Apple Announces A8 SoC
by Ryan Smith on September 9, 2014 1:45 PM EST
As expected from this year’s iPhone keynote, Apple has announced a new member of their internally developed family of ARM SoCs.
The latest SoC, dubbed A8, is Apple’s first SoC built on the 20nm process, and among the first SoCs overall to be built on this process. Apple notes that it has 2 billion transistors and is 13% smaller than the A7, which would give it upwards of twice as many transistors as the A7 and would put the die size at about 89mm2.
Image courtesy The Verge
From a performance perspective Apple is promising 25% faster CPU performance than A7. As is usually the case with Apple, they aren’t talking about the underlying CPU core – though this is a problem we’re working to rectify – so it remains to be seen how much of this is due to CPU architectural upgrades and how much is from clockspeed improvements afforded by the 20nm process. Apple just introduced their 64bit Cyclone core last year, so it stands to reason that just a year later and with the transition to 64bit already completed, A8 packs a CPU that is similar to Cyclone.
| Apple SoC Evolution | |||||
| CPU Perf | GPU Perf | Die Size | Transistors | Process | |
| A5 | ~13x | ~20x | 122m2 | <1B | 45nm |
| A6 | ~26x | ~34x | 97mm2 | <1B | 32nm |
| A7 | 40x | 56x | 102mm2 | >1B | 28nm |
| A8 | 50x | 84x | 89mm2 | ~2B | 20nm |
Meanwhile Apple is being even less specific about the GPU, but from their published baseline performance comparisons against the iPhone 1, the A8 is said to be 84x faster on graphics. This compares to a published figure of 56x for the A7, which implies that the A8’s GPU is 1.5x faster than the A7’s. Given Apple’s conservative stance on clockspeeds for power purposes and the die space gains from the 20nm process, it seems likely that Apple has upgraded from a 4 core PowerVR GPU to a 6 core PowerVR GPU, likely the flagship GX6650, which would account for the 50% performance gain right there.
Finally, Apple notes that the A8 is designed to be 50% more energy efficient than the A7. Some of these efficiency gains would come from gains due the 20nm process, however this large of a gain would indicate that Apple has done additional work at the architectural level to improve efficiency, as smaller manufacturing nodes alone do not see these kinds of gains.
Update: We have posted our initial A8 analysis here
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
66 Comments
View All Comments
tipoo - Tuesday, September 9, 2014 - link
This argument makes me want to slam my head into a wall, no offense. iOS takes less RAM, I'm perfectly happy with that. However, they don't magically reduce how much RAM several browser tabs or apps take, and I find myself frustrated by how often both are kicked out of memory and need a reload on 1GB iOS devices.kyuu - Wednesday, September 10, 2014 - link
Agreed. I'm forced to use an iPad Air and iPhone 4 for work. The iPhone 4 kicks tabs and apps out of memory *constantly*, but that would be expected given its age. However, even the iPad Air has the same behavior (if not *quite* as bad). This can only be attributed to the low amount of RAM and/or crappy OS/Safari design.arkhamasylum87 - Wednesday, September 10, 2014 - link
With Core M benchmarks out, A8 can't hold a candle to Core M cpu performance but on the GPU side it is probably close. Apple will have to use a higher binned A8 for their IPADs surely if MS adopts Core M in their surface tablets to be competitive. MS has a good shot at beating the IPAD pro or an IPAD air if they can adopt Core M for the regular Surface and keep Core i3/i5 U series for the Surface Pro.xype - Thursday, September 11, 2014 - link
Why would Apple _have to_ do anything? And _what_ exactly would Microsoft beat them at? Theoretical CPU performance? Where do you need that in a tablet?Apple doesn’t have to beat anyone at this point, they just have to stay competitive. Although my guess is that they will still beat—or try to—whomever they compete against directly. Right now those are Android tablets and phones, though.
memorydude - Sunday, September 14, 2014 - link
My guesses for where the xtra 1B xtors were spent -1. Increase in system cache size from 4 MB to 8-12 MB. 4MB cache =~ 200-250M xtors
2. Extra GPU shader cores
3. Face detection DSP/Computer Vision HW
4. CPU uarch tweaks
AppleCrappleHater2 - Monday, September 15, 2014 - link
Worship the holy apple.The apple way, selling over expensive crap to stupid consumers that like to
get robbed.
This has been a disastrous launch in every respect. The iwatch is such an
ugly piece of crap, it is truly unbelievable how a company, formerly known for
its remarkable design, dares to put out such a crap ton of shit. Some
characteristics are glaringly obvious and inherent to it: over expensive,
hardly innovative, limited functionality and usability (need of an iPhone to
make it work), looks exactly like a toy watch and so on.
There are of course way better smart watches out there, especially form the
likes of Samsung, Sony, Motorola, Asus, LG, simply put, there is no need for
another piece of over expensive junk.
The iPhone 6 is technologically stuck in pre-2011 times, a base model witch
a capacity of 16GB without the possibility to use SD cards isn't even funny
anymore. The screen resolution is horrendous, it isn't water proof, shock and
dust resistant, it offers nothing innovative, just some incremental
updates over its predecessor, both lacking severely behind their competitors at
their respective launch dates.
Now the Iphone 6 Plus offers a „Retina HD“ screen, full 1920x1080p, oh wow,
where have you been for the past 4 years apple, talk about trailing behind.
That’s pathetic. The interesting thing about that is the fact that apple
always manages to sell backwards oriented, outdated crap to its user base, all
while pretending to be an innovative technology leader. The similarities
regarding any form of sectarian cult are striking.
You gotta love how Apple always comes up with new marketing bullshit terms,
aka "Retina HD", with the intention to manipulate its users while preventing easy
comparisons with its competitors by withholding the actual specs. Apparently it’s
not enough to have an 1080p screen, you have to call it "Retina HD" to make those
suckers buy it, otherwise someone could look at the 4K Amoled and Oled screens
form LG and Samsung devices and get outright disappointed. Same goes for
everything else. Every outdated „feature“ needs to get its own marketing label
to persuade buyers with crappy „experience“ and „usability“ ads, while covering
the truth with marketing gibberish, knowing full well that only a fraction of
aforementioned buyers cares to look at the facts and dares to compare them.
Car engines come to mind. For comparisons shake let’s look at a 1.0 liter, turbo
charged petrol engine and a V8 compressor. What’s better should be obvious, but
by calling the former an „ecobooster“, thus giving it a special marketing label,
this joke becomes a „feature“, something positive that can be added tot the list
of features of a car.
By doing so a negative aspect is transformed into a positive one, the
reality is distorted, non tech savvy buyers are manipulated and comparisons are
made more difficult (another layer of marketing bullshit to overcome), well done
marketing department. You see , if something is seriously lacking (of course for
profit, what else), don’t bother explaining, just give it a nice marketing term, distort
reality, make it a feature and call it a day. Fuck that!!
The Apple Iphone 1 and Ipad 1 might have been innovative at their time,
but since then, the bitten apple has been continuously rotting from the inside
outwards, always swarmed by millions of Iworms which regale themselves with its
rotten flesh, not forgetting all other Americans who support apple by means of
their tax dollars to finance its bought US Treasury/Government bond interest rates.
Last but not least, every Apple product includes a direct hotlink to the nsa,
free of charge, something that might make it a good value, after all.
Ceterum censeo Applem esse delendam.