After Swift Comes Cyclone Oscar

I was fortunate enough to receive a tip last time that pointed me at some LLVM documentation calling out Apple’s Swift core by name. Scrubbing through those same docs, it seems like my leak has been plugged. Fortunately I came across a unique string looking at the iPhone 5s while it booted:

I can’t find any other references to Oscar online, in LLVM documentation or anywhere else of value. I also didn’t see Oscar references on prior iPhones, only on the 5s. I’d heard that this new core wasn’t called Swift, referencing just how different it was. Obviously Apple isn’t going to tell me what it’s called, so I’m going with Oscar unless someone tells me otherwise.

Oscar is a CPU core inside M7, Cyclone is the name of the Swift replacement.

Cyclone likely resembles a beefier Swift core (or at least Swift inspired) than a new design from the ground up. That means we’re likely talking about a 3-wide front end, and somewhere in the 5 - 7 range of execution ports. The design is likely also capable of out-of-order execution, given the performance levels we’ve been seeing.

Cyclone is a 64-bit ARMv8 core and not some Apple designed ISA. Cyclone manages to not only beat all other smartphone makers to ARMv8 but also key ARM server partners. I’ll talk about the whole 64-bit aspect of this next, but needless to say, this is a big deal.

The move to ARMv8 comes with some of its own performance enhancements. More registers, a cleaner ISA, improved SIMD extensions/performance as well as cryptographic acceleration are all on the menu for the new core.

Pipeline depth likely remains similar (maybe slightly longer) as frequencies haven’t gone up at all (1.3GHz). The A7 doesn’t feature support for any thermal driven CPU (or GPU) frequency boost.

The most visible change to Apple’s first ARMv8 core is a doubling of the L1 cache size: from 32KB/32KB (instruction/data) to 64KB/64KB. Along with this larger L1 cache comes an increase in access latency (from 2 clocks to 3 clocks from what I can tell), but the increase in hit rate likely makes up for the added latency. Such large L1 caches are quite common with AMD architectures, but unheard of in ultra mobile cores. A larger L1 cache will do a good job keeping the machine fed, implying a larger/more capable core.

The L2 cache remains unchanged in size at 1MB shared between both CPU cores. L2 access latency is improved tremendously with the new architecture. In some cases I measured L2 latency 1/2 that of what I saw with Swift.

The A7’s memory controller sees big improvements as well. I measured 20% lower main memory latency on the A7 compared to the A6. Branch prediction and memory prefetchers are both significantly better on the A7.

I noticed large increases in peak memory bandwidth on top of all of this. I used a combination of custom tools as well as publicly available benchmarks to confirm all of this. A quick look at Geekbench 3 (prior to the ARMv8 patch) gives a conservative estimate of memory bandwidth improvements:

Geekbench 3.0.0 Memory Bandwidth Comparison (1 thread)
  Stream Copy Stream Scale Stream Add Stream Triad
Apple A7 1.3GHz 5.24 GB/s 5.21 GB/s 5.74 GB/s 5.71 GB/s
Apple A6 1.3GHz 4.93 GB/s 3.77 GB/s 3.63 GB/s 3.62 GB/s
A7 Advantage 6% 38% 58% 57%

We see anywhere from a 6% improvement in memory bandwidth to nearly 60% running the same Stream code. I’m not entirely sure how Geekbench implemented Stream and whether or not we’re actually testing other execution paths in addition to (or instead of) memory bandwidth. One custom piece of code I used to measure memory bandwidth showed nearly a 2x increase in peak bandwidth. That may be overstating things a bit, but needless to say this new architecture has a vastly improved cache and memory interface.

Looking at low level Geekbench 3 results (again, prior to the ARMv8 patch), we get a good feel for just how much the CPU cores have improved.

Geekbench 3.0.0 Compute Performance
  Integer (ST) Integer (MT) FP (ST) FP (MT)
Apple A7 1.3GHz 1065 2095 983 1955
Apple A6 1.3GHz 750 1472 588 1165
A7 Advantage 42% 42% 67% 67%

Integer performance is up 44% on average, while floating point performance is up by 67%. Again this is without 64-bit or any other enhancements that go along with ARMv8. Memory bandwidth improves by 35% across all Geekbench tests. I confirmed with Apple that the A7 has a 64-bit wide memory interface, and we're likely talking about LPDDR3 memory this time around so there's probably some frequency uplift there as well.

The result is something Apple refers to as desktop-class CPU performance. I’ll get to evaluating those claims in a moment, but first, let’s talk about the other big part of the A7 story: the move to a 64-bit ISA.

A7 SoC Explained The Move to 64-bit
Comments Locked

464 Comments

View All Comments

  • Srinij - Thursday, September 19, 2013 - link

    We need to include the Xiaomi Mi3 when its out, its touted as the fastest.
  • koruki - Thursday, September 19, 2013 - link

    Some test show its slower than a Samsung S3
  • Shadowmaster625 - Thursday, September 19, 2013 - link

    Who wants to bet that we will see a 10x increase in the number of robberies that involve limb amputation over the next 5 years?
  • dugbug - Thursday, September 19, 2013 - link

    you think its easier to remove a finger from someone than threatening them to unlock their phone (which could be done with any pascode-based phone). Really. Jesus.
  • koruki - Thursday, September 19, 2013 - link

    I'll take that bet.
    "But Apple promises that its reader can sense beyond the top layer of a user’s skin, and includes a “liveness” test that prevents even a severed finger from being used to access a stolen phone."

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/09/...
  • hasseb64 - Thursday, September 19, 2013 - link

    MEH, Iphone 5x main problems:
    -Small battery
    -Screen to narrow, need 5mm width

    Fix this Apple and you maight get a new deal here
  • nitemareglitch - Thursday, September 19, 2013 - link

    Still my number one site for deep dives on hardware. As always, you do NOT disappoint. I am going to upgrade now! You convinced me. I am sold.
  • av13 - Thursday, September 19, 2013 - link

    Anand, thanks a lot. Having worked with IBM iSeries systems since 2000 - RS65 III or iStar and now Power systems I was stunned when techies and investors alike were shrugging off Apple's transition to 64 bit. The fact that the A7 is RISC based and 64 bit its performance is going to show in single threaded and multi-threaded apps. It was even funny when some experts quipped that the 5s has to have at least 4 GB for the 64 bit to make sense. I was very encouraged that at least Apple decided on this roadmap.
    Great analysis by you - as usual - Yawn!
  • petersterncan - Thursday, September 19, 2013 - link

    I would really like to see how these phones stack up against the Blackberry Z10, Q10 and Z30.

    Are you considering reviewing those any time soon?
  • ScottMinnerd - Thursday, September 19, 2013 - link

    Please excuse my ignorance, but can someone please explain how a JS-based benchmark is any indication of the quality of a CPU?

    There's so much abstraction between JS code and the CPU registers that you might as well benchmark the performances of a Ferarri vs. a school bus while they're driving over mattresses and broken glass respectively. On the same browser on the same operating system on the same motherboard using the same RAM and the same bus architecture, yes, JS code could give a relevant basis for comparison of CPUs.

    Also, does the included iOS browser have a multi-threaded JS engine? Does the Android's?

    If one were to run 4 or 8 instances of the benchmark test simultaneously, how would each instance perform on each device having each CPU? Would the metric be higher on the 4+ core devices?

    If Apple is leveraging a multithreaded JS engine, or a 64-bit optimized JS engine (or both), then the quality of the CPUs depends upon a given workload. The workload on a phone in the real world is rarely solely JS-based. Testing the performance of JS and then implying that the iPhone (or its CPU) is superior in general is not only misleading, but toadying.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now