A8’s GPU: Imagination Technologies’ PowerVR GX6450

Last but not least on our tour of the A8 SoC is Apple’s GPU of choice, Imagination’s PowerVR GX6450.

When Apple first announced the A8 SoC as part of their iPhone keynote, they told us to expect a nearly 50% increase in graphics performance. Based on that information and on the fact that that Apple was moving to a denser 20nm process, we initially believed that Apple would be upgrading from A7’s 4-core PowerVR design to a 6-core design, especially in light of the higher resolution displays present on the iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus.

Instead our analysis with Chipworks found that only four GPU cores were present on A8, which ruled out the idea of a 6-core design but did narrow down the options considerably. Based on that information and more importantly Apple’s Metal Programming Guide, we have been able to narrow down our options to a single GPU, the PowerVR GX6450.

The GX6450 is the immediate successor to the G6430 first used in the A7 and is based on Imagination’s PowerVR Series6XT architecture. Imagination first announced PowerVR Series6XT to the public at CES 2014, and now just a short eight months later we are seeing the first Series6XT hardware reach retail.

We have already covered the PowerVR Series6/Series6XT architecture in some detail earlier this year so we won’t go through all of it again, but we would encourage anyone who is interested to take a look at our architectural analysis for additional information. Otherwise we will be spending the bulk of our time looking at how GX6450 differs from G6430 and why Apple would choose this specific GPU.

From a technical perspective Series6XT is a direct evolution over the previous Series6, and GX6450 is a direct evolution over G6430 as well. Given a 4-core configuration there are only a limited number of scenarios where GX6450 outright has more hardware than G6430 (e.g. additional ALUs), and instead Series6XT is focused on adding features and improving performance over Series6 through various tweaks and optimizations to the architecture. Series6 at this point is actually over two years old – it was first introduced to the public at CES 2012 – so a lot has happened in the mobile GPU landscape over the past couple of years.

The closest thing to a marquee feature on Series6XT is support for Adaptive Scalable Texture Compression (ASTC), a next-generation texture compression technology that is slowly making its way into GPUs from a number of manufacturers. Designed by the consortium responsible for OpenGL ES, Khronos, ASTC is designed to offer better texture compression (with finer grained quality options) than existing texture compression formats while also being a universal format supported by all GPUs. In Apple’s case they have always been using PowerVR GPUs – and hence all products support PVRTC and more recently PVRTC2 – however ASTC being exposed allows them to take advantage of the quality improvements while also making game development and porting from other platforms easier.

Less visible to users but certainly important to Apple, Series6XT also includes new power management capabilities to reduce power consumption under idle and light workloads. Through finer grained power gating technology that Imagination dubs “PowerGearing G6XT”, GX6450 can now have its shading clusters (USCs) powered down individually, allowing only as many of them as are necessary to be fired up. As Apple continues to min-max their designs, being able to idle at a lower power state can be used to improve battery life and/or increase how often and how long the A8’s GPU uses higher power states, improving overall efficiency.


Apple iPhone GPU Performance Estimate: Over The Years

And, perhaps most importantly overall, Series6XT comprises a series of under-the-hood optimizations to improve overall performance. When it comes to the internals of PowerVR architectures we only have limited details from Imagination on how they operate, so in some areas we know quite a bit about what Imagination has been up to and in other areas their architectures are still something akin to a black box. At any rate Imagination’s goal for Series6XT was to improve performance by up to 50% – this seems to be where Apple’s 50% performance improvement claim comes from – though as we’ll see the performance gains on real world applications are not going to be quite as potent.

What we do know about Series6XT is that Imagination has made some changes to the structure of the USCs themselves. Series6XT still uses a 16-wide SIMD design, but in each pipeline they have added another set of medium/half-precision (FP16) ALUs specifically to improve FP16 performance. Now instead of 2x3 (6) FP16 ALUs, Series6XT bumps that up to 4x2 (8) FP16 ALUs. This is the only outright increase in shader hardware when you compare Series6 to Series6XT, and on paper it improves FP16 performance by 33% at equivalent clock speeds.

