Samsung Exynos Thread (big.LITTLE Octa-core)

[Lepton87]

If A57 is that good I wonder how much better will be Qualcomn's response to this chip. There custom chips were always a bit better than vanilla ARM cores and clocked higher. Any info about that new Qualcomn's chip yet? Something tells me that they might sit this round out and just incorporate A57s to their SOCs. Cost savings would be huge but they would lose the competitive edge provided they can desing a better core. Are there any information if they are even doing a new custom ARM64 CPU?

 

[witeken]

Qualcomm has a more iterative process. If you want to keep your market share, you can't wait 5 years for ARM's A57 successor.

 

[simboss]

Qualcomm has a more iterative process. If you want to keep your market share, you can't wait 5 years for ARM's A57 successor.

5 years?
It has been ~3 years for the last 3 generations (from wikipedia):
2007 Cortex-A9 2009 Cortex-A5 2010 Cortex-A15 2011 Cortex-A7 2013 Cortex-A12 2014 Cortex-A17
and that's not counting some fairly heavy changes between some revisions such as what happened with Cortex-A9 and Cortex-A15 (at least according to NVIDIA's marketing ).

and it might even get quicker: http://www.techradar.com/news/compu...s/arm-set-to-move-to-yearly-refreshes-1230208

 

[Fjodor2001]

and it might even get quicker: http://www.techradar.com/news/compu...s/arm-set-to-move-to-yearly-refreshes-1230208

From that article:

After multi-cores, faster clock speeds and increased cache, the only other significant improvement is likely to be, long term, Heterogeneous computing, with the GPU playing a much bigger role.

Seems like they agree AMD is on the right track with regard to that then.

Also, I have to say that ARM is where the action is these days. I'm impressed by their improvement and innovation rate. That is in comparison to e.g. desktop x86, which used to be fun some years ago.

 

[krumme]

From that article:

Seems like they agree AMD is on the right track with regard to that then.

Also, I have to say that ARM is where the action is these days. I'm impressed by their improvement and innovation rate. That is in comparison to e.g. desktop x86, which used to be fun some years ago.

They are not on right track. They started the move to hsa to early. Giving practically no benefits to consumers. Now they have no money
What is the point of beeing first if there is no business to be made doing so? Like their gpu mobile business they sold right before it started. Its very much about the right time. But its very difficult to catch the wave.

 

[NTMBK]

Qualcomm differentiate themselves through custom CPU cores. They aren't giving up one of their competitive advantages.

 

[Exophase]

5 years?
It has been ~3 years for the last 3 generations (from wikipedia):
2007 Cortex-A9 2009 Cortex-A5 2010 Cortex-A15 2011 Cortex-A7 2013 Cortex-A12 2014 Cortex-A17
and that's not counting some fairly heavy changes between some revisions such as what happened with Cortex-A9 and Cortex-A15 (at least according to NVIDIA's marketing ).

and it might even get quicker: http://www.techradar.com/news/compu...s/arm-set-to-move-to-yearly-refreshes-1230208

I'd go by first release in a product as being the most indicative, and by that it's been a pretty solid two year cadence between the flagship CPUs.

October 2008: Cortex-A8 (OMAP3530 in Archos 5 and other PMPs)
August 2010: Cortex-A9 (Tegra 2 in Toshiba AC100)
October 2012: Cortex-A15 (Exynos 5250 in Samsung Chromebook)
October 2014: Cortex-A57 (Exynos 5433 in Galaxy Note 4)

I expect we'll hear about the next ARM CPU soon.

 

[Nothingness]

You forgot Cortex-A17.

 

[StrangerGuy]

"Yeah, what can a cheap and slowass ARM chip in a fad iPhone ever possibly hurt us?"

-Intel in 2007

 

[soccerballtux]

I'd go by first release in a product as being the most indicative, and by that it's been a pretty solid two year cadence between the flagship CPUs.

