Now it’s Qualcommbench.
He replies;On the other hand if Andrei wanted to do accurate uarch vs uarch comparisons he should have enabled AVX for x64 when doing comparisons on Qualcomm slides as the AVX units belong to the core the same Neon units do (I guess he is somewhat involved with those if the rumours are accurate). But yea, that is a digression
The LNL binaries were fully AVX2 and what not enabled, the attendees at summit had full access to the complete build config and see it first-hand
That well might be but then they should improve their messaging asHe replies;
To reach the A18 Pro level, you must overclock the Oryon core as much as possible and provide active cooling🤣. This is reminiscent of Geekerwan's recent Ryzen 9900X review, where the chip was overclocked under nitrogen to beat M4 in SPEC tests. That's ridiculous.Rumour [DCS];
View attachment 110264
4.57 GHz.
That's bonkers. It's 0.25 GHz (or +5%) higher than the standard version of 8 Elite (4.32 GHz).
This one would be able to solidly claim the GB6 single-core crown from Apple A18 Pro in Geekbench 6.2 (no SME).
Also 4.57 GHz is just 0.43 GHz away from the 5 GHz mark. Even if the standard version of 8 Elite G2 is not able to hit 5 GHz, I think the high-clock version of 8 Elite G2 will.
Well, he could have matched M4 in SPEC(at least fp) without nitrogen by flipping few compiler options but the entertainment value would be lower, wouldn't it?To reach the A18 Pro level, you must overclock the Oryon core as much as possible and provide active cooling🤣. This is reminiscent of Geekerwan's recent Ryzen 9900X review, where the chip was overclocked under nitrogen to beat M4 in SPEC tests. That's ridiculous.
Tbh, the way he phrased it, active cooling is optional.To reach the A18 Pro level, you must overclock the Oryon core as much as possible and provide active cooling🤣. This is reminiscent of Geekerwan's recent Ryzen 9900X review, where the chip was overclocked under nitrogen to beat M4 in SPEC tests. That's ridiculous.
This is still called creating special conditions.Tbh, the way he phrased it, active cooling is optional.
View attachment 110270
If you look at the ST power curves, the 4.32 GHz 8 Elite actually consumes less power than the Dimensity 9400. We know that Dimensity 9400 phones don't need active cooling.
A 5% overclock would increase the power by 10-20%
But it could even be less than that if they are using chip binning. Bin the high quality chips and push them to 4.57 GHz, while the rest hum along at 4.32 GHz.
I agree.That well might be but then they should improve their messaging as
View attachment 110269
only lists LLVM (clang) 17.0.6 with -O3 and -flto. Link time optimizations are indifferent to the point we are discussing so it leaves us with O3 only.
https://godbolt.org/z/rnPvW8jnc this is very trivial loop so to ensure compiler will auto vectorize it, you can see that -O3 option is doing vectorization using only xmm registers and does not use fma operations compared to the assembly for the -O3 -mavx512f on the right that is using zmm registers (512b width, avx512 only) and fma operations. [Yes it's using clang 17.0.1 instead of 17.0.6 but this behaviour won't change]
In other words based on the information they made public, one can assume "AVX2 and what not" was not enabled. So for the future they could simply put the link to the full compiler options so they would not bloat the slide if they were afraid about that and nobody would say then these were not enabled.
Tbh, the way he phrased it, active cooling is optional.
View attachment 110270
If you look at the ST power curves, the 4.32 GHz 8 Elite actually consumes less power than the Dimensity 9400. We know that Dimensity 9400 phones don't need active cooling.
A 5% overclock would increase the power by 10-20%
But it could even be less than that if they are using chip binning. Bin the high quality chips and push them to 4.57 GHz, while the rest hum along at 4.32 GHz.
Thanks for sharing. Dr Ian sounds pretty pessimistic about Qualcomm's position in the lawsuit (36:50). I was assuming they'd reach a settlement, but the way he puts it, if this does go to court, Qualcomm needs to win.TechTechPotato podcast about Qualcomm v ARM;
Can ARM lose Qualcomm? Yes. Can Qualcomm lose ARM? No.
I'm paraphrasing these quotes btw.ARM sent notice to Qualcomm that the Nuvia ALA was no longer in effect. The "ALA" being the architecture license. And that all IP made under that ALA had to be destroyed. Now the thing is you can't destroy memories. And I don't mean DRAM. I mean in your head. Right, there are lessons learned. And Qualcomm's position from that point on was essentially to say anything the Nuvia team are doing is denuvo brand new from acquisition. Which was the smart messaging to say I'm pretty sure.
So now if you go dig into the Pacer which is Public Access for court electronic records. There's a few re heavily redacted documents that point to evidence that ARM has that Qualcomm did not actually destroy the IP, regardless of memory or not. There's a fine line between destroying something, and not using it. So and in this case the remedy of the lawsuit is to destroy everything, but also everything derived yes so that would be not just X Elite and 8 Elite but anything after as well.
The cure for these contractual disputes is usually monetary considerations.Thanks for sharing. Dr Ian sounds pretty pessimistic about Qualcomm's position in the lawsuit (36:50). I was assuming they'd reach a settlement, but the way he puts it, if this does go to court, Qualcomm needs to win.
It's also interesting when they talked about how Qualcomm was required to "destroy" any IP that was created under Nuvia before the acquisition (26:16).
I'm paraphrasing these quotes btw.
About 70 percent of AI in today’s third-party applications on the smartphone run on the device’s CPU — which includes those where there is a dedicated accelerator available (such as an NPU and GPU). The reasons: CPUs are ubiquitous, flexible, and easy to use for software developers, meaning they can target as many devices as possible with their applications.
