GPU Performance & Power

The Kirin 980 is the first SoC to sport Arm’s newest generation Mali G76 GPU. The new IP differs significantly to previous generations, in more or less simplified terms, in that the GPU cores are essentially twice as big and capable as the previous generation Mali G72 cores. So while the G76MP10 configuration of the Kirin 980 might sound small, it’s not small at all in terms of theoretical performance.

GPU performance and efficiency has been a big thorn in the side of both the Kirin 960 and 970, as both SoCs showcased less than stellar power figures, which in turn also resulted in forced limited clocks and performance of the GPUs. It’s here that Huawei made the biggest promises in terms of improvements: a claimed 46% increase in performance while showcasing a staggering 178% increase in power efficiency. The latter figure especially caught some attention, as you just don’t see such increases in the industry.

3DMark Sling Shot 3.1 Extreme Unlimited - Physics

Starting off with 3DMark Sling Shot Extreme Unlimited and the Physics sub-test, we see the Mate 20’s showcase some leading peak performance figures. This test is mainly a CPU test with just some more minor GPU load. The performance jump here undoubtedly comes from the new Cortex A76 microarchitecture.

In terms of sustained performance, we see some diverging figures between the Mate 20 and Mate 20 Pro, as the Pro is able to reach much higher sustained scores. Before getting into any conclusions, it’s worth to also look at the GPU results.

3DMark Sling Shot 3.1 Extreme Unlimited - Graphics

On the Graphics sub-test, we see both new Mate 20’s reach respectable peak performance figures, however they are both still throttling quite a lot until they reach thermal equilibrium. Comparing the results to the stock firmware Kirin 970’s, such as the P20 Pro, the performance increase is nevertheless quite significant.

GFXBench Aztec Ruins - High - Vulkan/Metal - Off-screen GFXBench Aztec Ruins - Normal - Vulkan/Metal - Off-screen

In the new Aztec Ruins Vulkan benchmarks, both in High and Normal quality modes, we see some really odd performance behaviour. While the peak performance isn’t all that great, the sustained performance is pretty much almost identical. On the Normal run the Mate 20 Pro actually was able to maintain a higher performance than the Mate 20, something that we also saw on the 3DMark Physics run. It would be definitely interesting if the benchmark is in some way CPU bound, or if the devices have different thermal limits between Vulkan and OpenGLES workloads.

GFXBench Manhattan 3.1 Off-screen

In Manhattan 3.1, we see again respectable performance gains both in peak and sustained figures. Compared to the Vulkan runs, these scores showcase a more expected delta between peak and sustained. The Kirin 980 here generally matches most Snapdragon 845 devices – short of the OnePlus 6 and G7 which seem to allow much higher sustained power limits.

GFXBench Manhattan 3.1 Offscreen Power Efficiency
(System Active Power)
  Mfc. Process FPS Avg. Power
(W)
Perf/W
Efficiency
iPhone XS (A12) Warm 7FF 76.51 3.79 20.18 fps/W
iPhone XS (A12) Cold / Peak 7FF 103.83 5.98 17.36 fps/W
Galaxy S9+ (Snapdragon 845) 10LPP 61.16 5.01 11.99 fps/W
Huawei Mate 20 Pro (Kirin 980) 7FF 54.54 4.57 11.93 fps/W
Galaxy S9 (Exynos 9810) 10LPP 46.04 4.08 11.28 fps/W
Galaxy S8 (Snapdragon 835) 10LPE 38.90 3.79 10.26 fps/W
LeEco Le Pro3 (Snapdragon 821) 14LPP 33.04 4.18 7.90 fps/W
Galaxy S7 (Snapdragon 820) 14LPP 30.98 3.98 7.78 fps/W
Huawei Mate 10 (Kirin 970) 10FF 37.66 6.33 5.94 fps/W
Galaxy S8 (Exynos 8895) 10LPE 42.49 7.35 5.78 fps/W
Galaxy S7 (Exynos 8890) 14LPP 29.41 5.95 4.94 fps/W
Meizu PRO 5 (Exynos 7420) 14LPE 14.45 3.47 4.16 fps/W
Nexus 6P (Snapdragon 810 v2.1) 20Soc 21.94 5.44 4.03 fps/W
Huawei Mate 8 (Kirin 950) 16FF+ 10.37 2.75 3.77 fps/W
Huawei Mate 9 (Kirin 960) 16FFC 32.49 8.63 3.77 fps/W
Huawei P9 (Kirin 955) 16FF+ 10.59 2.98 3.55 fps/W

Looking at the power efficiency during Manhattan 3.1, we unfortunately see that the phone and chipset didn’t quite meet my projections in efficiency. Performance is exactly where it should be, however the power is off by about 1W as I had hoped to see about 3.5W peak power. At peak performance of both chipsets, the Kirin 980 showcases a 100% efficiency gain over the Kirin 970, which is still a pretty massive generational improvement, even if the previous generation didn’t exactly set the bar all that high.

In regards to Huawei’s 178% power efficiency claim during the chipset’s announcement: I still think this number is correct, however evidently this was a traditional case of somewhat misleading presentation or a mixup between “or” and “and” in the relationship between the performance and power efficiency improvements. Now in hindsight, the 178% efficiency figure likely refers to the efficiency advantage of the Kirin 980 at the same performance of the Kirin 970, which given the measured power figures here, is something that’s definitely plausible.

GFXBench T-Rex 2.7 Off-screen

In T-Rex, the peak performance improvements over the Kirin 970 are far less, and I do wonder exactly what the bottleneck here is. Nevertheless, the sustained performance jumps 50%, but yet again this is just for the Mate 20 Pro as the regular Mate 20 sees far more severe throttling. T-Rex would be in many ways CPU bound as it’s hitting very high frame-rates on modern SoCs.