October 2008: Cortex-A8 (OMAP3530 in Archos 5 and other PMPs)
August 2010: Cortex-A9 (Tegra 2 in Toshiba AC100)
October 2012: Cortex-A15 (Exynos 5250 in Samsung Chromebook)
October 2014: Cortex-A57 (Exynos 5433 in Galaxy Note 4)

I expect we'll hear about the next ARM CPU soon.

my gosh I hated Texas Instrument. SLOMAP!

 

[simboss]

Qualcomm differentiate themselves through custom CPU cores. They aren't giving up one of their competitive advantages.

QC competitive advantage is not the custom CPU, it's the ability to create the best possible SoC, the failure to understand that is exactly why people keep thinking that Intel will succeed because "it has better CPUs".

When ARM somewhat failed to deliver with the Cortex-A15, QC had Krait, which made them very competitive.

It seems the A57 is more competitive this time, so QC does not need its own CPU.
I don't believe one second that they could not design an ARMv8 Krait by the same timeframe they are getting the A57 + A53 integrated.
What they could not do is do something that would give them this competitive advantage, so they have chosen to focus on the overall SoC, because this is what they are selling.


And now AMD, NVIDIA, Broadcom, Apple, probably QC as well are all doing their own implementation, but they will keep comparing them with vanilla ARM cores (which they can access well before the availability in products as would happen with a competitor core), this is a very good way for them to make sure they are properly differentiating and not spending a fortune reinventing the wheel.

I'd go by first release in a product as being the most indicative, and by that it's been a pretty solid two year cadence between the flagship CPUs.

October 2008: Cortex-A8 (OMAP3530 in Archos 5 and other PMPs)
August 2010: Cortex-A9 (Tegra 2 in Toshiba AC100)
October 2012: Cortex-A15 (Exynos 5250 in Samsung Chromebook)
October 2014: Cortex-A57 (Exynos 5433 in Galaxy Note 4)

I expect we'll hear about the next ARM CPU soon.

Indeed Wikipedia gives the date of the announcement, but the delay between announcement and shipping has somewhat been reduced over the years.

 

[NTMBK]

QC competitive advantage is not the custom CPU, it's the ability to create the best possible SoC, the failure to understand that is exactly why people keep thinking that Intel will succeed because "it has better CPUs".

Oh, it's definitely just one of the factors. Good CPU, good GPU, and world leading modem = fantastic all round package. It's the whole product that matters, agreed.

The A57 may be fine this time- but what about next gen? What if ARM screws up again and delivers another A15? Qualcomm need to keep up to date with cutting edge CPU tech, and they need to preserve their excellent CPU development team. The best way of doing that is to keep developing a new custom CPU for themselves. I can't see them sacrificing that capability, even if it isn't especially vital this generation.

 

[simboss]

Oh, it's definitely just one of the factors. Good CPU, good GPU, and world leading modem = fantastic all round package. It's the whole product that matters, agreed.

The A57 may be fine this time- but what about next gen? What if ARM screws up again and delivers another A15? Qualcomm need to keep up to date with cutting edge CPU tech, and they need to preserve their excellent CPU development team. The best way of doing that is to keep developing a new custom CPU for themselves. I can't see them sacrificing that capability, even if it isn't especially vital this generation.

Which may be why they are entering the server market... keep the CPU design team busy, and keep a smaller team doing the architectural and modelling research to know if/when there is room for their own implementation against ARM's cores.

 

[Sweepr]

Mali T760 Graphics Benchmarks

Mali GPUs in older Exynos SoCs were generally slower than their Qualcomm Adreno counterparts. That's past. Based on my testing the new Mali T760MP6 (700MHz) is right up there with todays best smartphone GPUs like Adreno 420 (Snapdragon 805) and PowerVR GX6450 (Apple A8).

An argument can be made about performance consistency over time - the device barely gets hot when playing graphics intensive games, not sure about Snapdragon 805 but maybe 20nm helps Exynos 5433 and A8 here.

