A11 Bionic processor in iPhone 8, iPhone X contains first Apple-designed GPU, new secure e...

24

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 70
    tmay said:

    The iPhone 7 Plus is delivering more than double the frame rate of any Android OS device for the same test
    Not that it really matters, but one more thing...

    GFXBench Manhattan ES 31  Metal Off Screen 1080p

    The Pixel XL scored 32 FPS in the peak test at 1920x1080.

    The throttle test is running at 2560x1440 (the iPhone ran this test at 1920x1080), so the take away here is the percentage difference after throttling.



    The Pixel XL only sees a drop to ~82% of its peak value from the throttle testing, which brings it to ~26 fps for the throttle test.

    So the Pixel XL performs about the same as the iPhone 7 Plus in this test as the iPhone also drops to around 26 fps.

  • Reply 22 of 70
    They do have a world class team. Arguably, the best team. 

    This team has been knocking it out of the park every time they take the field, from the A4 through today. 

    Apple's OS teams have also been doing a great job, but the silicon team is truly stellar. 

    It's kind of ironic that Apple dropped the "Computer" from its name right before they became more of true computer company than they've ever been before. Like nobody since the old Big Iron guys (IBM, DEC, etc), Apple is now a true computer company. 

    I just wish that the Mac could share in the greatness of this silicon design team. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 23 of 70
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 12,865member
    Somebody at Appleinsider shoukd have grabbed a pair of pliers to peel back fingernails to get these guys to cough up more information on this SoC.  Specifically info on the GPU and Neural engine.  The article implies that the Nueral engine is completely separste from the GPU, that is a bit of a surprise.  These two features being all Apple are very interesting from a technical standpoint.  
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 24 of 70
    blastdoor said:
    I just wish that the Mac could share in the greatness of this silicon design team. 
    I suspect the "neural engine" is part of what we will be seeing in the new Mac Pro. Apple has the in-house expertise to make a coprocessor specifically to handle OpenCL tasks. I suspect by designing such a coprocessor for computing first, they could get similar performance to high-end GPUs in a lower power envelope.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 25 of 70
    I'd like to know how well Apple's new GPU compares to NVidia ARM GPUs. They seem to be the ones to beat when it comes to scoring high performance benchmarks in games. That NVidia Shield streaming box supposedly always ranks the highest in gaming benchmarks. Too bad Apple won't be competing with them using AppleTV. It probably doesn't matter, anyway.
  • Reply 26 of 70
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 4,874administrator
    wizard69 said:
    Somebody at Appleinsider shoukd have grabbed a pair of pliers to peel back fingernails to get these guys to cough up more information on this SoC.  Specifically info on the GPU and Neural engine.  The article implies that the Nueral engine is completely separste from the GPU, that is a bit of a surprise.  These two features being all Apple are very interesting from a technical standpoint.  
    We're working on it.
    SoliGG1watto_cobra
  • Reply 27 of 70
    tmaytmay Posts: 3,942member
    EngDev said:
    tmay said:

    The iPhone 7 Plus is delivering more than double the frame rate of any Android OS device for the same test
    Not that it really matters, but one more thing...

    GFXBench Manhattan ES 31  Metal Off Screen 1080p

    The Pixel XL scored 32 FPS in the peak test at 1920x1080.

    The throttle test is running at 2560x1440 (the iPhone ran this test at 1920x1080), so the take away here is the percentage difference after throttling.



    The Pixel XL only sees a drop to ~82% of its peak value from the throttle testing, which brings it to ~26 fps for the throttle test.

    So the Pixel XL performs about the same as the iPhone 7 Plus in this test as the iPhone also drops to around 26 fps.

    I confess that I have lost sight of what you are trying to accomplish. I'm guessing you are tying to prove something about the A10 design compared to the Qualcomm 820. I'm not seeing it all that relevant either way; these are synthetic benchmarks, and I doubt that you will have an actual issue with throttling in a iPhone or a flagship Android OS device under real world use. Lots of people complain about Apple's HD resolution being an unfair advantage, but, Apple doesn't have to compromise its design to differentiate its devices that way that Android OS OEM's have to. 

    Oh, and for the record, Apple will be shipping that A11 shortly, so why not keep an eye out for actual user reviews that might have opinions on the subject of throttling.
    bb-15williamlondonwatto_cobrajony0
  • Reply 28 of 70
    The A11 is the one thing the competition (and the haters) do NOT want to talk about. It's a sore spot with them how far ahead Apple is. Even next years 8990 & 845 (or whatever they call them) won't catch up to the A11.