The focus on FP16 is interesting, though for iOS it may be misplaced. These half-precision floating point operations are an excellent way to conserve bandwidth and power by not firing up more expensive FP32 ALUs, but the tradeoff is that the numbers they work with aren’t nearly as precise, hence their use has to be carefully planned. In practice what you will find is that while FP16 operations do see some use, they are by no means the predominant type of floating point GPU operation used, so the FP16 increase is a 33% increase only in the cases where performance is being constrained by the GPU’s FP16 performance.

FP32 performance meanwhile remains unchanged. Each USC pipeline contains two such ALUs, for up to four FP32 FLOPS per clock, or to use our typical metric, 128 MADs (Multiply-Adds) per clock.

The rest of Series6XT’s optimizations take place at the front and back ends, where geometry processing and pixel fill take place respectively. Imagination has not told us exactly what they have done here, but both these areas have been targeted to improve sustained polygon rates and pixel fillrate performance. These more generic optimizations stand to be more applicable to general performance, though by how much we cannot say.

One final optimization we want to point out for Series6XT is that Imagination has made some additional under-the-hood changes to improve GPU compute performance. We have not talked about GPU compute on iOS devices thus far, as until now Apple has not exposed any APIs suitable for it (e.g. OpenCL is not available on iOS). With iOS8 Apple is releasing their Metal API, which is robust enough to be used for both graphics and now compute. How developers put this capability to use remains to be seen, but GX6450 should perform even better than G6430.

Mobile SoC GPU Comparison
  PowerVR SGX 543MP2 PowerVR SGX 543MP3 PowerVR SGX 543MP4 PowerVR SGX 554MP4 PowerVR G6430 PowerVR GX6450
Used In iPad 2/iPhone 4S iPhone 5 iPad 3 iPad 4 iPad Air/iPhone 5s iPhone 6/iPhone 6Plus
SIMD Name USSE2 USSE2 USSE2 USSE2 USC USC
# of SIMDs 8 12 16 32 4 4
MADs per SIMD 4 4 4 4 32 32
Total MADs 32 48 64 128 128 128
GFLOPS @ 300MHz 19.2 GFLOPS 28.8 GFLOPS 38.4 GFLOPS 76.8 GFLOPS 76.8 GFLOPS 76.8 GFLOPS
Pixels/Clock N/A N/A N/A N/A 8 8
Texels/Clock N/A N/A N/A N/A 8 8

The one wildcard when talking about performance here is going to be clock speeds. Apple doesn’t expose these and they aren’t easy to test for (yet), though in the long term Metal offers some interesting possibilities for nailing that down, or at least getting a better idea of relative clock speeds.

In any case, we’ll take a look at our GPU benchmarks in depth in a bit, but overall GPU performance compared to A7 and its G6430 is consistently better, but the exact performance gain will depend on the test at hand. Some tests will come very close to reaching 50% while others will be just 15-20%. The dependent factor generally seems to be whether the test is ALU-bound or not; because the USC has not changed significantly from G6430 to GX6450 outside of those additional FP16 ALUs, tests that hit the FP32 ALUs in particular show less of an improvement. Otherwise more balanced tests (or at least tests more defined by pixel fillrate performance) can show greater gains. In general we should be looking at a 30-35% performance improvement.

Why Four Cores?

One thing that admittedly surprised us in the revelation that A8 was using a 4-core PowerVR design was that we figured a 6-core design would be a shoe-in for A8, especially since Apple was on the receiving end of the density improvements from TSMC’s 20nm process. But upon further reflection an additional two cores is likely more than Apple needed nor wanted.

The biggest factor here is that coming from G6430 in the A7, performance has seen a solid improvement despite sticking to only four GPU cores. Due to the combination of performance improvements from the Series6XT architecture and any clock speed increases from Apple, A8 gets quite a bit more GPU performance to play with. The increased resolution of the iPhone 6 screen in turn requires more performance if Apple wants to keep native resolution performance from significantly regressing, which GX6450 is capable of delivering on. Never mind the fact that G6430 also drove the iPad Air and its much larger 2048x1536 pixel display.