Basemark X 1.1 - Medium Quality

Exynos 5433 - Mali T760

Snapdragon 805 (Moto Maxx): 31537
Exynos 5420 (Galaxy Note 3 / Galaxy Tab S): 16709

www.tomshardware.com/reviews/apple-iphone-6-plus-review,3976-16.html
www.tecmundo.com.br/moto-maxx/66400-analise-smartphone-motorola-moto-maxx-review.htm
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph8197/64841.png

Basemark X - High Quality

Exynos 5433

Huge improvement compared to Mali T628.

3DMark Unlimited

Exynos 5433

 

[Sweepr]

Mali T760 Graphics Benchmarks (Part 2)

GFXBench T-Rex & Manhattan Offscreen

Exynos 5433

GFXBench T-Rex & Manhattan Onscreen

Exynos 5433

The Exynos 5420 integrates ARM’s Mali-T628MP6 GPU, which just isn’t competitive with Apple’s PowerVR Series 6 implementations. The bigger problem is that the GPU doesn’t seem quite cut out to driving the high resolution display. UI frame rates are typically smooth but I definitely noticed some dropped frames.

Some users complained about poor performance from Mali T628 (Exynos 5420 - Galaxy Tab S) when pushing Android and Samsung's Touchwiz @ QHD. I can honestly say that Mali T760 fares a lot better here, overall very smooth experience and hardly any lags @ QHD. Exynos 5433 would make an ever better Galaxy Tab S, so here's hoping Samsung updates their tablet line soon (not just in Korea).

 

[Sweepr]

Good news, new kernel patchset will enable ARM64 for Exynos 7 Octa (Exynos 5433) - Thanks to hiepgia @ XDA Developers: http://lwn.net/Articles/623371

This patchset adds new 64-bit Exynos5433 Samsung SoC which contains quad
Cortex-A57 and quad Cortex-A53. It is desigend with the 20nm low power process.

This patchset include some patches such as:
- Support booting of Exynos5433
- Support UART/MCT/GIC/HSI2C/SPI/PDMA/MSHC
- Support the clock control for Exynos5433 using common clk framework

I will retest the CPU benchmarks @ Android 5.0 64-bit (hopefully it won't take too long).

 

[Nothingness]

I will retest the CPU benchmarks @ Android 5.0 64-bit (hopefully it won't take too long).

The path from a 64-bit kernel to a full 64-bit Android will be long and I'm afraid this won't materialize on Note 4 (at least not officially)

 

[RussianSensation]

Thanks for the scores. I read that on average the Exynos variant of the Note 4 is about 7-10% faster but I care more about these 3 factors:

1) How much is the real world performance difference between Cat 4 LTE and Cat 6 LTE? Sorry, I am ignorant on whether or not this matters in the US/Canada markets for high-speed internet as I haven't been back in 4 years, but will come back next year.

2) Headphone audio quality - Doesn't the Exynos have the Wolfson DAC vs. much inferior DAC in the Snapdragon 805 version? If so, for audiophiles on the go, the Exynos Note 4 is hands down the winner.

3) I've read that both versions support quick-charging but haven't seen extensive testing of battery lives with Wi-F/Browsing, etc. between the Exynos and the 805 versions.

I don't think the 7-10% difference in CPU speed is even perceptive on the smartphone. Also, I find all smartphones are basically worthless for enjoyable gaming due to horrible games available and poor controls; so even if the smartphone had 100x the performance of a 980, it doesn't matter to me. I care A LOT for audio quality, battery life and internet speed between the Note 4 versions though.

According to Phone Arena, "The difference in battery life between the two models is negligible, according to our testing," but I'd like to see hard numbers.
http://www.phonearena.com/news/Sams...marks-Snapdragon-805-vs-Exynos-7-Octa_id63111

 

[Sweepr]

1) How much is the real world performance difference between Cat 4 LTE and Cat 6 LTE? Sorry, I am ignorant on whether or not this matters in the US/Canada markets for high-speed internet as I haven't been back in 4 years, but will come back next year.

