comments

  • ToTTenTranz - Monday, May 30, 2016 - link

    Are you guys going to cover the Mali G71 GPU architecture? Reply
  • Andrei Frumusanu - Monday, May 30, 2016 - link

    Ryan is currently putting the finishing touches on that piece, it should go up later today. Reply
  • Ryan Smith - Monday, May 30, 2016 - link

    http://www.anandtech.com/show/10375/arm-unveils-bi... Reply
  • YaleZhang - Monday, May 30, 2016 - link

    Decreasing the instruction decode width from 3/cycle to 2 to save power is interesting. When you look at the x86 vs RISC debate, everyone tells you complex instruction decoders are a small cost compared to the rest of the core, which is true in terms of area, but no mention about power?

    So for A73, did ARM reduce the decode width because it was rarely being utilized, or because fundamentally it's power hungry, or both? This seems to suggest why there are no x86 phones. If instruction decode power is a problem for RISC ARM, then it should be even a bigger problem for CISC x86.
    Reply
  • StrangerGuy - Monday, May 30, 2016 - link

    IIRC, the original K7 only manages to sustain execution on just one decoder out of three, and successive x86 uarches has made decoders more and more capable on per decoder basis, while almost all the x86 IPC gains seems to come from everything except the decoders...I can see the case why ARM moved from 3 to 2 decoders. Reply
  • Krysto - Monday, May 30, 2016 - link

    > For example, the A15, A57, A72 all belong to the Austin family of microarchitectures, and as one would have guessed from the name, this is because they originated from ARM's Austin CPU design centre.

    The A5, A7 and A53 belong to the Cambridge family while the Cortex A12, A17 and today's new A73 belong to the Sophia family, owning its name to the small city of Sophia-Antipolis which houses one of Europe's largest technology parks as well as ARM's French CPU design centre.

    So the American ARM CPU cores suck, while the European ones are pretty great. Got it. We should keep this in mind when ARM announces new cores. Stay away from the American ones, adopt the European ones.
    Reply
  • kpkp - Monday, May 30, 2016 - link

    A72 seems far from bad. Reply
  • psychobriggsy - Monday, May 30, 2016 - link

    The American designs use more power and are larger.
    The Cambridge designs try to use the least power and are small (I expect the A35 is also from here?)
    The French designs are larger, but low power.

    Each site's designs seem to take about two years, and they're staggered.

    The biggest advantage is that if one of the sites really screws up a generation of CPU, it appears the other site will have them covered. If A73 was a turd, nobody would have batted an eyelid at A72 for another year, for example.
    Reply
  • djayjp - Monday, May 30, 2016 - link

    "...both microarchitectures have trouble in terms of differentiating themselves in terms of performance and power compared to ARM’s own current designs..."

    You're kidding, right? *cough single threaded performance *cough....
    Reply
  • Andrei Frumusanu - Monday, May 30, 2016 - link

    I'll cover the topic in more detail in the separate review but neither Qualcomm nor Samsung display an advantage in single-thread performance over current ARM microarchitectures. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now