Standard off the shelf IP?When will ARM cores go beyond the standard 128b vector length?
Standard off the shelf IP?
Who knows, maybe V4 will have it.
As for non off the shelf ARM cores Fujitsu's A64FX core designed for a supercomputer system has 2x 512 bit SVE units.
Its successor Monaka due in 2027 is likely to follow a similar design, possibly up to 4x 512 bit SVE2 units going by their 2x perf projection.
During SC22 Fujitsu showed this: https://www.fujitsu.com/global/products/computing/servers/supercomputer/topics/sc22/2x is compared to "2027 competitor", not A64FX. Monaka is less specifically HPC-focused than A64FX is, and I wouldn't be surprised if Fujitsu does not increase per-core vector throughput - and I could even see them reducing it.
During SC22 Fujitsu showed this: https://www.fujitsu.com/global/products/computing/servers/supercomputer/topics/sc22/
One of documents talks about Monaka. Another one talks about "Next-generation Supercomputing Infrastructures". The latter doesn't mention Monaka but talks about "Fugaku-Next" around 2030.
So I agree it's unlikely Monaka will have wider vectors and I bet as you they will reduce the width to put more cores on a single die.
Reducing to less than 2x 512 bit?2x is compared to "2027 competitor", not A64FX. Monaka is less specifically HPC-focused than A64FX is, and I wouldn't be surprised if Fujitsu does not increase per-core vector throughput - and I could even see them reducing it.
Reducing to less than 2x 512 bit?
Intel is already there or beyond that for some time now in the server SKUs.
Anyone who wants less can just go for off the shelf Neoverse IP.
While I agree it's unlikely that Fujitsu will go to 1,024 bit units I don't see them reducing to 256 bit units when the competition at the lower end is so well established, and I don't see Neoverse V staying at 128 bit indefinitely if ARM have any intentions of eventually snagging more supercomputer contracts, so Fujitsu will need something to differentiate themselves from the OTS IP.
Yeah A14 IPC is right. A17 and M3 have about 12-14% more IPC even at their higher frequencies.Hoho, now that I have the numbers (PPC), I think I can interpret what he said:
- Qualcomm's custom core is basically the same as Apple A14 in terms of IPC, which is slightly better than Cortex-X4: Yes, my number aligns with what he said, see the table above with A14's IPC
If that’s true then I wonder what power looks like.
- Cortex-X5's IPC will surpass Apple, according to the leaked score of 1930 GB5 and 2700 GB6 @ 3.35GHz: Yes, D9400's IPC/PPC is 5% higher than A17 Pro.
Yeah I mean if Arm pulls something off here where they match Apple IPC AND get their power under control, even if it’s a huge area hit which is worthwhile, then it would be almost comical timing RE: Phoenix core
- If X5 manages power well, Nuvia can only explode to surpass: With lowest clock speed, I am not too worried about thermal power. And Phoenix core is really behind Cortex-X5 in ST, even you OC, it is still the same IPC, Qualcomm has to hope for Pegasus core to increase IPC...
Link to to the board maker: http://radxa.com/products/nio/12l/Looks like we have the first A78 SBC
Yeah A14 IPC is right. A17 and M3 have about 12-14% more IPC even at their higher frequencies.
D9300's Cortex-X4 comes with high power because they are made by N4X process based on Wiki. Now we know why Mediatek insists of 4P+4E with HPC process. Mediatek is treating D9300 as PC SoC and it is all because of WoA....If that’s true then I wonder what power looks like.
Usually wider, smarter cores (not always but assuming they were done correctly) are more efficient for the same performance but it’s always possible Apple has them matched on power — the X5 in the D9400 rumor was not good on that note — albeit for more performance (2900 GB6 can be found). Would be a rare case but it absolutely is possible especially given Apple’s memory hierarchy and L2/SLC sizes.
Yeah I mean if Arm pulls something off here where they match Apple IPC AND get their power under control, even if it’s a huge area hit which is worthwhile, then it would be almost comical timing RE: Phoenix core
N4X? Plausible. That explains Mediatek's claim that D9300 is fabbed on '3rd generation 4nm process'.D9300's Cortex-X4 comes with high power because they are made by N4X process based on Wiki.
It is not N4x. N4X is extremely leaky. It’s N4P.What's your IPC numbers come from? SPECint?
D9300's Cortex-X4 comes with high power because they are made by N4X process based on Wiki. Now we know why Mediatek insists of 4P+4E with HPC process. Mediatek is treating D9300 as PC SoC and it is all because of WoA....
That's why I said D9400 with N3E would be more power efficient than D9300...
Then what on earth is "3rd generation 4nm process" that Mediatek says is used for D9300?It is not N4x. N4X is extremely leaky. It’s N4P.
Then what on earth is "3rd generation 4nm process" that Mediatek says is used for D9300?
If D9300 is indeed N4P, the alternative theory is this:
D9000 : N4E
D9200 : N4
D9300 : N4P
Expect to see one from Apple using their unsold base 8GB/256GB M1/M2 chips if they don't bury them in a landfill...Will we ever see an ARM powered console anytime soon?
As in normal consoles (xbox/ps form factor) or handhelds (steam deck-like).
Will we ever see an ARM powered console anytime soon?
As in normal consoles (xbox/ps form factor) or handhelds (steam deck-like).
Yeah, the Switch is more popular than the Deck and Xbox combined. It’s a massive market of ARM.Why are we excluding the Switch/Switch2...?
Expect to see one from Apple using their unsold base 8GB/256GB M1/M2 chips if they don't bury them in a landfill...
Yes! Cheap console for the masses!Worst case if they did they could stick them in the next update of Apple TV. Since it supports games I guess if you want to call that a "console" you could.
Apple really just doesn’t care much for games, and while the recent MacOS update with the porting toolchain and up scaling would seem to prove otherwise I think that’s a very low bar relative to Apple’s warchest.