No idea. Right now Cat 4 LTE speeds are more than enough for my needs, web pages load instantly, no problem streaming HD videos either. There is an Exynos Note 4 version that supports Cat 6, it's the N910U (Intel XMM7260 modem).

2) Headphone audio quality - Doesn't the Exynos have the Wolfson DAC vs. much inferior DAC in the Snapdragon 805 version? If so, for audiophiles on the go, the Exynos Note 4 is hands down the winner.

That's correct, the Exynos version comes with Wolfson WM5110 DAC instead of Qualcomm's WCD9330 DAC.

3) I've read that both versions support quick-charging but haven't seen extensive testing of battery lives with Wi-F/Browsing, etc. between the Exynos and the 805 versions.

I'm getting around 5-6 hours of OST with mixed usage (web, videos and some gaming). That's pretty good in my book, and an improvement from the 3.5-4 hours OST of my older phone (LG G3). I honestly think the QHD screen and 3G/4G modem (especially with weak cellular signal) are the villains here, both versions should have similar battery life.

I don't think the 7-10% difference in CPU speed is even perceptive on the smartphone. Also, I find all smartphones are basically worthless for enjoyable gaming due to horrible games available and poor controls; so even if the smartphone had 100x the performance of a 980, it doesn't matter to me. I care A LOT for audio quality, battery life and internet speed between the Note 4 versions though.

The difference can be greater than 10%, GeekBench score for Exynos version is ~4300/1300 vs ~3200/1050 for Snapdragon 805. According to some xda users who used both versions Exynos delivers a slightly more fluid experience all-around, but I haven't tested both myself. Exynos 7 Octa is a more modern ARMv8-A chip and already has a 64-bit kernel, while it's not 100% certain I think there's a strong possibility that it could be the first Android flagship phone supporting 64-bit Android in the future.

Most of your (and my) questions should be answered tomorrow. AnandTech's Andrei Frumusanu will post an article comparing both versions (Exynos vs Snapdragon and possibly other ARM SoCs) tomorrow @ 11AM UTC.

 

[Sweepr]

Some updates about Exynos and future ARM A57/A53 SoCs:

- Exynos 7420 will power some regional versions of the Galaxy S6. It will still sport A57/A53 cores paired with a Mali T760 like the Exynos 5433. On the CPU side a leaked benchmark suggests that the A53 cores are running at 1.8GHz, a 38% clock increase from its predecessor. The A57 cores should operate at higher clocks than Exynos 5433 and Snapdragon 810, likely >2GHz. Here's a catch, according to Andrei Frumusanu Exynos 7420 is a 14nm FF SoC and it's in production right now.

The process lead (compared to the other ARM players) could give Samsung an edge, they were first to A57/A53 with the Exynos 5433 and now that competitors are about to launch their 20nm A57/A53 designs they are readying a 14nm FF chip.

On the GPU side if they want to keep parity with S810's Adreno 430 (30% faster graphics than Adreno 420) then a Mali T760MP8 @ 700MHz should do the trick, but I wouldn't rule out a MP10 variant just yet, especially if they don't want to be left behind when Apple launches their 16nm A9. Actually despite parity in popular benchmarks the current Mali T760MP6 seems to outperform Adreno 420 when it comes to real games. Let's not forget that Samsung's in-house custom GPU should be ready by mid-2015 (Note 5 debut?)

- S810 is officially clocked at 1958MHz A57, 1555MHz A53. According to the latest leak the LTE Cat. 9 capable Note 4 will sport an Exynos 5433 SoC + Shannon 333 modem instead of the previously rumoured S810 so it will take longer till the first S810 device hits the market. We will know more at CES 2015.

- NVIDIA just announced their Tegra X1 20nm SoC powered by A57/A53 cores. AMD has Project Skybridge and the rumoured A57-based Amur (no sign of it in AMD's latest Mobility Roadmap but let's go with the rumours). It will be interesting to see how NVIDIA and AMD's solutions compare, especially when it comes to graphics (Tegra X1's >60 FPS @ Manhattan offscreen will be hard to beat).

