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

  • cknobman - Wednesday, September 18, 2013 - link

    Here is the long/short of this an every other Apple review.

    Anand (and any other reviewer), whether consciously or sub-consciously, is compelled to write a Apple product review that spins everything in a positive or "not too negative, glass half full" light no matter what the facts really are.

    Why? Because if he (they) don't they will be pulled from Apples teet and no longer given their products pre-release (and likely for free) to review.
  • repoman27 - Wednesday, September 18, 2013 - link

    Here is the long and short of this and any other review posted online these days:

    Whatever is said by the reviewer, the comments section is flooded with posts by whiney haters, obsequious fanboys and a good dose of trolling from both sides.

    If you're talking about Anandtech reviews, you are presented with a considerable amount of empirical data combined with a pretty solid technical analysis as well as subjective impressions. If you disagree with the reviewer's conclusions, believe that certain data points are erroneous, or feel that their subjective impressions are biased, why not present your own research, analysis or hands on experiences?

    What are the facts? That you don't enjoy seeing positive reviews of Apple products and are therefore suggesting that the only way they could be garnering such praise is due to a breach of journalistic integrity for the sake of getting a couple phones one week before the general public? Face it, the way the review system works (aside from Consumer Reports) is that the OEMs provide review samples in the hopes of getting positive press for cheap, and the reviewers need to cover the latest kit first so they can attract as many eyeballs as possible to their publications in order to generate ad revenue.
  • Dug - Wednesday, September 18, 2013 - link

    repoman27- Couldn't have said it better myself.

    cknobman- if something is better than wouldn't that be positive? Or should Anand just make snide comments about Apple to make you happy. I don't see how getting 50% more performance would be looked at any other way.
  • darkcrayon - Wednesday, September 18, 2013 - link

    Whiners hate it when the facts present a pro-Apple bias.
  • Streamlined - Thursday, September 19, 2013 - link

    Great comment. The design and engineering by Apple is at such a level that anyone who refuses to acknowledge it is a blind hater looking for something to gripe about.
  • drtaxsacto - Wednesday, September 18, 2013 - link

    Thanks very much for such a thorough review. The detailed benchmarks and other comments were well done.
  • mattyroze - Wednesday, September 18, 2013 - link

    The first page is all about the color and case. Shouldn't that be the last page? If at all? This tells me the iPhone 5S is nothing more than a status update in the world of device computing. Thanks
  • scottwilkins - Wednesday, September 18, 2013 - link

    I would have REALLY liked to have seen a Nokia put in the mix of these test. Especially with camera and display, if not power and all others too.
  • Abelard - Wednesday, September 18, 2013 - link

    Thanks for the review. The A7 and M7 combo sound intriguing. Can't wait for the Chipworks folks to take a closer look and post some pics. I wonder what (if anything) Apple has in mind for the M7...
  • ianmolynz - Wednesday, September 18, 2013 - link

    An interesting review but largely academic [Ferrari versus Porsche] Most people use their devices to communicate so the real performance bottleneck is always going to be the external cellular and data services they connect to. All the devices listed have good to great graphical performance so unless an app or mobile site is poorly architectured you won't get much in the way of on-device latency. We as consumers are spoilt for choice so it really comes down to personal preference.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now