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

  • iwod - Saturday, October 6, 2018 - link

    > 480-500 mW when on a black screen

    Am I correct in understanding this figures in base "system" power? And not the display? There could be a case for more memory from iPhone 8, where the X had 3GB and Xs had 4GB.
  • Andrei Frumusanu - Saturday, October 6, 2018 - link

    It's the power of the whole phone, meaning idle SoC, power delivery, and the screen and its controllers at an equivalent 0 nits brightness. Out of that figure some part will be the display, but we can't really separate it without tearing down the phone.

    The base power for the X and XS is near identical - the big difference is to the LCD iPhones.
  • iwod - Saturday, October 6, 2018 - link

    Arh. That makes things clear. But why would OLED consume more power compared to LCD when it is completely off. This goes against common wisdom / knowledge OLED were suppose to be extremely efficient in all black display.
  • Glaurung - Sunday, October 7, 2018 - link

    "But why would OLED consume more power compared to LCD when it is completely off."

    This is addressed obliquely in the article - because the OLED display has high colour depth and extremely high DPI, it requires extra power to control all the levels of brightness for each and every one of those pixels.
  • eastcoast_pete - Sunday, October 7, 2018 - link

    A few years ago, I loaded a "black Background" app on my trusty old Samsung S3. A black background always made a lot of sense to me for OLED-type screens. I might have missed it, but does Apple provide a black background setting in its settings for the XS and XS max? Also, I haven't seen much discussion about possible burn-in for OLED screens here or in other reviews of phones with OLED screens. Is this now a non-issue, maybe as many replace their phones before burn-in shows?
  • ex2bot - Sunday, October 7, 2018 - link

    No dark mode yet except for an incomplete one in accessibility settings. You end up with some graphics turned negative image. Hopefully, we’ll get a proper dark mode in iOS 13. The Mac finally got one.
  • fzwo - Sunday, October 7, 2018 - link

    If you activate Voice Over in Accessibility settings, you can triple-tap the display with three fingers to activate the „screen courtroom“, which makes the whole screen dark. I believe this turned off the backlight on LCD iPhones. Maybe it deactivates more than just displaying a black screen, and can help lower base power usage.
    Of course Voice Over being on may affect other behavior/benchmarks.
  • fzwo - Sunday, October 7, 2018 - link

    Sorry, that should read „screen courtain“. Autocorrect is one area that seems to have gotten worse for me with iOS 12 😅
  • eastcoast_pete - Monday, October 8, 2018 - link

    Thanks for the information (I don't own an iPhone). The dark/black background I mean (and used to use on my S3 and later on a Blackberry Priv) didn't turn off the entire screen, so the icons were still bright, and appeared even brighter against the black background. I really wonder how much power one can save on phones like the iPhone X, XS and XS Max by using an unlit background. In theory, every lit pixel adds a little power drain, and every little LED not lit up should save that.
  • AntonErtl - Saturday, October 6, 2018 - link

    For me the most interesting part of the review is the SPECint results. Looking at the official SPEC report of the system with the highest base result (Cisco UCS B200 M5 (Intel Xeon Gold 6146,
    3.20 GHz), 4.2GHz Turbo), the A12 is really close; e.g., 44.56 (A12) vs. 48.3 (Xeon) for 403.gcc. An exception is 456.hmmer, but there Cisco (and many others) are using some compiler trick that you apparently are not using.

    And the A12 is using quite a bit less power for these results than the Xeon. Very impressive of Apple. Maybe they should go into the server CPU business and produce the ARM-based server CPU that others have aimed for these last years.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now