 

[NTMBK]

- NVIDIA just announced their Tegra X1 20nm SoC powered by A57/A53 cores. AMD has Project Skybridge and the rumoured A57-based Amur (no sign of it in AMD's latest Mobility Roadmap but let's go with the rumours). It will be interesting to see how NVIDIA and AMD's solutions compare, especially when it comes to graphics (Tegra X1's >60 FPS @ Manhattan offscreen will be hard to beat).

I somewhat doubt that Amur will outdo X1- it's AMD's first swing at the market, and it would be very surprising if they took the top spot on their first try.

 

[ancientarcher]

Thanks Sweepr, great information!

Comparing the Snapdragon 810 and the Exynos 7
1) the cores are the same
2) Samsung seems to have the edge in graphics, or at least its at par
3) the audio, from all I can gather is better in Exynos because of the Wolfson DAC
4) Baseband - Qcom holds the edge here but Samsung just announced Cat9 modem. So, parity maybe?
5) process edge for Samsung - finfet vs planar

So, why is sammy sticking with the snapdragon for most markets? Exynos will be better. Should also lift its profits in the foundry division!

 

[Arachnotronic]

Sweepr,

According to Samsung's webpage (http://www.samsung.com/global/business/semiconductor/minisite/Exynos/w/solution.html#?v=7octa), Exynos 7 Octa is being touted as a 20-nanometer chip.

That being said, it would make sense for Samsung to launch a limited distribution 14nm Exynos...

 

[Sweepr]

Thanks Sweepr, great information!

Comparing the Snapdragon 810 and the Exynos 7
1) the cores are the same
2) Samsung seems to have the edge in graphics, or at least its at par
3) the audio, from all I can gather is better in Exynos because of the Wolfson DAC
4) Baseband - Qcom holds the edge here but Samsung just announced Cat9 modem. So, parity maybe?
5) process edge for Samsung - finfet vs planar

So, why is sammy sticking with the snapdragon for most markets? Exynos will be better. Should also lift its profits in the foundry division!

Agreed, I expect Samsung to slowly increase the number of markets receiving Exynos instead of Snapdragon (though they won't ditch Qualcomm). When it comes to CPU performance Exynos 7420 should have an edge over S810 due to higher clocks (>2GHz/1.8GHz vs 1.96/1.55GHz A57/A53). Samsung has been doing big.LITTLE designs for nearly 2 years now, they're not exactly new to the game like Qualcomm.

It would be wise to use their 14nm FF area/power budget to try to match Apple A9 and beat their main Android competitors instead of merely matching what Qualcomm has to offer @ 20nm. Considering 20nm Exynos 5433 mostly outperforms Krait-based 28nm S805 performance wise I don't think they care about regional differences. Here's hoping for a very agressively clocked A57/A53 + T760MP8/MP10 SoC.

I wonder if their Shannon LTE modem will be used outside of Korea this time.

Sweepr,

According to Samsung's webpage (http://www.samsung.com/global/busine....html#?v=7octa), Exynos 7 Octa is being touted as a 20-nanometer chip.

That being said, it would make sense for Samsung to launch a limited distribution 14nm Exynos...

That page refers to Exynos 5433, their first SoC marketed as Exynos 7 Octa (should be updated once they announce the Galaxy S6). I honestly have no clue about their yields @ 14nm FF but launching the Exynos variant in their home country South Korea and a few others markets with limited distribution @ early Q2 should be relatively trouble free. The big markets like North America, most of Europe and Asia should receive Snapdragon S810 just like the other 2015 Android flagships. From your thread:

We have started mass production wafers in 14-nanometer. So, in 14-nanometer, our progress is well on track, including process and the yields. Here we're talking when I mention yields being on track, this is for a very advanced product. It'll be our most advanced applications processor. Yielding at full specifications targets with all of the characteristics for speed and power as well.

 

[krumme]

S810 geekbenchscores here
http://m.gsmarena.com/ces_2015_lg-review-1187p3.php
2ghz a57