System Performance

System performance on the QRD865 was a bit of a tricky topic, as we’ve seen that the same chipset can differ quite a lot depending on the software implementation done by the vendor. For the performance preview this year, Qualcomm again integrated a “Performance” mode on the test devices, alongside the default scheduler and DVFS behaviour of the BSP delivered to vendors.

There’s a fine line between genuine “Performance” modes as implemented on commercial devices such as from Samsung and Huawei, which make tunings to the DVFS and schedulers which increase performance while remaining reasonable in their aggressiveness, and more absurd “cheating” performance modes such as implemented by OPPO for example, which simply ramp up the minimum frequencies of the chip.

Qualcomm’s performance mode on the QRD865 is walking this fine line – it’s extremely aggressive in that it’s ramping up the chipset to maximum frequency in ~30ms. It’s also having the little cores start at a notably higher frequency than in the default mode. Nevertheless, it’s still a legitimate operation mode, although I do not expect very many devices to be configured in this way.

The default mode on the other hand is quite similar to what we’ve seen on the Snapdragon 855 QRD last year, but the issue is that this was also rather conservative and many popular devices such as the Galaxy S10 were configured to be more aggressive. Whilst the default config of the QRD865 should be representative of most devices next year, I do expect many of them to do better than the figures represented by this config.

PCMark Work 2.0 - Web Browsing 2.0

Starting off with the web browsing test, we’re seeing the big difference in performance scaling between the two chipsets. The test here is mostly sensible to the performance scaling of the A55 cores. The QRD865 in the default more is more conservative than some existing S855 devices, which is why it performs worse in those situations. On the other hand, the performance results of the QRD865 here are also extremely aggressive and receives the best results out there amongst our current device range. I expect commercial devices to fall in somewhere between the two extremes.

PCMark Work 2.0 - Video Editing

The video editing test nowadays is no longer performance sensitive and most devices fall in the same result range.

PCMark Work 2.0 - Writing 2.0

The writing test is amongst the most important and representative of daily performance of a device, and here the QRD865 does well in both configurations. The Mate 30 Pro with the Kirin 990 is the only other competitive device at this performance level.

PCMark Work 2.0 - Photo Editing 2.0

The Photo Editing test makes use of RenderScript and GPU acceleration, and here it seems the new QRD865 makes some big improvements. Performance is a step-function higher than previous generation devices.

PCMark Work 2.0 - Data Manipulation

Finally, the data manipulation test oddly enough falls in middle of the pack for both performance modes. I’m not too sure as to why this is, but we’ve seen the test being quite sensible to scheduler or even OS configurations.

PCMark Work 2.0 - Performance

Generally, the QRD865 phone landed at the top of the rankings in PCMark.

Web Benchmarks

Speedometer 2.0 - OS WebView WebXPRT 3 - OS WebView JetStream 2 - OS Webview

The web benchmarks results presented here were somewhat disappointing. The QRD865 really didn’t manage to differentiate itself from the rest of the Android pack even though it was supposed to be roughly 20-25% ahead in theory. I’m not sure what the limitation here is, but the 5-10% increases are well below what we had hoped for. For now, it seems like the performance gap to Apple’s chips remains significant.

System Performance Conclusion

Overall, we expect system performance of Snapdragon 865 devices to be excellent. Commercial devices will likely differ somewhat in terms of their scores as I do not expect them to be configured exactly the same as the QRD865. I was rather disappointed with the web benchmarks as the improvements were quite meagre – in hindsight it might be a reason as to why Arm didn’t talk about them at all during the Cortex-A77 launch.

CPU Performance & Efficiency: SPEC2006 Machine Learning Inference Performance
POST A COMMENT

178 Comments

View All Comments

  • quadrivial - Monday, December 16, 2019 - link

    I think there could be some possibility of AMD striking that deal with some stipulations. They have the semi-custom experience to make it happen and they don't have much to lose in mobile. AMD already included a small arm chip on their processors. They already use AMD GPUs too. A multi-chip package with be great here.

    I've given some thought to the idea of 8 Zen cores, 8 core ARM complex, 24CU Navi, 32GB HBM2, and a semi-custom IO die to the it together. You could bin all of these out for lower-spec'd devices. The size of this complex would be much smaller than a normal dedicated GPU, CPU, and RAM while using a bit less power. Most lower end devices would probably only need 2 x86 cores and 8-11CU with 8GB of RAM.
    Reply
  • zanon - Wednesday, December 18, 2019 - link

    >"I wonder if it's in the cards for Apple to ever include both an Intel processor as well as a full fledged mobile chip in the future, working in the same way as integrated/discrete graphics - the system would primarily run on the A13x, with the Intel chip firing up for Intel-binary apps as needed."

