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

  • melgross - Wednesday, September 18, 2013 - link

    Considering the differences in the multitasking implementations, 1GB for iOS is closer to 2GB for Android. It's not as much of an issue.
  • DarkXale - Wednesday, September 18, 2013 - link

    Considering iOS's tendency to reset everything that isn't in the foreground there is plenty of motivation for increasing RAM. As is, I cannot depend on iOS to remember what I was doing in an app as soon as I switch out of it. Even if its for just 2 seconds.

    On the iPad 4 you basically can't have multiple tabs open in Safari. If you browse or scroll, write anything, or trigger any javascript in them - it'll be undone once you move to another tab. That is, quite frankly, awful user experience. And thats purely down to RAM shortage.
  • Dug - Wednesday, September 18, 2013 - link

    Try a different browser. Others don't do what you are explaining so I don't think it's a ram shortage.
  • jeffkibuule - Wednesday, September 18, 2013 - link

    If I remember correctly, you need more RAM when running a virtual machine (then again, Windows Phone has a CLR and most of their phones have 1GB or less...).

    I honestly think it's because Android apps are allowed to run in the background without a care in the world, whereas on iOS, you must be performing a specific task the API allows to get that time. And if you are using too much memory, you get axed.
  • steven75 - Thursday, September 19, 2013 - link

    True on iOS 6, but no longer true on iOS 7.
  • danbob999 - Wednesday, September 18, 2013 - link

    I would have prefered a 32 bit CPU with more RAM.
  • KPOM - Tuesday, September 17, 2013 - link

    Nice thorough review as always, Anand.
  • juicytuna - Tuesday, September 17, 2013 - link

    That CPU is amazing. Higher IPC than A15 and without spending die area on implementing a complicated big.LITTLE scheme to keep power down. Have ARM and Qualcomm engineers been sleeping all this time? Their efforts look to be hopelessly outclassed by Apple. This is a big a feat as when intel dropped Conroe on the world.
  • ddriver - Wednesday, September 18, 2013 - link

    No they haven't been sleeping, they just know when enough is enough. What kind of applications are you running on a mobile phone? 3D MAX? MATLAB? ANSYS? Or are you just using it to jerk your vanity around facebook and take duckface photos in front of the bathroom mirror? I know most people are :) Surely, extra performance never hurts, and will likely improve battery life a bit, but knowing how much is "enough" never hurts on its own.

    ARM v8 transition is scheduled for all high-end products, apple just did it before it was optimal to impress its fanatical devotees and reinforce their blind belief in the brand. Just like it used exclusive deals with hardware vendors to bring new tech a little earlier than other manufacturers to give itself an "edge".

    The funny part is that if performance intensive applications were even available for mobile phones, the 5S will run into a brickwall with its single gigabyte of ram, because real-world workloads are nothing like those limited footprint benchmarks used in this review. I suspect the note 3 will actually score better in a heavy real-world application despite its slower CPU, because the moment the 5s runs out of memory swapping begins, and that speedy CPU will be brought to its knees because of the terrible storage bandwidth. Luckily, it is very unlikely to see any such applications for mobile phones, at least in the general public, in-house custom implementations are another matter.
  • dugbug - Wednesday, September 18, 2013 - link

    There is a review above that describes the benefits empirically. You may want to read it.

    Also, ARM was surely not asleep at the wheel, they created the outstanding V8 architecture and I am sure were very in the loop with apple. Qualcomm on the other hand are in a quandary as they need to wait for an OS to be ready for this. Windows phone perhaps?

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now