Memory Subsystem & Latency: Quite Different

The memory subsystem comparisons for the Snapdragon 888 and Exynos 2100 are very interesting for a few couple of reasons. First of all – these new SoCs are the first to use new higher-frequency LPDDR5-6400 memory, which is 16% faster than that of last year’s LPDRR5-5500 DRAM used in flagship devices.

On the Snapdragon 888 side of things, Qualcomm this generation has said that they have made significant progress in improving memory latency – a point of contention that’s generally been a weak point of the previous few generations, although they always did keep improving things gen-on-gen.

On the Exynos 2100 side, Samsung’s abandonment of their custom cores also means that the SoC is now very different to the Exynos 990. The M5 used to have a fast-path connection between the cores and the memory controllers – exactly how Samsung reimplemented this in the Exynos 2100 will be interesting.

Starting things off with the new Snapdragon 888, we are seeing some very significant changes compared to the Snapdragon 865 last year. Full random memory latency went down from 138ns to 114ns, which is a massive generation gain given that Arm always quotes that 4ns of latency equals 1% of performance.

Samsung’s Exynos 2100 on the other hand doesn’t look as good: At around 136ns at 128MB test depth, this is quite worse than the Snapdragon 888, and actually a regression compared to the Exynos 990 at 131ns.

Looking closer at the cache hierarchies, we’re seeing 64KB of L1 caches for both X1 designs – as expected.

What’s really weird though is the memory patterns of the X1 and A78 cores as they transition from the L2 caches to the L3 caches. Usually, you’d expect a larger latency hump into the 10’s of nanoseconds, however on both the Cortex-X1 and Cortex-A78 on both the Snapdragon and Exynos we’re seeing L3 latencies between 4-6ns which is far faster than any previous generation L3 and DSU design we’ve seen from Arm.

After experimenting a bit with my patterns, the answer to this weird behaviour is quite amazing: Arm is prefetching all these patterns, including the “full random” memory access pattern. My tests here consist of pointer-chasing loops across a given depth of memory, with the pointer-loop being closed and always repeated. Arm seems to have a new temporal prefetcher that recognizes arbitrary memory patterns and will latch onto them and prefetch them in further iterations.

I re-added an alternative full random access pattern test (“Full random RT”) into the graph as alternative data-points. This variant instead of being pointer-chase based, will compute a random target address at runtime before accessing it, meaning it’ll be always a different access pattern on repeated loops of a given memory depth. The curves here aren’t as nice and they aren’t as tight as the pointer-chase variant because it currently doesn’t guarantee that it’ll visit every cache line at a given depth and it also doesn’t guarantee not revisiting a cache line within a test depth loop, which is why some of the latencies are lower than that of the “Full random” pattern – just ignore these parts.

This alternative patterns also more clearly reveals the 512KB versus 1MB L2 cache differences between the Exynos’ X1 core and the Snapdragon X1 core. Both chips have 4MB of L3, which is pretty straightforward to identify.

What’s odd about the Exynos is the linear access latencies. Unlike the Snapdragon whose latency grows at 4MB and remains relatively the same, the Exynos sees a second latency hump around the 10MB depth mark. It’s hard to see here in the other patterns, but it’s also actually present there.

This post-4MB L3 cache hierarchy is actually easier to identify from the perspective of the Cortex-A55 cores. We see a very different pattern between the Exynos 2100 and the Snapdragon 888 here, and again confirms that there’s lowered latencies up until around 10MB depth.

During the announcement of the Exynos 2100, Samsung had mentioned they had improved and included “better cache memory”, which in context of these results seems to be pointing out that they’ve now increased their system level cache from 2MB to 6MB. I’m not 100% sure if it’s 6 or 8MB, but 6 seems to be a safe bet for now.

In these A55 graphs, we also see that Samsung continues to use 64KB L2 caches, while Qualcomm makes use of 128KB implementations. Furthermore, it looks like the Exynos 2100 makes available to the A55 cores the full speed of the memory controllers, while the Snapdragon 888 puts a hard limit on them, and hence the very bad memory latency, similarly to how Apple does the same in their SoCs when just the small cores are active.

Qualcomm seems to have completely removed access of the CPU cluster to the SoC’s system cache, as even the Cortex-A55 cores don’t look to have access to it. This might explain why the CPU memory latency this generation has been greatly improved – as after all, memory traffic had to do one whole hop less this generation. This also in theory would put less pressure on the SLC, and allow the GPU and other blocks to more effectively use its 3MB size.

5nm / 5LPE: What Do We Know? SPEC - Single Threaded Performance & Power
Comments Locked

123 Comments

View All Comments

  • Kishoreshack - Thursday, February 11, 2021 - link

    Yeah they do
    But Anand & Brian Klugs podcasts were the one which attracted me a lot
    The best part was how well Anand designed the bench
    Some Anandtech podcasts is required now
  • Kishoreshack - Monday, February 8, 2021 - link

    Soo next year are we gonna have Snapdragon flagship at a better process node or not?
    There is absolutely no compulsion for Qualcomm to push for a better process node
    Apple will run with things
  • SarahKerrigan - Monday, February 8, 2021 - link

    Oof. Those numbers are rough, and not a good look at all for 5lpe.

    Wonder if we'll see X1/A78 on N5 any time soon. With Hisilicon out of the picture, who would even be the obvious candidate for that? Mediatek?
  • Spunjji - Monday, February 8, 2021 - link

    Mediatek would be an odd candidate, given their tendency to focus on area efficiency, but it'd be a nice surprise if they branched out a bit!
  • lmcd - Monday, February 8, 2021 - link

    Yea they'd definitely skip the X1 core. Which honestly might be the correct move based on results, the X1 is better but maybe not enough better to justify the die space.
  • Spunjji - Thursday, February 11, 2021 - link

    It certainly seems like it would make more sense on an SoC design aimed at larger devices.
  • geoxile - Monday, February 8, 2021 - link

    My experience with Samsung Electronics was heavy use of outsourcing and indian workers, on their software side. I wouldn't be surprised if that's the case for their hardware too. Very poor results for their 5lpe vs TSMC's N7. They're becoming obsessed with cutting costs.
  • iphonebestgamephone - Monday, February 8, 2021 - link

    Why would being indian be the reason?
  • jospoortvliet - Wednesday, February 10, 2021 - link

    It wouldn't but they aren't local to South Korea, and India has a lot of IT competence so it is a place many companies outsource to.... and outsourcing usually doesn't help quality.
  • iphonebestgamephone - Monday, February 15, 2021 - link

    You get what you pay for ofc.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now