PowerVR Series6/6XT "Rogue"
GPU # of Clusters # of FP32 Ops per Cluster Total FP32 Ops Optimization
G6200 2 64 128 Area
G6230 2 64 128 Performance
GX6240 2 64 128 Area
GX6250 2 64 128 Performance
G6400 4 64 256 Area
G6430 4 64 256 Performance
GX6450 4 64 256 Performance
G6630 6 64 384 Performance
GX6650 6 64 384 Performance

These performance improvements in Series6XT have a cost as well, and that cost is suitably reflected in the estimated die sizes for each GPU. The G6430 was 22.1mm2 on the 28nm A7, while the GX6450 is 19.1mm2 on A8. Though GX6450 is smaller overall, it’s nowhere near the roughly 11.1mm2 a pure and perfect die shrink of G6430 would occupy. Limited area scaling aside, GX6450’s additional functionality and additional performance requires more transistors, and at the end of the day Apple doesn’t see a significantly smaller GPU because of this. In other words, the upgrade from G6430 to GX6450 has delivered much of the performance (and consumed much of the die space) we initially expected to be allocated to a 6-core GPU.

Overall the choice of GX6450 seems to be one of picking the GPU best for a phone, which is an area the G6430 proved effective with A7. As a step below Imagination’s 6-core PowerVR designs, GX6450 delivers a better balance between performance and power than a larger GPU would, which in turn is clearly a benefit to Apple. On the other hand this means A8 is not going to have the GPU performance to compete with the fastest SoCs specifically designed for tablets, though what this could mean for the obligatory iPad update remains to be seen.

A8’s CPU: What Comes After Cyclone? CPU Performance
Comments Locked

531 Comments

View All Comments

  • elajt_1 - Friday, October 3, 2014 - link

    (@melgross) And to call you one would be an insult to an idiot.
    Apart from the rage, I think it was he made some valid points.
  • Jimrod - Tuesday, September 30, 2014 - link

    You mad bro?
  • rational_wannabe - Tuesday, September 30, 2014 - link

    You have serious issues. So it's OK for Samsung to sell their plastic crap for the same amount of money? Nice way of rationalizing things...
  • danbob999 - Tuesday, September 30, 2014 - link

    Yeah it's OK since there is nothing wrong with plastic. It absorbs shock, is light and do not block wireless signal. Perfect material for a phone. It is also durable enough. How many people replace their phone because the plastic is cracked? Not much. People replace their phone either because the screen is broken, it was damaged by liquid or simply because it is too slow/old.

    Apple has been selling phones which are cheaper to produce for years at the same price (or higher) than the competition. Smaller phones tend to be cheaper, because the display is cheaper, the battery is cheaper, and the rest cost the same. So even by using plastic, Samsung phones cost more to produce so I fail to see how they can be labeled as "cheap".
  • blackcrayon - Tuesday, September 30, 2014 - link

    Apple is spending far more in developing the phone in other areas though. Writing the OS, designing custom SoCs, etc.
  • danbob999 - Tuesday, September 30, 2014 - link

    Designing custom SoCs is an investment. It isn't supposed to raise the cost of the phone.
    Samsung also design some of its own SoCs and even manufacture them.

    The OS is debatable. But from a hardware perspective Samsung phones (at least the high end ones) are definitely not cheap, even if they use plastic.
  • Parhel - Tuesday, September 30, 2014 - link

    R&D should affect the cost of the product? That's not how it works . . .
  • Parhel - Tuesday, September 30, 2014 - link

    Ugh.. meant to say R&D "shouldn't". To state it plainly, R&D may be an investment, but it's still an expense. The cost needs to be recouped, and they make money by selling phones, so . . . you do the math.
  • danbob999 - Tuesday, September 30, 2014 - link

    Of course they have to make money. But spending more in software development, R&D or marketing doesn't make their phone any less "cheap". I was replying to someone saying that Samsung phones were "cheap" because they were in plastic. The fact is that Samsung phones tend to be more expensive than iPhones to make, because the cost of the components is higher, despite any savings made by using a plastic shell.
  • akdj - Friday, October 3, 2014 - link