    Hell, Samsung and Qualcomm are barely at 2,000 single core while Apple is at 4,000. It'll be years before they're even close.
    tmayGG1watto_cobrajony0
  • Reply 29 of 70
    tmay said:
    EngDev said:
    tmay said:

    The iPhone 7 Plus is delivering more than double the frame rate of any Android OS device for the same test
    Not that it really matters, but one more thing...

    GFXBench Manhattan ES 31  Metal Off Screen 1080p

    The Pixel XL scored 32 FPS in the peak test at 1920x1080.

    The throttle test is running at 2560x1440 (the iPhone ran this test at 1920x1080), so the take away here is the percentage difference after throttling.



    The Pixel XL only sees a drop to ~82% of its peak value from the throttle testing, which brings it to ~26 fps for the throttle test.

    So the Pixel XL performs about the same as the iPhone 7 Plus in this test as the iPhone also drops to around 26 fps.

    I confess that I have lost sight of what you are trying to accomplish. I'm guessing you are tying to prove something about the A10 design compared to the Qualcomm 820. I'm not seeing it all that relevant either way; these are synthetic benchmarks, and I doubt that you will have an actual issue with throttling in a iPhone or a flagship Android OS device under real world use. Lots of people complain about Apple's HD resolution being an unfair advantage, but, Apple doesn't have to compromise its design to differentiate its devices that way that Android OS OEM's have to. 

    Oh, and for the record, Apple will be shipping that A11 shortly, so why not keep an eye out for actual user reviews that might have opinions on the subject of throttling.

    I seem to remember Anandtech testing an Android phone and they couldn't even complete several tests without putting it into a freezer so it wouldn't overheat.
    edited September 2017 watto_cobrajony0
  • Reply 30 of 70
    SoliSoli Posts: 9,270member
    The A11 is the one thing the competition (and the haters) do NOT want to talk about. It's a sore spot with them how far ahead Apple is. Even next years 8990 & 845 (or whatever they call them) won't catch up to the A11.

    Hell, Samsung and Qualcomm are barely at 2,000 single core while Apple is at 4,000. It'll be years before they're even close.
    Does anyone else allow for the efficient cores, performance cores, and all cores configuration?
  • Reply 31 of 70
    Got the feeling that adding all those cores, plus the new GPU and the neural engine on the same sock kinda constrained the IPC improvement possible this go around cause of well thermal dissipation gets more complicated with more stuff on die.

    Still 25% with all the rest going on is pretty top notch.

    Nobody's catching this SOC on overall processing within 18 month.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 32 of 70
    tmaytmay Posts: 3,942member
    tmay said:
    EngDev said:
    tmay said:

    The iPhone 7 Plus is delivering more than double the frame rate of any Android OS device for the same test
    Not that it really matters, but one more thing...

    GFXBench Manhattan ES 31  Metal Off Screen 1080p

    The Pixel XL scored 32 FPS in the peak test at 1920x1080.

    The throttle test is running at 2560x1440 (the iPhone ran this test at 1920x1080), so the take away here is the percentage difference after throttling.



    The Pixel XL only sees a drop to ~82% of its peak value from the throttle testing, which brings it to ~26 fps for the throttle test.

    So the Pixel XL performs about the same as the iPhone 7 Plus in this test as the iPhone also drops to around 26 fps.

    I confess that I have lost sight of what you are trying to accomplish. I'm guessing you are tying to prove something about the A10 design compared to the Qualcomm 820. I'm not seeing it all that relevant either way; these are synthetic benchmarks, and I doubt that you will have an actual issue with throttling in a iPhone or a flagship Android OS device under real world use. Lots of people complain about Apple's HD resolution being an unfair advantage, but, Apple doesn't have to compromise its design to differentiate its devices that way that Android OS OEM's have to. 

    Oh, and for the record, Apple will be shipping that A11 shortly, so why not keep an eye out for actual user reviews that might have opinions on the subject of throttling.

    I seem to remember Anandtech testing an Android phone and they couldn't even complete several tests without putting it into a freezer so it wouldn't overheat.
    I still think that immersion in cold water or on placement on actively chilled heatsink would be interesting from the standpoint of benchmarks. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 33 of 70
    bb-15bb-15 Posts: 268member
    tmay said:
    EngDev said:
    tmay said:

    The iPhone 7 Plus is delivering more than double the frame rate of any Android OS device for the same test
    Not that it really matters, but one more thing...

