Samsung's new M3 Cores: Super Wide, True Apple Competitors at Last?

[DocSwag]

20 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

Well, double the performance will put the single core performance on par and multi core performance about 20% ahead. However, it was "up to" double the performance, so only time will tell.

Multi core is questionable though. I doubt Samsung will put four M3 cores in there since that would probably draw too much power. And it's unclear how powerful the low power cores (which will probably be A53 or A55s) will be.

[Trixanity]

45 minutes ago, DocSwag said:

Multi core is questionable though. I doubt Samsung will put four M3 cores in there since that would probably draw too much power. And it's unclear how powerful the low power cores (which will probably be A53 or A55s) will be.

It's most likely still a 4+4 config which would be M3 and A55. There are many ways to handle power consumption. Even a throttled M3 core would be significantly faster than an A55 core. However it's hard to tell multi core scores as Apple's efficiency cores are twice the size of A53 and A55 isn't any bigger if I recall correctly. That and only half the cores will be M3. A55 is only 15% faster than A53 but M3 is twice as fast as A73. In addition, there's scheduling, power management and even uncore stuff that throws a wrench into guessing scores. The only reason single core scores are so obvious is that it's just one M3 core so it's straight forward to calculate although I suspect we won't see it actually running at 2.9 GHz in an S9 so absolute performance shouldn't be expected. It's still up there of course. I think 2.5 GHz might be more realistic but one can only be pleasently surprised if it boosts higher.

[Sniperfox47]

10 hours ago, Trixanity said:

I think 2.5 GHz might be more realistic but one can only be pleasently surprised if it boosts higher.

Unless when boosting higher it pulls more current at a higher voltage than the battery can supply, kernel panics, and bootloops *cough*Nexus6P*cough*

 

This reply written on my Nexus 6P

[DocSwag]

14 hours ago, Trixanity said:

It's most likely still a 4+4 config which would be M3 and A55. There are many ways to handle power consumption. Even a throttled M3 core would be significantly faster than an A55 core. However it's hard to tell multi core scores as Apple's efficiency cores are twice the size of A53 and A55 isn't any bigger if I recall correctly. That and only half the cores will be M3. A55 is only 15% faster than A53 but M3 is twice as fast as A73. In addition, there's scheduling, power management and even uncore stuff that throws a wrench into guessing scores. The only reason single core scores are so obvious is that it's just one M3 core so it's straight forward to calculate although I suspect we won't see it actually running at 2.9 GHz in an S9 so absolute performance shouldn't be expected. It's still up there of course. I think 2.5 GHz might be more realistic but one can only be pleasently surprised if it boosts higher.

Of course, it's also possible Samsung could implement a turbo boost thing so that it boosts higher (2.8-2.9 ghz) when on 1 or two cores but only 2.5 on 4 cores. I seem to recall someone in the mobile space (it might've been Samsung) trying that and failing though so who knows...

 

I guess only time will tell. I'm just uncertain if they'll use 4 cores partially because of die space reasons.

[DanielMDA]

16 hours ago, DocSwag said:

Is it really that power efficient though? IIRC The K1 was only used in tablets and stuff where there's more thermal dissipation so I'm not sure if it's really good for use in smartphones.

It'll beat the 8895 and maybe the 845 by a fair bit, but I personally doubt it'll beat the A11.

We can expect a 80-100% performance uplift in ST with a 40-60% uplift on MT and add the 55-60% IPC Increase, with all of that and 6GB of RAM, it might just be enough to beat the A11 by a small margin. ALseo the Sapdragon 835, 845 and Exynos 8895 had a drastically different chip designed, it essentially had 2 Quad-Core (2X High Efficiency Cores and 2X High Performance Cores per Module)  CPU`s that acted together (kind of like SLI or CCX on Zen) so it limited per core scalability, not to count the fact that it was lkess robust and wide as explained in this post. With the new FPU and ALU`s it will be way faster.

