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.
| Die Codename | Foundry | Node |
| Kaanapali | TSMC | N3P |
| KaanapaliS | Samsung | SF2 |
Not sure what geometries are for logic and metal layers, but N3 is still finFET and SF2 is 2nd gen MBCFET/GAAFET (nanosheet).Will allow for a nice comparison between TSMC and Samsung nodes
Here is the only score the browser finds:What's the Geekbench 5 Multi Core score of Snapdragon 8 Elite?
Has any reviewer tested it?
Geekerwan didn't.
That's the 80W SDXE X1E-00-1DE? I think FlameTail was looking for the phone chips.Here is the only score the browser finds:
...Qualcomm Snapdragon-Devkit - Geekbench
Benchmark results for a Qualcomm Snapdragon-Devkit with a Qualcomm ARMv8 processor.browser.geekbench.com
Indeed. Oh yea my bad. I read the 8 Elite as X Elite.That's the 80W SDXE X1E-00-1DE? I think FlameTail was looking for the phone chips.
But if anyone is curious here that is compared to a 5L ITX Zen 4 PC at 100W PPT with DDR5-5200 memory
| Geekbench 5 | Geekbench 6 | |
| A18 Pro | 2450 7000 | 3500 9000 |
| 8 Elite | 2250 9000 | 3200 10500 |
Yeh, it's easy to mistake the X Elite for 8 Elite, or vice versaThat's the 80W SDXE X1E-00-1DE? I think FlameTail was looking for the phone chips
Yeah, that's why Qualcomm CEO is boasting that they have the most area efficient core.Fair appraisal. That surely helps. But still if we’re just looking at core size and comparing to the M4, Oryon-L does look pretty good performance wise while being considerably smaller.
I’d be curious to the performance of the 8 Elite if it were scaled up to the M4 size.Yeah, that's why Qualcomm CEO is boasting that they have the most area efficient core.