Why is David Huang's results so poor?
Why is David Huang's results so poor?
The 8 Elite P core is getting 2.12 per GHz, while the E core is getting 1.74. So the E core scores are ok but the P core scores are trash.
The Zen 5 and 5c results are weird too. The 5C is slightly faster per clock. Other results such as Geekerwan and C&C showed something like 5% ahead for regular Zen 5. I can't completely trust Huang's results because of these things.
A wild bit of speculation is that Qualcomm has an Oryon-S core in the works.
If L = Large and M = Medium, doesn't that suggest that there will be a "Small" core?
Cortex X ≈ Oryon-L
Cortex A7xx ≈ Oryon-M
Cortex A5xx ≈ Oryon-S
Oryon-S would allow Qualcomm to scale the Oryon CPU all the way down to low end Snapdragon 4 series chips and Snapdragon Wearable chips.
The performance A725 cores would have more cache and clock higher (~3 GHz), whereas the efficiency A725 cores would have less cache and lower clock speeds (~2 GHz).
If we assume the leak from Tigerick is correct:Based on 8 Elite, we can construct a hypothetical X Elite 2;
Getting the sum of the added component areas of the hypothetical X Elite 2 SoC, and adding it to the 8 Elite, we get 176 mm².
The X Elite 2 will also have some additional I/O, so that would add about 5 mm². But X Elite 2 will be on N3P, which is 4% denser than the N3E used on 8 Elite. So they cancel each other out.
For ~175 mm² N3P, they can make a great laptop SoC with an efficient and powerful GPU.
175 mm² N3P would be similar in cost to;If we assume the leak from Tigerick is correct:
Then I doubt Mahua would have a die size around ~175 mm² N3P. It would be too expensive for the bulk of the Windows market.
I don't think manufacturing cost is the problem for X Elite. 170 mm² N4P is cheap compared to Intel/AMD parts I mentioned above.Qualcomm already had to rebate X Elite quite heavily to hit "mainstream" price point for premium laptops (~$1000). And the X Elite was ~170 mm² of N4 (or N4P?).
Are those even Huang scores? He is not posting FP results most of the time? and the screenshots are signed with watermark under a different name.Why is David Huang's results so poor?
The 8 Elite P core is getting 2.12 per GHz, while the E core is getting 1.74. So the E core scores are ok but the P core scores are trash.
The Zen 5 and 5c results are weird too. The 5C is slightly faster per clock. Other results such as Geekerwan and C&C showed something like 5% ahead for regular Zen 5. I can't completely trust Huang's results because of these things.
And yet people think Arm Ltd cores are seriously underperforming the competition.Also the IPC is lower than the X4 interestingly. A bit of a surprise there.
Yeah definitely. But the score of X925 isn't that far behind in SPECint.Well, good luck getting X4 to run over 4 GHz. IPC is just part of the equation.
Perf/watt of Phoenix M doesn't seem so great vs A720, which is already a year old core.
Yup, We have curves from Geekerwan;Much different performance points, though, one would have to compare power at the same performance or performance at the same power to get an idea.
My speculation for Oryon-S is that it would be same core as Oryon-M, but clocked significantly lower (~2 GHz) and with less L2 cache.Don't see much point in an Oryon-S core, keep in mind that ARM is serving many more markets, they need a super tiny core for using that in cheap TVs, Routers and what not. But it was a really bad core even in terms of efficiency, Oryon M is small enough, I see no point going lower.
If they want to do cheaper, just do a half L2 cluster for Oryon M, so for example a CPU with 4 Oryon M would get 4MB L2.
Yup, We have curves from Geekerwan;
View attachment 110689View attachment 110690
My speculation for Oryon-S is that it would be same core as Oryon-M, but clocked significantly lower (~2 GHz) and with less L2 cache.