[79wjd]

10 minutes ago, DanielMDA said:

We can expect a 80-100% performance uplift in ST with a 40-60% uplift on MT and add the 55-60% IPC Increase, with all of that and 6GB of RAM, it might just be enough to beat the A11 by a small margin. ALseo the Sapdragon 835, 845 and Exynos 8895 had a drastically different chip designed, it essentially had 2 Quad-Core (2X High Efficiency Cores and 2X High Performance Cores per Module)  CPU`s that acted together (kind of like SLI or CCX on Zen) so it limited per core scalability, not to count the fact that it was lkess robust and wide as explained in this post. With the new FPU and ALU`s it will be way faster.

It's double the single threaded performance including the IPC bump. 

Quote

The Exynos 9810 was one of the first big announcements for 2018 and it was quite an exciting one. Samsung’s claims of doubling single-threaded performance was definitely an eye-catching moment and got a lot of attention. The new SoC sports four of Samsung’s third-generation Exynos M3 custom architecture cores running at up to 2.9GHz, alongside four Cortex A55 cores at 1.9GHz.

 

[Trixanity]

14 minutes ago, DanielMDA said:

We can expect a 80-100% performance uplift in ST with a 40-60% uplift on MT and add the 55-60% IPC Increase, with all of that and 6GB of RAM, it might just be enough to beat the A11 by a small margin. ALseo the Sapdragon 835, 845 and Exynos 8895 had a drastically different chip designed, it essentially had 2 Quad-Core (2X High Efficiency Cores and 2X High Performance Cores per Module)  CPU`s that acted together (kind of like SLI or CCX on Zen) so it limited per core scalability, not to count the fact that it was lkess robust and wide as explained in this post. With the new FPU and ALU`s it will be way faster.

Correction: big.LITTLE works in rigid clusters and therefore can only have the same core config in the same cluster. 

 

DynamIQ changes that and loses the clusters in favor of a modular interconnect. And that's probably the closest you can get to a comparison to Zen and Infinity Fabric but honestly they're still very different. 

 

Samsung will most likely still use the same 4+4 config even if they have the freedom to configure it any way they want.

[DocSwag]

1 hour ago, DanielMDA said:

We can expect a 80-100% performance uplift in ST with a 40-60% uplift on MT and add the 55-60% IPC Increase, with all of that and 6GB of RAM, it might just be enough to beat the A11 by a small margin.

The double single thread performance includes frequency and IPC increase. I'm not sure where you're getting these MT numbers from.

1 hour ago, DanielMDA said:

ALseo the Sapdragon 835, 845 and Exynos 8895 had a drastically different chip designed, it essentially had 2 Quad-Core (2X High Efficiency Cores and 2X High Performance Cores per Module)  CPU`s that acted together (kind of like SLI or CCX on Zen) so it limited per core scalability, not to count the fact that it was lkess robust and wide as explained in this post. With the new FPU and ALU`s it will be way faster.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. The split cores you're talking about is big.LITTLE and has been around for quite a while. Qualcomm has been using it since the snapdragon 810, Samsung since the 7420 (I'm not sure if they used it before that, since I didn't follow stuff back then), and Apple since the A10 Fusion. It's not a new thing from this gen. It's meant to improve performance and efficiency by using high power cores when doing stuff that requires performance and using efficient cores during times that don't really require much performance.

[DanielMDA]

21 hours ago, DocSwag said:

The double single thread performance includes frequency and IPC increase. I'm not sure where you're getting these MT numbers from.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. The split cores you're talking about is big.LITTLE and has been around for quite a while. Qualcomm has been using it since the snapdragon 810, Samsung since the 7420 (I'm not sure if they used it before that, since I didn't follow stuff back then), and Apple since the A10 Fusion. It's not a new thing from this gen. It's meant to improve performance and efficiency by using high power cores when doing stuff that requires performance and using efficient cores during times that don't really require much performance.

Im preety sure my old Nexus 5X's Snapdragon 808 had that designd but in Hexa Core config

[DocSwag]

26 minutes ago, DanielMDA said:

Im preety sure my old Nexus 5X's Snapdragon 808 had that designd but in Hexa Core config

Yes it did. 808 came around the same generation as 810 so I only mentioned the 810 since they were the same gen.