    Only BECAUSE it takes my Note3 twice the cores, at twice the clock speed with three times the amount RAM to FINALLY close the gap on performance. Almost. My 5s is still quicker playing Asphalt8, manipulating photos, even rendering VIDEO! Most likely the latter because of the extreme lack of interet in the development community (other than game ports) to 'build out' apps and software. And that sucks! I love my Note 3--- coming from the original its a massive upgrade. That said, Samsung is using stock, off the shelf SoCs ....indeed 'produced' by them as they've got the capabilities to cook bake and roll out silicon BUT they've chosen to increase horsepower, drop the gearing ratios and add a stage III nirrous kit 'built' and low level programmed with basic ARM instructions and a radical slather of Peanut Butter JavaScript to wade through just for TouchWiz. By the time you open an app, you're at 85-90% RAM usage. I've got a N3. I like it and I'm not getting rid of it. It serves it's purpose for our business perfectly. But AS a business owner and one that relies on creative talent to make it 'work' I find your comment very VERY ill informed and 'ignorant' ...no to be a dick. But yes, R&D is definitely a percentage figured into the equation with BOM. As well, the software development, A8 & the second generation 64bit processor with a faster GPU, more efficient memory managment with the SoC 4mb buffer and iOS 8 itself are expenses. Paid to a LOT of talent! For crying out loud, they developed a new CODE! And a spectacular one at that! Free lessons are everywhere and if you're experienced, have a macbook laying around, download the latest XCode and you'll have Swift down in a weekend. Not to mentioned the low level 'Metal' instruction set to eliminate the OpGL ES overhead ...allowing developers 'direct' (hence, 'Metal') access to the GPU ...if you're at all curious on how incredible this development most consumers will NEVER know about ...check out Unreal 4's site, the UR4 engine and what they've done with Metal. You can download their patio presentation frim WWDC in the app store. It's absolutley amazing. Samsung's phones are spendy because they're licensing Wacom, using active digitizers few are able use (until this evolution, three's a charm I guess), massive batteries, a horrid looking bezel that's rigid for sure, but then again, this is the first I've seen people, on purposes bending phones, and that's not a real life issue or even concern. I shared earlier, somehow my nine year old son has managed to keep his iPod touch fifth gen in perfect non bent and scratch free condition. Two years. Lotsa boogers and bumps but no dents, no dings, scratches or 'display marks' without screen protection. Guesses can be made in physical pieces. Even how long (labor pricing) to produce a single unit. But development of actual silicon, low level optimization to your non fragmented operating system, 64bit technology 24 months ahead of the industry and obvious benefits from the 20nm A8. iOS 8 (and its counterpart more than ever, OS X 10.10) and its ability to aggregate our information across devices, handoff calls, emails, texts or whatever the hell you're doing on your iPad ....get distracted, fall out and when you turn your iMac or MBP on, there's the email you were working on. Ready for you to finish. The web page you were reading or the movie your were watching ...vice versa too. Start on your computer a doc, and open your iPhone, there'll be a small 'doc' icon signifying you're working on something and you're able to finish it here! Forget the phone downstairs, your in bed reading before sleep, phone rings...no worries. Answer it on your iPad. AirDrop between laptop, tablet and phone, MacPro and ipad....iPhone to your iMac, slick n quick.

    Of course, then there's the whole 'build quality' argument. Where designers, reviewers, and the public ALL Seem to agree. The iPhone SNOKES Samsung's BQ. Period. They're like jewelry, true and real 'art'. Each phone has been an engineering marvel. Samsung? Are you kidding me? Other than their goofy, curvy, earthy S3 baby blue tangent, their 'rectangle' phone lacks ANY design fundamentals much less achievements.
    When you sell as MANY pieces as Apple does, costs come down. For the 'pieces'. But the machining process (2 year cycle) is entirely changed. Fusion welding and sapphire 'plants', robotics and laser/chamfered edging with incredible attention to detail are just a couple of the hundreds of THOUSANDS of re-tooling the facilities for the latest 'build'. And after a couple of hours today with the 6 & 6+ as we anxiously await ours, with an open mind (& as an ambidextrous user of Android and iOS Windows and OS X) --- NOTHING on the Internet does justice to the phone itself. It's. Absolutely. AMAZING!

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now