According to rumours from last year, Qualcomm supposedly had two versions of the 8 Gen 4: (1) Using Cortex cores and (2) Using Oryon cores.Even if ARM outright refuses to extend an ALA to Qualcomm, it still has the TLA in place and there is no dispute regarding that. Indeed there'd be a scramble to tape out a replacement at Qualcomm, but they would go on.
ARM's boldness is certainly surprising. Whatever the outcome of the lawsuit maybe, this ordeal is incredibly damaging to the ARM ecosystem.It also is a sign of bad faith on the part of ARM that they're resorting to blunt force tactics like the lawsuit and contract cancellation instead of more neutral avenues like arbitration.
| X Elite | 8 Elite | |
| SPEC2017 INT | 15W | 6.5W |
| SPEC2017 FP | 20W | 8W |
Chefe you're comparing platform power numbers between a phone and a 13" laptop. Do NOT do that.Yeah I know it's a Qualcomm slide, but testing by Geekerwan does corroborate those numbers;
Apple is the other main player to make serious use of the ALA; if this goes to trial, we'll see from discovery if they were un-harassed and if ARM is just trying to squeeze Qualcomm back into the TLA...
We'll see. Qualcomm's CPU IP is now different from the IP that ARM is disputing: after joining Qualcomm and being confronted by ARM's initial complaint, the Nuvia team (from what I have learned from court documents and sources) has allegedly redesigned the relevant blocks in the Oryon design to skirt the matter. Again, ARM's further request for the destruction of the IP isn't a typical cure for these situations...Apple would be un-harassed because they didn't acquire another company with ARM IP developed under a separate ALA that has different terms.
Apple also last year signed a new/extended ALA that covers them through 2040 or so. Who knows, that new ALA may have significantly tighter restrictions around transfer of ARM technology under other licenses via acquisition. Contracts often evolve over time when renewed to cover "lessons learned" (if you've never been a landlord, ask one, they'll have examples of stuff they added to their lease because of things they've learned the hard way)
| # of cores | # of cores (In terms of P) | Cinebench 2024 Multi Core Score | Contribution of 1 P-core to CB2024 Multi Core score | |
| M3 | 4P+4E | 5.33P | 710 | 133.2 |
| M3 Max | 12P+4E | 13.33P | 1700 | 127.5 |
| M4 | 4P+6E | 6P | 977* | 162.8 |
| X Elite | 12P | 12P | 1220 | 101.6 |
| 1T boost clock speed | All core clock speed | Geekbench 6 Single Core | Cinebench 2024 Single Core | |
| M3 | 4.05 GHz | 3.6 GHz | 3150 | 141 |
| M3 Max | 4.05 GHz | 3.6 GHz | 3150 | 141 |
| M4 | 4.5 GHz | 4.04 GHz | 3800 | 174* |
| X Elite | 4.3 GHz | 3.8 GHz | 3200** | 133 |
For Apple, we know that 3 E-cores ≈ 1 P-core in terms of performance.
# of cores # of cores
(In terms of P)Cinebench
2024 Multi Core
ScoreContribution of
1 P-core to
CB2024 Multi Core scoreM3 4P+4E 5.33P 710 133.2 M3 Max 12P+4E 13.33P 1700 127.5 M4 4P+6E 6P 977* 162.8 X Elite 12P 12P 1220 101.6
1T boost clock speed All core clock speed Geekbench 6 Single Core Cinebench
2024
Single CoreM3 4.05 GHz 3.6 GHz 3150 141 M3 Max 4.05 GHz 3.6 GHz 3150 141 M4 4.5 GHz 4.04 GHz 3800 174* X Elite 4.3 GHz 3.8 GHz 3200** 133
How is the Apple M3's 'Contribution of 1 P-core to CB2024 Multi Core score' so much higher than X Elite?
From the 1T tests, we know M3 and X Elite score similarly.
Differences in all-core clock speeds doesn't explain it, becauss both M3 and X Elite have an all-core clock speed that's about 10% less than the 1T boost clock speed used in the ST tests.
____
*Leaked score based on M4 Macbook Pro
**X Elite top SKU score in Linux
If that is indeed the case, it's rather terrifying.Do we know if X Elite can sustain 3.8GHz in Cinebench 2024? one thing is announced all core clock speed, another thing is if it's possible to sustain that in all workloads.
M3 Pro/Max can achieve 3200+ pt in STFor Apple, we know that 3 E-cores ≈ 1 P-core in terms of performance.
# of cores # of cores
(In terms of P)Cinebench
2024 Multi Core
ScoreContribution of
1 P-core to
CB2024 Multi Core scoreM3 4P+4E 5.33P 710 133.2 M3 Max 12P+4E 13.33P 1700 127.5 M4 4P+6E 6P 977* 162.8 X Elite 12P 12P 1220 101.6
1T boost clock speed All core clock speed Geekbench 6 Single Core Cinebench
2024
Single CoreM3 4.05 GHz 3.6 GHz 3150 141 M3 Max 4.05 GHz 3.6 GHz 3150 141 M4 4.5 GHz 4.04 GHz 3800 174* X Elite 4.3 GHz 3.8 GHz 3200** 133
How is the Apple M3's 'Contribution of 1 P-core to CB2024 Multi Core score' so much higher than X Elite?
From the 1T tests, we know M3 and X Elite score similarly.
Differences in all-core clock speeds doesn't explain it, becauss both M3 and X Elite have an all-core clock speed that's about 10% less than the 1T boost clock speed used in the ST tests.
____
*Leaked score based on M4 Macbook Pro
**X Elite top SKU score in Linux