[DanielMDA]

2 hours ago, DocSwag said:

Yes it did. 808 came around the same generation as 810 so I only mentioned the 810 since they were the same gen.

Hey I am in High School and im interesed un Computer Architecture

 

[Heesleemer]

random note - what happened to phones with intel cpus - i do remember they existed at some point

[DrMacintosh]

On 1/24/2018 at 5:14 AM, LAwLz said:

1) iOS is optimized for the specific processor used in the iPhones.

2) That iOS requires less resources to run than Android.

1.) Thats pretty self explanatory, Apple designs these chips to go into each new phone and the iOS version it’s expected to ship with. They do not just slap something together and use it without any thought

2.) iOS has always required less resources to run.

 

 

[DrMacintosh]

On 1/24/2018 at 6:30 AM, LAwLz said:

Whoever decided that 4:3 was a good aspect ratio for a tablet deserves to be fired.

That’s the preferred productivity aspect ratio for most getting work done. 

[Drak3]

15 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

That’s the preferred productivity aspect ratio for most getting work done. 

3:2 is a much better aspect ratio.

 

And most work that is feasibly done on tablet either sees no difference or works better as 3:2 or 16:9. 

[DrMacintosh]

2 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

3:2 is a much better aspect ratio.

Your opinion 

[DocSwag]

22 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

1.) Thats pretty self explanatory, Apple designs these chips to go into each new phone and the iOS version it’s expected to ship with. They do not just slap something together and use it without any thought

2.) iOS has always required less resources to run.

 

 

IIRC that video shows that Android and iOS actually only use a similar amount of RAM

[Drak3]

2 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

Your opinion 

So that's why every company that makes a professional geared tablet uses either 16:9, 8:5, or 3:2, with the only exception being Apple's iPad Pro.

[Trixanity]

1 hour ago, Heesleemer said:

random note - what happened to phones with intel cpus - i do remember they existed at some point

Intel stopped developing them. Atom-based processors didn't compete well and the SoCs didn't offer as good a feature set. Intel were throwing a lot of money into a bottomless pit essentially. They subsidized them heavily but Qualcomm gave better incentives overall. Eventually Intel realized they couldn't make a dent in the market and gave up. 

 

Intel were too late and didn't have the technology to compete at the time. I'd honestly say they have a better chance today with their current modems if they integrated it onto a Core-based low power SoC. But reality is that the ship has sailed and it would cost too much to attempt again. It would cost at least few billion to even try but probably more to succeed. 

 

With that being said, I don't think the rewards are big enough. It's a high volume market but the margins aren't as big as Intel would like. Besides, Qualcomm would use every trick they can come up with to keep Intel out. They've done it once before and they'll do it again.

[Coaxialgamer]

On 1/23/2018 at 11:27 PM, Stefan1024 said:

Haha, I like how the bars of the division and FP just fades out to hide how much more time they actually need.

Also, let me know how large the performance gain is after patching for specter and meltdown....

well the thing is , both of those actually don't have a set cycle length . Integer Division can take up to 21. OOOE mitigates that though

[DrMacintosh]

1 hour ago, Drak3 said:

So that's why every company that makes a professional geared tablet uses either 16:9, 8:5, or 3:2

And what companies would those be?

[DrMacintosh]

1 hour ago, DocSwag said:

IIRC that video shows that Android and iOS actually only use a similar amount of RAM

Not entirely true 

[Drak3]

3 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

And what companies would those be?

Samsung

Microsoft

Wacom

Panasonic

Dell

Elo

Huion

Lenovo

So on and so forth.

[DrMacintosh]

1 minute ago, Drak3 said:

Samsung

Microsoft

Wacom

Only these companies have any market presence, and only Samsung and Microsoft make Tablets. Wacom makes drawing tablets, not tablet tablets. 

[79wjd]

2 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

Only these companies have any market presence, and only Samsung and Microsoft make Tablets. Wacom makes drawing tablets, not tablet tablets. 

The iPad Pro is only "pro" because of the drawing aspect. Otherwise it's just another iteration of an ipad. Those are the perfect devices to be comparing it to.