4 ms·

You're comparing peak single with all-core TDP/cores. Ryzen 2 cores peak at about 10 Watts per core...they probably have at least 30% frequency increase headroo

by phonon 6y ago

You're comparing peak single with all-core TDP/cores. Ryzen 2 cores peak at about 10 Watts per core...they probably have at least 30% frequency increase headroom...plus whatever bump they get when they move to 5 nm. I expect at least a 50% per core performance increase when they refresh their laptop/desktop lines, and probably twice the cores. And they'll also be saving a few hundred dollars per laptop...

kllrnohj 6y ago
Look at the A12's power/frequency chart: https://images.anandtech.com/doci/14892/a12-fvcurve.png https://images.anandtech.com/doci/14892/a12-fvcurve.png Increase frequency by 30% and the A12 will also be hitting 10 watts per core - the end of that graph is going real vertical real fast. Since Zen 2 and A12/A13 are all on the same TSMC process this shouldn't be that surprising... > I expect at least a 50% per core performance increase Based off of what evidence? That'd be an unheard of improvement. TSMC isn't even claiming anything close to that at a pure transitor switching frequency for 5nm? They are predicting 15% frequency gain (at the same complexity and power) or a 20% power reduction (at the same frequency and complexity) over their 7nm process.
- nicoburns 6y ago
  > They are predicting 15% frequency gain (at the same complexity and power) My intuition is that 50% might be overoptimistic. But going from iPad to Laptop thermal constraints, you'd expect a big increase in frequency just from clocking the thing higher, no?
  - imtringued 6y ago
    Apple would lose their edge over Intel because most of the efficiency gains come from the lower frequency.
    - nicoburns 6y ago
      > Apple would lose their edge over Intel because most of the efficiency gains come from the lower frequency. Presumably that would only apply when the cores are actually running at full-throttle though. For casual use there could still be considerable gains if the processors are better at power management (which they most likely are, as they've had to hyper-optimised for this for phones).
- phonon 6y ago
  I meant cumulatively. I'm assuming a "A14x+" on 5 nm. Comparison to A13. So a A14x+ (15 W+) 30% frequency increase vs A13, because of higher TDP + 10% IPC increase (larger caches, design tweaks) + 15% Frequency increase, due to 5 nm. A i7-1065G7 costs Apple something like $400. The A13 costs something like $60 to manufacture. Apple is highly motivated.

by phonon 6y ago

kllrnohj 6y ago

Look at the A12's power/frequency chart: https://images.anandtech.com/doci/14892/a12-fvcurve.png https://images.anandtech.com/doci/14892/a12-fvcurve.png Increase frequency by 30% and the A12 will also be hitting 10 watts per core - the end of that graph is going real vertical real fast. Since Zen 2 and A12/A13 are all on the same TSMC process this shouldn't be that surprising... > I expect at least a 50% per core performance increase Based off of what evidence? That'd be an unheard of improvement. TSMC isn't even claiming anything close to that at a pure transitor switching frequency for 5nm? They are predicting 15% frequency gain (at the same complexity and power) or a 20% power reduction (at the same frequency and complexity) over their 7nm process.

nicoburns 6y ago
> They are predicting 15% frequency gain (at the same complexity and power) My intuition is that 50% might be overoptimistic. But going from iPad to Laptop thermal constraints, you'd expect a big increase in frequency just from clocking the thing higher, no?
- imtringued 6y ago
  Apple would lose their edge over Intel because most of the efficiency gains come from the lower frequency.
  - nicoburns 6y ago
    > Apple would lose their edge over Intel because most of the efficiency gains come from the lower frequency. Presumably that would only apply when the cores are actually running at full-throttle though. For casual use there could still be considerable gains if the processors are better at power management (which they most likely are, as they've had to hyper-optimised for this for phones).
phonon 6y ago
I meant cumulatively. I'm assuming a "A14x+" on 5 nm. Comparison to A13. So a A14x+ (15 W+) 30% frequency increase vs A13, because of higher TDP + 10% IPC increase (larger caches, design tweaks) + 15% Frequency increase, due to 5 nm. A i7-1065G7 costs Apple something like $400. The A13 costs something like $60 to manufacture. Apple is highly motivated.