After Swift Comes Cyclone Oscar

I was fortunate enough to receive a tip last time that pointed me at some LLVM documentation calling out Apple’s Swift core by name. Scrubbing through those same docs, it seems like my leak has been plugged. Fortunately I came across a unique string looking at the iPhone 5s while it booted:

I can’t find any other references to Oscar online, in LLVM documentation or anywhere else of value. I also didn’t see Oscar references on prior iPhones, only on the 5s. I’d heard that this new core wasn’t called Swift, referencing just how different it was. Obviously Apple isn’t going to tell me what it’s called, so I’m going with Oscar unless someone tells me otherwise.

Oscar is a CPU core inside M7, Cyclone is the name of the Swift replacement.

Cyclone likely resembles a beefier Swift core (or at least Swift inspired) than a new design from the ground up. That means we’re likely talking about a 3-wide front end, and somewhere in the 5 - 7 range of execution ports. The design is likely also capable of out-of-order execution, given the performance levels we’ve been seeing.

Cyclone is a 64-bit ARMv8 core and not some Apple designed ISA. Cyclone manages to not only beat all other smartphone makers to ARMv8 but also key ARM server partners. I’ll talk about the whole 64-bit aspect of this next, but needless to say, this is a big deal.

The move to ARMv8 comes with some of its own performance enhancements. More registers, a cleaner ISA, improved SIMD extensions/performance as well as cryptographic acceleration are all on the menu for the new core.

Pipeline depth likely remains similar (maybe slightly longer) as frequencies haven’t gone up at all (1.3GHz). The A7 doesn’t feature support for any thermal driven CPU (or GPU) frequency boost.

The most visible change to Apple’s first ARMv8 core is a doubling of the L1 cache size: from 32KB/32KB (instruction/data) to 64KB/64KB. Along with this larger L1 cache comes an increase in access latency (from 2 clocks to 3 clocks from what I can tell), but the increase in hit rate likely makes up for the added latency. Such large L1 caches are quite common with AMD architectures, but unheard of in ultra mobile cores. A larger L1 cache will do a good job keeping the machine fed, implying a larger/more capable core.

The L2 cache remains unchanged in size at 1MB shared between both CPU cores. L2 access latency is improved tremendously with the new architecture. In some cases I measured L2 latency 1/2 that of what I saw with Swift.

The A7’s memory controller sees big improvements as well. I measured 20% lower main memory latency on the A7 compared to the A6. Branch prediction and memory prefetchers are both significantly better on the A7.

I noticed large increases in peak memory bandwidth on top of all of this. I used a combination of custom tools as well as publicly available benchmarks to confirm all of this. A quick look at Geekbench 3 (prior to the ARMv8 patch) gives a conservative estimate of memory bandwidth improvements:

Geekbench 3.0.0 Memory Bandwidth Comparison (1 thread)
  Stream Copy Stream Scale Stream Add Stream Triad
Apple A7 1.3GHz 5.24 GB/s 5.21 GB/s 5.74 GB/s 5.71 GB/s
Apple A6 1.3GHz 4.93 GB/s 3.77 GB/s 3.63 GB/s 3.62 GB/s
A7 Advantage 6% 38% 58% 57%

We see anywhere from a 6% improvement in memory bandwidth to nearly 60% running the same Stream code. I’m not entirely sure how Geekbench implemented Stream and whether or not we’re actually testing other execution paths in addition to (or instead of) memory bandwidth. One custom piece of code I used to measure memory bandwidth showed nearly a 2x increase in peak bandwidth. That may be overstating things a bit, but needless to say this new architecture has a vastly improved cache and memory interface.

Looking at low level Geekbench 3 results (again, prior to the ARMv8 patch), we get a good feel for just how much the CPU cores have improved.

Geekbench 3.0.0 Compute Performance
  Integer (ST) Integer (MT) FP (ST) FP (MT)
Apple A7 1.3GHz 1065 2095 983 1955
Apple A6 1.3GHz 750 1472 588 1165
A7 Advantage 42% 42% 67% 67%

Integer performance is up 44% on average, while floating point performance is up by 67%. Again this is without 64-bit or any other enhancements that go along with ARMv8. Memory bandwidth improves by 35% across all Geekbench tests. I confirmed with Apple that the A7 has a 64-bit wide memory interface, and we're likely talking about LPDDR3 memory this time around so there's probably some frequency uplift there as well.

The result is something Apple refers to as desktop-class CPU performance. I’ll get to evaluating those claims in a moment, but first, let’s talk about the other big part of the A7 story: the move to a 64-bit ISA.

A7 SoC Explained The Move to 64-bit
Comments Locked

464 Comments

View All Comments

  • dylan522p - Tuesday, September 17, 2013 - link

    Adreno has a larger thermal headroom. If Apple moves to 5" they would be able to scale performance much much higher.
  • blanarahul - Tuesday, September 17, 2013 - link

    The key word is "if". I would be really happy if they do move to 5 inch.

    BTW, these chips = Snapdragon 800.
  • tuxRoller - Wednesday, September 18, 2013 - link

    Yes, though the battery performance seems quite good for snapdragon 800.
  • robbertbobbertson - Tuesday, September 17, 2013 - link

    So going off these theoretical numbers, the new iPhone 5S GPU is 4.36% as powerful as the one in the Playstation 4, and thats considered a weak GPU from the enthusiasts perspective. How is this is a "desktop" class chip. People thinking mobile will overtake everything are dreaming.
  • dylan522p - Tuesday, September 17, 2013 - link

    You do realize that a Core Duo from years back is more than enough for most people on GPU and CPU, not the PS4 or some mid or high end chip now. Desktop class was simply marketing referring to 64-bit though.
  • ScienceNOW - Tuesday, September 17, 2013 - link

    Are you kidding me? We are almost there. 4,36% is less than 5 doublings from 100% (PS4 GPU performance). In 5 years mobile GPU will be 40% MORE powerful than PS4. 8-9 years, and it'll equal todays' GTX 780
  • lowlymarine - Tuesday, September 17, 2013 - link

    Obligatory XKCD: http://xkcd.com/605/

    You're assuming that mobile GPU performance will continue to double each year indefinitely, which is patently absurd. There was a time each year's new desktop GPU doubled performance, too, but you reach a point where the laws of physics make that impractical.
  • dylan522p - Tuesday, September 17, 2013 - link

    True, but mobile GPU has been doubling-trippling every year for the past like 6 years. It shows no indication of slowing down either. or dropping below doubling. No doubt though, the mobile industry will be above the PS4 performance before it's update.
  • A5 - Tuesday, September 17, 2013 - link

    A lot of that has been fueled by catching up on process tech. That party is almost over - 20/22nm class parts are still a year+ away, and ~14nm parts for anyone that isn't Intel are even farther out.
  • melgross - Tuesday, September 17, 2013 - link

    Well, if Intel's mobile line is now at 22nm, and Apple's is at 28nm, that a problem for Intel. With the A7 proving to be about equal to what Intel is producing, going by Anand's tests here, then Intel's tech isn't all that great.

    Indeed, Intel has always depended upon its better process fabrication, and being a generation ahead for its superior performance. It's not just chip design. So if Apple can catch up in performance being a half generation behind in node, then Apple's designs are superior to Intel's. and then, Intel had better watch out.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now