3 ms·
It would be interesting with a graph of "performance per watt". Mobile phones often have background tasks that does not need much CPU power. A53 seems very su
by silvestrov 3y ago
It would be interesting with a graph of "performance per watt".
Mobile phones often have background tasks that does not need much CPU power. A53 seems very suitable for this, so it would be nice with some idea of how much power phones saves by using A53 for this instead of a high performance core.
- nfriedly 3y agoGeekerwan on YouTube tests the performance and effiency of different cores at different frequencies. This is one good example where the A55 and A510 (successors to the A53) are graphed at around 15:40: https://youtu.be/s0ukXDnWlTY https://youtu.be/s0ukXDnWlTY (honestly, the whole video is pretty informative)
- monocasa 3y agoIt really depends on the workload. Modern thoughts on the matter trend towards a design called "race to sleep" where even your efficiency cores are still pretty beefy relative to an A53. That model is focused on quickly turning the core on, running through all of the work, and going back to sleep, rather than staying on longer on a much weaker core. Doing this effectively requires OS support to coalesce timer deadlines to bunch up as much work as possible on each wakeup cycle. But with software support the model is very effective which is why you see most e-cores these days being relatively beefy OoOE cores that can leave the A53 in the dust. Whether that's Icestorm in the M1, Goldmont on Intel, or A57s on big.LITTLE ARM SoCs.