By: Maynard Handley (name99.delete@this.name99.org), November 2, 2016 9:23 am
Room: Moderated Discussions
anon (spam.delete.delete@this.this.spam.com) on November 2, 2016 6:15 am wrote:
> Maynard Handley (name99.delete@this.name99.org) on November 1, 2016 7:30 pm wrote:
> > anon (spam.delete.delete@this.this.spam.com) on November 1, 2016 4:22 pm wrote:
> > > Of course it's not always a safe assumption.
> > >
> > > But in this case where the design target (device and therefore power budget)
> > > was known years in advance, it's not a completely new architecture, they've
> > > done a CPU on the same process before so none of the great unknowns apply.
> > >
> > > I'm sure they would have realised soon enough if they overshot their target massively and then went
> > > for higher frequencies and lower voltages to use that headroom and stay within the power budget.
> > >
> > > Really there's only two things we'd need to know:
> > > 1. tau vs voltage for 16FF+
> > > 2. stock voltage for the A10.
> > >
> > > Of course that still won't quite be the maximum but we'd have a minimum figure as to how far
> > > you could push it with a desktop/server power budget (essentially unlimited in this case).
> >
> > Since we don't have access to that information, we have to use alternative methods.
> >
> > We can guess at some level of the TARGET upper frequency by assuming that the A9X:A9 frequency ratio will
> > carry over to the A10X. Is this a perfect assumption? Of
> > course not, but it's the best we have. This assumes,
> > essentially, that the A10X is the design target frequency/power,
> > and the A10 is frequency downscaled version
> > (perhaps with tweaks like lower power transistors used in a few places that were considered safe.)
> >
> > If we do this, we get an assumed A10X 16FF frequency of 2.25/1.85*2.35=2.85GHz.
> > Throw in a free frequency scaling of 20% as TSMC has offered up for 10nm and we get to 3.4GHz.
> > (Obviously that frequency scaling is making assumptions about both transistor performance
> > scaling and RC scaling. You can quibble about this, but let's assume that TSMC are speaking
> > honestly, not making legally correct but technically useless claims --- they are, after all,
> > in the business of satisfying a wide customer base rather than pissing them off.)
> >
> > As I have said before, these are not outrageous assumptions, but they
> > get us to an impressive frequency. Not 4GHz, sure, but not bad.
> >
>
> I have honestly no idea where you're trying to go with this.
>
> We're not trying to prove that Apple can eventually reach 4GHz a few nodes down the road.
>
> The point was that the A10 CPU, even with all power constraints removed, will never match
> Broadwell/Skylake in clockrate. I am absolutely sure that the A10 got higher logic delay.
> So juanrga's argument that the A10 would be competitive at 4GHz is moot because it can not
> reach that without moving to a new node which would give Intel the same advantages.
The point was to try to put some real numbers to a he-said, she-said argument.
Is 4GHz a realistic possibility? Well, 3.4GHz IS a realistic possibility as the shipping frequency. The question, then, as per my earlier comment, is how much timing margin did Apple build in that over-exceeds an optimized CPU meeting the iPad power budget, because of various uncertainties. If that margin is of order 20%, then, yes, the A10X could reach 4GHz (subject to all the assumptions laid out here).
> Maynard Handley (name99.delete@this.name99.org) on November 1, 2016 7:30 pm wrote:
> > anon (spam.delete.delete@this.this.spam.com) on November 1, 2016 4:22 pm wrote:
> > > Of course it's not always a safe assumption.
> > >
> > > But in this case where the design target (device and therefore power budget)
> > > was known years in advance, it's not a completely new architecture, they've
> > > done a CPU on the same process before so none of the great unknowns apply.
> > >
> > > I'm sure they would have realised soon enough if they overshot their target massively and then went
> > > for higher frequencies and lower voltages to use that headroom and stay within the power budget.
> > >
> > > Really there's only two things we'd need to know:
> > > 1. tau vs voltage for 16FF+
> > > 2. stock voltage for the A10.
> > >
> > > Of course that still won't quite be the maximum but we'd have a minimum figure as to how far
> > > you could push it with a desktop/server power budget (essentially unlimited in this case).
> >
> > Since we don't have access to that information, we have to use alternative methods.
> >
> > We can guess at some level of the TARGET upper frequency by assuming that the A9X:A9 frequency ratio will
> > carry over to the A10X. Is this a perfect assumption? Of
> > course not, but it's the best we have. This assumes,
> > essentially, that the A10X is the design target frequency/power,
> > and the A10 is frequency downscaled version
> > (perhaps with tweaks like lower power transistors used in a few places that were considered safe.)
> >
> > If we do this, we get an assumed A10X 16FF frequency of 2.25/1.85*2.35=2.85GHz.
> > Throw in a free frequency scaling of 20% as TSMC has offered up for 10nm and we get to 3.4GHz.
> > (Obviously that frequency scaling is making assumptions about both transistor performance
> > scaling and RC scaling. You can quibble about this, but let's assume that TSMC are speaking
> > honestly, not making legally correct but technically useless claims --- they are, after all,
> > in the business of satisfying a wide customer base rather than pissing them off.)