GFXBench T-Rex Offscreen Power Efficiency
(System Active Power)
  Mfc. Process FPS Avg. Power
(W)
Perf/W
Efficiency
iPhone XS (A12) Warm 7FF 197.80 3.95 50.07 fps/W
iPhone XS (A12) Cold / Peak 7FF 271.86 6.10 44.56 fps/W
Galaxy S9+ (Snapdragon 845) 10LPP 150.40 4.42 34.00 fps/W
Galaxy S9 (Exynos 9810) 10LPP 141.91 4.34 32.67 fps/W
Galaxy S8 (Snapdragon 835) 10LPE 108.20 3.45 31.31 fps/W
Huawei Mate 20 Pro (Kirin 980) 7FF 135.75 4.64 29.25 fps/W
LeEco Le Pro3 (Snapdragon 821) 14LPP 94.97 3.91 24.26 fps/W
Galaxy S7 (Snapdragon 820) 14LPP 90.59 4.18 21.67 fps/W
Galaxy S8 (Exynos 8895) 10LPE 121.00 5.86 20.65 fps/W
Galaxy S7 (Exynos 8890) 14LPP 87.00 4.70 18.51 fps/W
Huawei Mate 10 (Kirin 970) 10FF 127.25 7.93 16.04 fps/W
Meizu PRO 5 (Exynos 7420) 14LPE 55.67 3.83 14.54 fps/W
Nexus 6P (Snapdragon 810 v2.1) 20Soc 58.97 4.70 12.54 fps/W
Huawei Mate 8 (Kirin 950) 16FF+ 41.69 3.58 11.64 fps/W
Huawei P9 (Kirin 955) 16FF+ 40.42 3.68 10.98 fps/W
Huawei Mate 9 (Kirin 960) 16FFC 99.16 9.51 10.42 fps/W

Again, the power efficiency as measured on T-Rex sees a significant jump over the Kirin 970, however most of this improvement is simply going towards reducing the actual power usage from the ridiculously high values of its predecessor, with only a little gained peak performance.

I wouldn’t take this as a definitive verdict on the Mali G76 as of yet, as over the last 3 generations Samsung has been able to extract much better results out of their GPU implementations inside the Exynos SoCs than what HiSilicon was able to achieve in the Kirins. The next generation Exynos 9820 should be able to do better than this, so maybe that’s where the Mali G76 will hit its projected targets.

Overall, the Kirin 980 definitely is posting substantial improvements over its predecessor, however Arm’s Mali GPU still seems to lag a tad behind the higher end competition from Apple and Qualcomm. What is definitely positive for Huawei is that the new SoC finally is able to shed off the atrocious performance showcased in the previous generation chipsets, and is now actually competitive with most recent devices.

System Performance Display Measurement & Power
Comments Locked

141 Comments

View All Comments

  • FunBunny2 - Sunday, November 18, 2018 - link

    "the phone needs to dissipate less heat overall."

    not necessarily. IFF the following time period of lowered power draw is sufficient to dissipate that heat as well as the 'heat debt' from previous spike. the laws of thermodynamics can't be changed just because one wished them to.
  • melgross - Friday, November 16, 2018 - link

    I don’t know how the 980 is outstanding when it does edge past Android SoCs, most of the time, but it’s a really lousy performer compared to the A12. Again, Android devices, and even parts, are being rated on a curve. If you give the A12 a grade of 100 on each rating, the the 980 is no more than a 70, and often a 50, or even a 40. That’s not outstanding, even if it’s much better than the really bad 970 from last year.
  • tuxRoller - Saturday, November 17, 2018 - link

    In spec, the 980 has the best efficiency of all soc.
    Your statement would hold of we were only concerned with the greatest performance.
  • zanon - Monday, November 19, 2018 - link

    What? Doesn't look like that. The SPEC graphs show total energy consumption in J on the left and performance on the right. To get efficiency you need to divide the two right? It's not just absolute energy it's how much energy it takes for each unit of performance. In those tests it's showing the A12 takes 212 J/perf in the first and 107 in the second. The 980 is 368 and 157 respectively. Watts is energy over time, if one SoC can finish a given task faster then the total energy is less even if the peak is more. On a desktop or even tablet there may be cases of more sustained performance (although a high burst chip could just down clock or simply flat out offer better performance and just suggest plugging in), but phone workloads tend to be pretty bursty. Race-to-sleep isn't a bad strategy.
  • Wilco1 - Monday, November 19, 2018 - link

    The graph is very clear - 980 beats all other SoCs on efficiency. The energy bar is the total energy in Joules, so power in Watts (J/s) multiplied by time to finish (s), giving total Joules.
  • tuxRoller - Tuesday, November 20, 2018 - link

    Int: 9480J
    Fp: 5337J
  • s.yu - Friday, November 16, 2018 - link

    I don't really agree about using performance mode for benchmarks, unless battery tests were also run on performance mode.
    Obviously if you use performance mode your device will be more snappy, at the cost of battery life, but since they're not governed under the same mode, the battery and performance benefits are mutually exclusive, you can't have both, so you literally can't have the snappy experience under performance mode for the time length determined by a non-performance mode battery test, therefore testing it this way is not representative of real world experience.
  • Andrei Frumusanu - Friday, November 16, 2018 - link

    Everything, including the battery tests, were in performance mode. Huawei pretty much recommended it to run it like this. It's actually more of an issue that it's not enabled out of the box, and many reviewers actually fell for this new behaviour.
  • s.yu - Friday, November 16, 2018 - link

    Oh! In that case it's not a problem. I saw another site testing everything in non-performance mode and some people were complaining..
  • s.yu - Friday, November 16, 2018 - link

    ...but I'm still curious if changing the app signature would make a difference.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now