    Doubt it, if only because x64 is already coming out of patent protection, and with each passing year newer feature revisions will have the same thing happen. By 2025 or 2026 or so, Apple (or anyone else) will just flat out be able to implement x86-64 all the way up to Core 2 at least however they like (be it hardware, software, or some combo with code morphing or the like). That would probably be enough to cover most BC, sure stuff wouldn't run as fast but it would run. And there'd be a lot of power efficiency to be gained as well.
    Reply
  • Midwayman - Monday, December 16, 2019 - link

    OSX on arm seems a given soon. That would allow them to really blur the line between their ipad pro and the lower end laptops. Even if they are still technically different OSes it would make getting real pro apps onto the ipad pro a ton easier. MS tried this of course but didn't have the clout or tablet market to really make it happen. Apple is in a position to force the issue and has switch architectures in the past. Reply
  • levizx - Tuesday, December 17, 2019 - link

    Nope, Apple still support AArch32, and Apple 64bit is only ahead of ARM by 1 year max, actual S810 silicon by Qualcomm was only 15 months later than A7, you can't possibly say Apple started earlier AND took 2-3 years LESS than ARM's partners to design silicon. That would mean Apple has to beat A57 by at least 3 year. Reality says otherwise. Reply
  • quadrivial - Tuesday, December 17, 2019 - link

    Apple dropped aarch32 starting with A11.

    ARM announced their 64-bit ISA on 27 October 2011. The A7 launched 19 September 2013 -- less than two years later. Anandtech's first review of a finished A53 and A57 product was 10 Feb 2015 -- almost 3.5 years later and their product was obviously rushed with new revision coming out after and A57 being entirely replaced and forgotten.

    Qualcomm and others were shocked because they only had 2 years to do their designs and they weren't anywhere near complete. A ground-up new design in 23 months with a band new ISA isn't possible under and circumstances.

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/appleinsider.com/arti...
    Reply
  • ksec - Monday, December 16, 2019 - link

    Apple SoC uses more Die Space for CPU Core, it is as simple as that, so they are not a fair comparison. For roughly the same die size, Qualcomm has to fit in the Modem, while Apple has the modem external. Reply
  • rpg1966 - Monday, December 16, 2019 - link

    I'm not sure I understand the "fair" bit? The other chip makers are free to design a larger-core variant if they so choose. And, the 865 has the modem external, just like the Apple chips. Also, generally speaking, the SoC + external modem approach should require more power, yet Apple seems to do very well on those benchmarks.

    Maybe it's more as per another reply, i.e. Apple just optimises everything, one example being throwing out a32.
    Reply
  • generalako - Monday, December 16, 2019 - link

    That's not an argument -- the modem costs money for both parties either way at the end of the day. Also, Cortex Cores are pretty great, with still bigger year-on-year improvements than Apple (which seems to have stagnated), so it is closing the gap, albeit slowly. The big complaint however is in things like Qualcomm's complacency in GPU, or in ARM doing shit-all to give us a new efficiency core architecture, after 3 years.

    Apple has surpassed them hugely here, to the point that their efficiency cores perform more than 2x as much with half the power. Now, if you want bring price into here, think about how much that costs OEMs. It costs them by forcing them to use mid-range SoCs that use expensive performance cores, when they could make due with only efficiency cores that performed better. It costs them, as well as flagship phones, in a lot of power efficiency, forcing them to do hardware compromises, or spend more on larger batteries, to compete.
    Reply
  • generalako - Monday, December 16, 2019 - link

    ARM has been catching up, though. The IPC increases since A11 have been pretty meagre, whereas A76 was a pretty sizeable jump (cutting a lot of the gap), and A77 is doing a 25% IPC jump, whereas the A13 did what, half that? Of course Apple still has a huge foothold, but the gap has been getting smaller...

    ARM's issue right now, though, is in efficiency cores. The fact that their Cambrdige team hasn't developed anything for 3 straight years now (going into the 4th), whereas Apple's yearly architecture improvement has given them efficiency cores that is monumentally better in both performance and efficiency, is getting embarrassing at this points. It's hurting Android phones a lot and getting kind of ridiculous at this point. No less frustrating that none of the SoC actors are bothering to make any dedicated architectures themselves to make up for it. Qualcomm is complacent in even their GPUs, which have been on the same architecture for 3 straight years and has in this time completely lost its crown to Apple--even ARM's Mali has caught up!
    Reply
  • FunBunny2 - Tuesday, December 17, 2019 - link

    "How is Apple so far ahead in some/many respects, given that Arm is dedicated to designing these microarchitectures?"

    based on what I've read in public reporting, Apple appears to mostly thrown hardware at the ISA. Apple has the full-boat ISA license, so they can take the abstract spec and lay it out on the silicon anyway they want. but what it appears is that all that godzilla transistor budget has gone to caches(s) and such, rather than a smarter ALU, fur instance. may haps AT has done an analysis just exactly what Apple did to the spec or RD to make their versions? did they actually 'innovate' the (micro-?) architecture, or did they, in fact, just bulk up the various parts with more transistors?
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now