    GFXBench Manhattan ES 31  Metal Off Screen 1080p

    The Pixel XL scored 32 FPS in the peak test at 1920x1080.

    The throttle test is running at 2560x1440 (the iPhone ran this test at 1920x1080), so the take away here is the percentage difference after throttling.



    The Pixel XL only sees a drop to ~82% of its peak value from the throttle testing, which brings it to ~26 fps for the throttle test.

    So the Pixel XL performs about the same as the iPhone 7 Plus in this test as the iPhone also drops to around 26 fps.

    I confess that I have lost sight of what you are trying to accomplish. I'm guessing you are tying to prove something about the A10 design compared to the Qualcomm 820. I'm not seeing it all that relevant either way; these are synthetic benchmarks, and I doubt that you will have an actual issue with throttling in a iPhone or a flagship Android OS device under real world use. Lots of people complain about Apple's HD resolution being an unfair advantage, but, Apple doesn't have to compromise its design to differentiate its devices that way that Android OS OEM's have to. 

    Oh, and for the record, Apple will be shipping that A11 shortly, so why not keep an eye out for actual user reviews that might have opinions on the subject of throttling.
    Yes. All of the listing of benchmarks trying to mimic real world use has a simple answer; look at real world use comparisons between smartphones. 
    I've seen many real world smartphone speed comparisons and the iPhone almost always is faster than Android phones. 
    And importantly in these tests iOS animations are kept on which slows down the iPhone. 
    I never run an iPhone with animations on. It's trivial to turn them off in Accessibility. 
    So, for the handful of times that an Android phone might have been faster in a test, the iPhone could have been sped up by disabling animations which may have changed the result of the test. 

    Conclusion; year after year, with very rare exceptions, Apple makes the fastest smartphones. 
    tmaywatto_cobra
  • Reply 34 of 70
    tmaytmay Posts: 3,942member
    The A11 is the one thing the competition (and the haters) do NOT want to talk about. It's a sore spot with them how far ahead Apple is. Even next years 8990 & 845 (or whatever they call them) won't catch up to the A11.

    Hell, Samsung and Qualcomm are barely at 2,000 single core while Apple is at 4,000. It'll be years before they're even close.
    I don't think that Apple is even competing with Qualcomm, Samsung, Huawei, et al, anymore. 

    They have Intel in their sights now, albeit just the lower power stuff.
    ericthehalfbeewatto_cobra
  • Reply 35 of 70
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 12,865member
    wizard69 said:
    Somebody at Appleinsider shoukd have grabbed a pair of pliers to peel back fingernails to get these guys to cough up more information on this SoC.  Specifically info on the GPU and Neural engine.  The article implies that the Nueral engine is completely separste from the GPU, that is a bit of a surprise.  These two features being all Apple are very interesting from a technical standpoint.  
    We're working on it.
    Yes Please.    It has been years since I've been so interested in a processor design.   In the PC world nothing interesting has really happened until AMD's Zen chips arrived and they are not really technical marvels.   If not pliers maybe a case of beer combined with a lonely hardware engineer at Apple!   The secrets inside this chip are some of the most interesting things to happen in electronics in a long time.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 36 of 70
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 12,865member

    The A11 is the one thing the competition (and the haters) do NOT want to talk about. It's a sore spot with them how far ahead Apple is. Even next years 8990 & 845 (or whatever they call them) won't catch up to the A11.

    Hell, Samsung and Qualcomm are barely at 2,000 single core while Apple is at 4,000. It'll be years before they're even close.
    Don't dismiss what Samsung or Qualcomm may accomplish with a processor design.   The only problem these companies have is that they need to focus on a wide array of processor performance levels unlike Apple which needs only to release one high performance processor a year letting older processors take up the slack at the low end.   It amounts to a resource problem as they need to allocate talent to a broad array of customers.   I'm pretty much convinced that Qualcomm at least could very well produce a high performance chip if it could dedicate all the resources needed to such a chip, they have a good track record of doing better that ARM in their designs.
  • Reply 37 of 70
    It'll be interesting to see if they can continue to boost things without Imagination's GPU tech or not. I imagine they must have looked at what Imagination was coming out with in the future and figured they could do better. But I remember over the last few years they kept saying GPU performance was always so much better, so much better, this year it's what 30% Honestly that'll mean that unless the 8 is clocked lower than the X, the 8 will probably end up being faster.
  • Reply 38 of 70
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 12,865member

    tmay said:
    The A11 is the one thing the competition (and the haters) do NOT want to talk about. It's a sore spot with them how far ahead Apple is. Even next years 8990 & 845 (or whatever they call them) won't catch up to the A11.