> >
> > As I have said before, these are not outrageous assumptions, but they
> > get us to an impressive frequency. Not 4GHz, sure, but not bad.
> >
>
> I have honestly no idea where you're trying to go with this.
>
> We're not trying to prove that Apple can eventually reach 4GHz a few nodes down the road.
>
> The point was that the A10 CPU, even with all power constraints removed, will never match
> Broadwell/Skylake in clockrate. I am absolutely sure that the A10 got higher logic delay.
> So juanrga's argument that the A10 would be competitive at 4GHz is moot because it can not
> reach that without moving to a new node which would give Intel the same advantages.
The point was to try to put some real numbers to a he-said, she-said argument.
Is 4GHz a realistic possibility? Well, 3.4GHz IS a realistic possibility as the shipping frequency. The question, then, as per my earlier comment, is how much timing margin did Apple build in that over-exceeds an optimized CPU meeting the iPad power budget, because of various uncertainties. If that margin is of order 20%, then, yes, the A10X could reach 4GHz (subject to all the assumptions laid out here).
Topic | Posted By | Date |
---|---|---|
Neat die area comparison image | Rob | 2016/10/21 05:39 PM |
Neat die area comparison image | anonymou5 | 2016/10/21 06:44 PM |
Neat die area comparison image | Mr. Camel | 2016/10/22 04:58 AM |
Neat die area comparison image | Heikki Kultala | 2016/10/22 05:19 AM |
Neat die area comparison image | Mr. Camel | 2016/10/22 07:10 AM |
Neat die area comparison image | Mr. Camel | 2016/10/22 07:15 AM |
different caches... | Heikki Kultala | 2016/10/22 08:29 AM |
Broadwell includes LLC, just for comparision | anon | 2016/10/22 08:52 AM |
Broadwell includes LLC, just for comparision | juanrga | 2016/10/23 06:09 AM |
Broadwell includes LLC, just for comparision | anon | 2016/10/23 07:25 AM |
Broadwell includes LLC, just for comparision | juanrga | 2016/10/25 09:57 AM |
Broadwell includes LLC, just for comparision | Simon Farnsworth | 2016/10/25 11:03 AM |
Broadwell includes LLC, just for comparision | juanrga | 2016/10/28 02:02 AM |
Broadwell includes LLC, just for comparision | anon | 2016/10/28 04:13 AM |
Broadwell includes LLC, just for comparision | juanrga | 2016/10/29 09:47 PM |
Broadwell includes LLC, just for comparision | Travis | 2016/10/30 06:34 PM |
Broadwell includes LLC, just for comparision | juanrga | 2016/10/31 04:35 AM |
Broadwell includes LLC, just for comparision | Simon Farnsworth | 2016/10/31 04:42 AM |
Broadwell includes LLC, just for comparision | anon | 2016/11/01 12:56 PM |
Broadwell includes LLC, just for comparision | Maynard Handley | 2016/11/01 01:37 PM |
Broadwell includes LLC, just for comparision | anon | 2016/11/01 04:22 PM |
Broadwell includes LLC, just for comparision | Maynard Handley | 2016/11/01 07:30 PM |
Broadwell includes LLC, just for comparision | anon | 2016/11/02 06:15 AM |
Broadwell includes LLC, just for comparision | Maynard Handley | 2016/11/02 09:23 AM |
Broadwell includes LLC, just for comparision | anon | 2016/11/02 11:50 AM |
Broadwell includes LLC, just for comparision | Simon Farnsworth | 2016/11/02 02:48 AM |
Broadwell includes LLC, just for comparision | Simon Farnsworth | 2016/10/28 06:19 AM |
Broadwell includes LLC, just for comparision | juanrga | 2016/10/29 10:15 PM |
Broadwell includes LLC, just for comparision | Simon Farnsworth | 2016/10/30 12:31 PM |
Broadwell includes LLC, just for comparision | Ricardo B | 2016/10/29 05:30 PM |
underclocked is different than designed for low clock speed | Heikki Kultala | 2016/10/25 11:47 PM |
underclocked is different than designed for low clock speed | Maynard Handley | 2016/10/26 10:07 AM |
That wasn't the point | juanrga | 2016/10/28 02:15 AM |
Even without the point you have invalid comparison | Heikki Kultala | 2016/10/28 09:03 AM |
8 wide vs 6 wide | juanrga | 2016/10/29 10:41 PM |
8 wide vs 6 wide | Wilco | 2016/10/30 05:00 AM |
