I wouldn't take it as revolutionary movement.Microsoft is making it easier for developers to port/develop apps for Windows On ARM
The lack of SMT in client won't be significant enough for gaming. Vulkan/DX12 gaming leans more to SMT=Off having the highest FPS.
ARM can lean towards more energy efficiency with aiming for dead/gated units. Rather than completely filled units and thrashed regs/renames/caches/etc.
The real issue will be discrete GPUs. Since, both ARM's and Qualcomm's solutions are laptop leaning. So, it is going to hit that iGPU wall where x86-64 desktop can just slap latest phat dGPU in.
The only case for a successful ARM takeover for PC gaming is not adopting SMT but rather getting into the desktop market. Where CN gets it, Qualcomm/ARM will most likely never get it.
View attachment 95023
As well as SMT being replaced by BT [Bulk threading]. Ideal solution is >4 Cortex-X prime cores and >8 Cortex-A energy efficient dense option cores.
View attachment 95117
Where most of the back-end for games are being switched to bulk cores(Cortex A) while the front-end is handled by prime cores(Cortex X).
The biggest of ifs.If X5 manages power well
it doesn't.The biggest of ifs.
yes fmax still bad. the crux of ARM issues really.And what do you care if it's an IPC "king" if it clocks lower and uses more power than Everest to get a lower score?
Cortex X5 in D9400.
phone vendors need Jesus15W phone SOC peak power
QC tried (Snapdragon 7c, wasn't it?).Nah, it's about time we took these 15W SoCs out of phones and slapped them into laptops!
But MediaTek doesn't shy away from making a SoC even if it doesn't make sense.QC tried (Snapdragon 7c, wasn't it?).
The I/O is too castrated to be useful outside of phones.
Snapdragon 7c was a travesty.QC tried (Snapdragon 7c, wasn't it?).
The I/O is too castrated to be useful outside of phones.
Oh absolutely, but they haven't tried doing Chromebook travesties much so far.But MediaTek doesn't shy away from making a SoC even if it doesn't make sense.
It's a mainstream phone SoC and had it originally.That thing had a gutted 32 bit memory bus.
*midrange phone SoC.It's a mainstream phone SoC and had it originally.
Mainstream.midrange phone SoC.
Those don't have any I/O either.I was talking about flagship phone SoCs (Snapdragon 8 series, Dimensity 9000 series)
X-Elite @ 4GHz scores about 2700 in GB6 1T, supposedly the same core used in upcoming 8G4.Cortex X5 D9400 - 2700 GB6 @3.35 GHz doesn't sound good.
For comparison, Cortex X4 8G3 FG - 2300 @3.4 GHz.
How many more IO you need in tablet/mainstream NB, 2 USBs, SDIO, HDMI should be standard...Mainstream.
Those don't have any I/O either.
Just like one or two USB roots and that's it.
No, the issue is that the IPC uplift is not good.X-Elite @ 4GHz scores about 2700 in GB6 1T, supposedly the same core used in upcoming 8G4.
If D9400 can achieve 2700 @ 3.35 GHz, I would say pretty impressive IPC in Cortex-X5, don't you think?
No, the issue is that the IPC uplift is not good.
That sounds like only a ~15% IPC uplift for Cortex X5 (vs X4). Which sounds mediocre when we had this article a few months ago...
RESEARCH NOTE: Arm’s “Blackhawk” CPU Is An Audacious Plan To Have The Best Smartphone CPU Core This Year
For years now, there has been what I consider a healthy, competitive tension between Arm CPU instruction set licensees and Arm’s pe-packaged and pre-validated IP licensees. (I am sure some licensees would challenge me on “healthy” given Apple’s performance.) I think it made sense that Arm would...moorinsightsstrategy.com
Conclusion: Either the 2700 GB6 ST leak for D9400 is fake, or
Arm CEO Rene Haas’s strategy to “eliminate the performance gap between Arm-designed processors and custom Arm implementations.” He did not say anything about "Custom ARM core killer" . He did say largest year-over-year IPC performance increase in 5 years.”ARM'S endeavour to create a "Custom ARM core killer" has failed.
| A14 | A15 | A16 | M3 | A17 Pro | A18 Pro | 8 Gen 3 FG | X-Elite G1 | X-Plus | 8 Gen 4 | D9400 | D9300 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GB6 1T | 2090 | 2310 | 2566 | 3084 | 2908 | 2300 | 2900 | 2425 | 2700 | 2225 | ||||
| Clock Speed | 2.99 GHz | 3.23 GHz | 3.46 GHz | 4.06 GHz | 3.78 GHz | 3.4 GHz | 4.2 GHz | 3.4 | 3.35 GHz | 3.25 GHz | ||||
| Perf Per Clock | 699 | 715 | 742 | 760 | 769 | 676 | 690 | 713 | 806 | 685 | ||||
| +% | + 15% | +13% | + 9% | + 6% | + 5% | + 19% | + 16% | Base | + 18% | |||||
| GB6 MT | 4838 | 5627 | 6562 | 11564 | 7235 | 7501 | 14029 | 7236 | ||||||
| Perf Per Core | 806 | 938 | 1094 | 1445 | 1206 | 938 | 1169 | 904 |
yep, gen 4 scoring higher than X elite is not possible especially when nearly the same coreThe 3500 is likely made up.
Yeah, 2800 makes more sense, and if the core is the same as X-Elite, we should be expecting 4GHz with 700 PPC. God, I can't believe Phoenix core is showing its ages before launching...Goood, Tigerick. Gooood.
*One caveat though: there are two GB6 ST scores circulating about the 8G4. 2800 and 3500. I am inclined to believe the former, as it's what most leakers (including Revegnus) have leaked. The 3500 is likely made up.
| Node | CPU Config | Total CPU Cores | CPU | Max CPU Speed | GB6 1T | PPC | GB6 MT | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A18 Pro | N3E | 2 + 4 | 6 | ? | Highest | 3500 ? | ? | |
| 8 Gen 4 | N3E | 2 + 6 | 8 | Phoenix | Second High | 2800 ? | ~700 ? | |
| D9400 | N3E | 1 + 3 + 4 | 8 | Cortex-X5 | 3.35 GHz | 2700 | 806 | |
| Exynos 2500-A | SF3 | 1 + 3 + 4 | 8 | Cortex-X5 | 3.2 GHz ? | ? | ? | |
| Exynos 2500-B Laptop | 1 + 5 + 4 | 10 |
No reason they shouldn't.Let's hope SF manage to launch Exynos 2500, if not all flagship SoC are going to be made by TSMC