    Hell, Samsung and Qualcomm are barely at 2,000 single core while Apple is at 4,000. It'll be years before they're even close.
    I don't think that Apple is even competing with Qualcomm, Samsung, Huawei, et al, anymore. 

    They have Intel in their sights now, albeit just the lower power stuff.
    I'm really hoping the long term they expect to replace Intel everywhere.   It comes down to the challenge of producing innovative new PC's which will become increasingly difficult if they don't have access to the silicon.   A11 demonstrates precisely why, as the chips is highly tailored to Apples needs in the mobile space.  

    If Apple did the same thing for a desktop chip, say in a Mini replacement, I'm pretty much convinced that they would get Intel equivalent performance at half the power.   There would be issues with high performance ports for SSD type I/O (PCI - Express most likely) as high speed I/O eats power.    The thing here is that a highly integrated SoC design will eliminate the need for many of those PCI lanes.    In any event imagine an iMac or even a Mini with an Apple monitor doing the same things your iPhone does.   Automatic log ons with Face ID, heavy signal processing for voice messaging and other over the net technologies, AI acceleration for who knows what.    

    In any event if Apple doesn't have a long term play for ARM everywhere and the associated advancements in the MAC lineup then they have management problems in my mind.   The only other possible solution would be to team up with Intel or AMD for custom silicon which is possible even if Intel seems reluctant.   AMD however has some experience here so who knows.    The point is Apple needs access to the silicon to move forward with computing technology.   
  • Reply 39 of 70
    tmaytmay Posts: 3,942member
    wizard69 said:

    tmay said:
    The A11 is the one thing the competition (and the haters) do NOT want to talk about. It's a sore spot with them how far ahead Apple is. Even next years 8990 & 845 (or whatever they call them) won't catch up to the A11.

    Hell, Samsung and Qualcomm are barely at 2,000 single core while Apple is at 4,000. It'll be years before they're even close.
    I don't think that Apple is even competing with Qualcomm, Samsung, Huawei, et al, anymore. 

    They have Intel in their sights now, albeit just the lower power stuff.
    I'm really hoping the long term they expect to replace Intel everywhere.   It comes down to the challenge of producing innovative new PC's which will become increasingly difficult if they don't have access to the silicon.   A11 demonstrates precisely why, as the chips is highly tailored to Apples needs in the mobile space.  

    If Apple did the same thing for a desktop chip, say in a Mini replacement, I'm pretty much convinced that they would get Intel equivalent performance at half the power.   There would be issues with high performance ports for SSD type I/O (PCI - Express most likely) as high speed I/O eats power.    The thing here is that a highly integrated SoC design will eliminate the need for many of those PCI lanes.    In any event imagine an iMac or even a Mini with an Apple monitor doing the same things your iPhone does.   Automatic log ons with Face ID, heavy signal processing for voice messaging and other over the net technologies, AI acceleration for who knows what.    

    In any event if Apple doesn't have a long term play for ARM everywhere and the associated advancements in the MAC lineup then they have management problems in my mind.   The only other possible solution would be to team up with Intel or AMD for custom silicon which is possible even if Intel seems reluctant.   AMD however has some experience here so who knows.    The point is Apple needs access to the silicon to move forward with computing technology.   
    Apple isn't going to replace Intel as long as they have to support x86/x64 for those people that want to run Windows. On the other hand, should MS actually deliver Windows on ARM, such that it is just a recompile by developers with minimal tweaking, then it could happen. This doesn't preclude MacOS on ARM, just with the caveat that it won't support x86/x64.

    BTW, MAC is always Mac when it's an Apple product. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 40 of 70
    wizard69 said:
    Specifically info on the GPU and Neural engine.  The article implies that the Nueral engine is completely separste from the GPU, that is a bit of a surprise. 
    Why? Neural algs would benefit more from being run on a dedicated chip (part of SoC, that is) rather than being stuck on a GPU. You don't really wanna ruin the fluidity of what GPU is producing by loading it up with some stuff that has no bearing on the visuals.
    Actually, that is why Apple often design a chip that does something specific really well, comparing to having something really generic run everything. That is why you see W1 chips and other highly specialized chips designed to support only small set of tasks.
    edited September 2017 watto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.