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

  • stacey94 - Wednesday, September 18, 2013 - link

    I'm sure Qualcomm and Google are in contact and work together on these things. Google seems have have moved almost exclusively to Qcom SoCs on their devices. If KitKat brings 64-bit and ARMv8 support, I'm sure Qualcomm knows about it and the next gen Snapdragons will take advantage of it.
  • steven75 - Thursday, September 19, 2013 - link

    This dude's got some SERIOUS Apple-envy.

    Btw, GarageBand, iPhoto, and iMovie will love the CPU headroom.
  • Eug - Wednesday, September 18, 2013 - link

    Excellent review, Anand, as always. I too am getting an iPhone 5C, but re: iPhone 4 with iOS 7. I will say I was very pleasantly surprised by the performance of iOS 7.0 on the iPhone 4. I think it's very usable for UI navigation most of the time. There are occasional lags, but they were also there in iOS 6, albeit slightly less often in iOS 6. Where it really feels more consistently slow is internet surfing and the like. Overall though, my wife considers the iPhone 4 with iOS 7 to be reasonably speedy, because she does not do a lot of internet browsing on the phone, or gaming.

    Actually, a few things are actually a bit faster on the iPhone 4 in iOS 7 than iOS 6.1.3. For example, SunSpider 1.0.1 is about 2725 in iOS 7, but about 2975 in iOS 6. That's almost a 10% improvement.

    So, while I personally would recommend nothing less than a 4S if getting a new phone for iOS 7, and preferably a 5C, for those existing users with the iPhone 4, don't throw it away just yet, because you might be surprised just how reasonable it is, especially if you are happy with it in iOS 6.
  • Eug - Wednesday, September 18, 2013 - link

    Ooops. I meant I am getting a 5S. We geeks "need" the 5S, but slower iDevices are still quite usable. It's amazing just how much Apple has been able optimize iOS 7 for such ancient hardware.
  • notddriver - Thursday, September 19, 2013 - link

    I love that we live in a world where 2-3 years old counts as seriously ancient.
  • ltcommanderdata - Wednesday, September 18, 2013 - link

    Do you have any data on NAND speed improvements? ChAIR said level asset loading was 5x faster in the iPhone 5s during their Infinity Blade III demo. Is that just CPU/GPU/RAM based or also due to NAND speed? Faster NAND could also be contributing to the good photo burst mode performance and 720p120 video support.
  • jeffkibuule - Wednesday, September 18, 2013 - link

    I'm still wondering when Apple will be taking advantage of their Anobit acquisition. I'd like to see some real NAND controllers in iOS devices if they don't suck up tons of power.
  • tipoo - Wednesday, September 18, 2013 - link

    Yeah, I was curious about that, how did it get 5x faster? That seems too huge a jump for one NAND generation?
  • pankajparikh - Wednesday, September 18, 2013 - link

    Hi Anand big fan...can you confirm if the 5S supports LTE in India?
  • rchangek - Wednesday, September 18, 2013 - link

    You can get Hong Kong model A1530 that supports 39, 39, 40.
    These will support LTE bands 38, 39, 40 and I think Airtel is on band 40.
    There are reports of (yet) unmentioned models for China A1516 and A1518 that will support bands 38, 39, 40 for LTE. However, it would be interesting to see if they will support UMTS alongside TD-SCDMA for 3G.
    http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-6452_7-57602366/unann...

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now