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

  • lukarak - Wednesday, September 18, 2013 - link

    Market share should not be viewed as only units shipped. That's at best secondary.
  • sfaerew - Wednesday, September 18, 2013 - link

    Benchmarks(GFXBench 2.7,3DMark.Basemark X.etc.) are AArch64 version?
    There are 30~40% performance gap between v32geekbench and v64geekbench.
    INT(ST)1471 vs 1065.
    FP(ST)1339 vs 983
  • iwod - Wednesday, September 18, 2013 - link

    Two things I really want to know i wish someone could answer me.

    1. Faster NAND? The 5 wont exactly market leading in NAND performance.

    2. How did Apple manage to fit in more bands in iPhone and everything on the wireless side were the same. Specially it was one of the reasons not to support 2600Mhz when iPhone 5 debut.
  • damianrobertjones - Wednesday, September 18, 2013 - link

    " In many cases the A7's dual cores were competitive with Intel's recently announced Bay Trail SoC"

    Do you mean, "In the limited cross platform tests, which were mainly web based using a different browser, the Apple phone still didn't win in many tests"?
  • xype - Wednesday, September 18, 2013 - link

    Ooh, I get it. You’re implying the A7 sucks! Heheee, clever!
  • mschira - Wednesday, September 18, 2013 - link

    Hold on, Bay Trail and AMD A4-5000 are not desktop grade performance but rather lowest end notebook performance.
    So while it may be fast for a phone, calling it desktop performance is simply ridiculous.

    Now with Apples claims in mind I am VERY scared that Apple might soon decide that the iOS is ready for prime time and replace the proper Unix type OSX with that Micky Mouse system. They will probably start with the 11" mac book air machines (whom I love deeply!).

    I wish this day is far in the future but I have a bad bad feeling.
  • Qwertilot - Wednesday, September 18, 2013 - link

    Baytrail is better than that :) Its due to be pushed a fair way up the heirarchy of cheaper desk/laptops. Probably with faster clocks/graphics etc than the one tested here of course. (Which is I think the tablet version?).

    With the core count/clock speeds on the A7 both relatively low it looks unarguable that you could build a very good budget laptop chip from this. More a matter of whether there's any motivation for Apple to do so, which is somewhat less obvious.
  • ShAdOwXPR - Wednesday, September 18, 2013 - link

    Wait for the iPad 5 numbers...
  • Sampath.Kambar - Wednesday, September 18, 2013 - link

    Hi Anand,

    I don't understand, why your reviews have never included "Nokia Lumia" Series of Phones for comparison.!! Are not they smartphones?
  • ddriver - Wednesday, September 18, 2013 - link

    He said it is because he doesn't have one. And at any rate, all current lumias are immensely underpowered devices, they only stand a chance in the camera department, which is hardly th 5s' main selling point. Maybe the 1520 will finally step up with a better CPU.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now