8 wide vs 6 wide | Doug S | 2016/10/30 12:20 PM |
8 wide vs 6 wide | Wilco | 2016/10/30 01:12 PM |
8 wide vs 6 wide | juanrga | 2016/10/30 02:56 PM |
8 wide vs 6 wide | Travis | 2016/10/30 07:13 PM |
8 wide vs 6 wide | juanrga | 2016/10/31 04:55 AM |
8 wide vs 6 wide | anon | 2016/11/01 01:00 PM |
SoftMachines | none | 2016/11/02 03:57 AM |
SoftMachines | David Kanter | 2016/11/02 08:53 AM |
8 wide vs 6 wide | juanrga | 2016/11/03 12:35 PM |
8 wide vs 6 wide | Wilco | 2016/11/03 02:13 PM |
8 wide vs 6 wide | juanrga | 2016/11/03 07:35 PM |
8 wide vs 6 wide | Wilco | 2016/11/04 01:27 PM |
8 wide vs 6 wide | juanrga | 2016/11/04 06:08 PM |
8 wide vs 6 wide | Wilco | 2016/11/06 04:52 AM |
8 wide vs 6 wide | juanrga | 2016/11/06 04:56 PM |
8 wide vs 6 wide | Wilco | 2016/11/07 04:25 AM |
8 wide vs 6 wide | Aaron Spink | 2016/11/04 04:08 PM |
8 wide vs 6 wide | juanrga | 2016/11/04 06:10 PM |
Dunning-Krueger effect | Heikki Kultala | 2016/11/04 03:22 AM |
Dunning-Krueger effect | itsmydamnation | 2016/11/04 02:48 PM |
8 wide vs 6 wide | anon | 2016/11/04 03:38 AM |
8 wide vs 6 wide | juanrga | 2016/11/04 05:05 AM |
8 wide vs 6 wide | anon | 2016/11/04 06:12 AM |
8 wide vs 6 wide | Wilco | 2016/11/04 01:12 PM |
8 wide vs 6 wide | anon | 2016/11/04 02:54 PM |
8 wide vs 6 wide | juanrga | 2016/11/04 05:34 PM |
8 wide vs 6 wide | anon | 2016/11/05 02:14 AM |
8 wide vs 6 wide | juanrga | 2016/11/04 05:39 PM |
8 wide vs 6 wide | Wilco | 2016/11/06 05:15 AM |
8 wide vs 6 wide | juanrga | 2016/11/06 05:06 PM |
8 wide vs 6 wide | Wilco | 2016/11/07 03:45 AM |
8 wide vs 6 wide | David Kanter | 2016/11/07 08:43 PM |
8 wide vs 6 wide | Wilco | 2016/11/08 03:57 AM |
8 wide vs 6 wide | juanrga | 2016/11/14 12:12 PM |
8 wide vs 6 wide | Wilco | 2016/11/14 04:53 PM |
8 wide vs 6 wide | dmcq | 2016/11/15 03:17 AM |
8 wide vs 6 wide | Wilco | 2016/11/15 03:43 AM |
8 wide vs 6 wide | dmcq | 2016/11/15 04:28 AM |
1 µop per instruction is not necessary | Paul A. Clayton | 2016/11/17 12:09 PM |
8 wide vs 6 wide | juanrga | 2016/11/20 06:56 AM |
8 wide vs 6 wide | Wilco | 2016/11/21 05:54 PM |
8 wide vs 6 wide | juanrga | 2016/11/22 08:49 AM |
8 wide vs 6 wide | Wilco | 2016/11/22 03:25 PM |
8 wide vs 6 wide | Wilco | 2016/10/31 03:03 AM |
Skylake can retire 8 uops | David Kanter | 2016/10/31 12:41 AM |
Skylake can retire 8 uops | juanrga | 2016/10/31 04:15 AM |
Skylake can retire 8 uops | Alberto | 2016/11/04 07:22 AM |
8 wide vs 6 wide bogus numbers | Heikki Kultala | 2016/10/30 06:25 AM |
Broadwell includes LLC, just for comparision | anon | 2016/10/26 03:10 AM |
Pushing the hidden agenda | juanrga | 2016/10/28 03:11 AM |
Pushing the hidden agenda | anon | 2016/10/28 04:35 AM |
Neat die area comparison image | David Hess | 2016/10/22 01:26 PM |
Neat die area comparison image | anon2 | 2016/10/22 05:20 PM |
Neat die area comparison image | David Hess | 2016/10/22 10:31 PM |
Neat die area comparison image | anon2 | 2016/10/23 01:50 AM |
Neat die area comparison image | Travis | 2016/10/24 01:26 PM |
Neat die area comparison image | Maynard Handley | 2016/10/24 04:27 PM |
Neat die area comparison image | juanrga | 2016/10/25 10:02 AM |
Neat die area comparison image | David Hess | 2016/10/25 09:59 PM |
Neat die area comparison image | Travis | 2016/10/25 10:22 PM |
Neat die area comparison image | David Hess | 2016/10/25 10:37 PM |
Neat die area comparison image | Travis | 2016/10/30 06:09 PM |
Neat die area comparison image | Gabriele Svelto | 2016/10/26 02:23 AM |
Neat die area comparison image | Doug S | 2016/10/26 08:17 AM |
Neat die area comparison image | Jukka Larja | 2016/10/27 09:28 AM |
Neat die area comparison image | anon | 2016/10/26 03:32 AM |
Neat die area comparison image | juanrga | 2016/10/23 06:29 AM |
Neat die area comparison image | Matthias Waldhauer | 2016/10/22 06:12 AM |
Neat die area comparison image | juanrga | 2016/10/23 05:44 AM |
Neat die area comparison image | Gabriele Svelto | 2016/10/24 02:17 AM |