By: Mark Roulo (nothanks.delete@this.xxx.com), September 9, 2022 11:24 am
Room: Moderated Discussions
--- (---.delete@this.redheron.com) on September 9, 2022 8:23 am wrote:
> Mark Roulo (nothanks.delete@this.xxx.com) on September 9, 2022 7:41 am wrote:
> > anonymou5 (no.delete@this.spam.com) on September 8, 2022 8:08 pm wrote:
> > > > So ~6% faster.
> > > >
> > > > We probably get a new micro-architecture with the A17?
> > >
> > > Who cares.
> > >
> > > It's a phone.
> >
> > Some of the posters or the Real World Tech forums find CPU performance interesting
> > whether faster CPUs make our text editors run faster or not.
> >
> > You may not be one of these posters, but they do exist.
>
> If you are interested in the technology, then saying "the A16 is the
> same speed as the A15", while technically true is very misleading.
> It's the same speed (actually ~10% faster) at 20% less power...
I didn't read anyone here claiming that "the A16 is the same speed as the A15."
I did read a claim that the performance-per-clock for the A15 and the A16 were the same.
The link, in fact, shows that the performance continue to increase:
The perf/clock curve is interesting, though:
A11: 393
A12: 450
A13: 504
A14: 538
A15: 545
A16: 543
Keeping in mind that perf/clock tends to be higher at lower frequencies, the flattening out around the A15/A16 core is interesting. A15 wasn't much of a jump from the A14 and A16 was basically flat with respect to the A15.
The frequency, however, went up by 0.5 GHz from the A14 to the A16, which suggests that Apple was focusing more on getting performance increases from frequency (with whatever micro-architecture changes were needed to support the higher frequency) than with micro-architecture changes to go even wider at the same frequency.
One possibility is that the A16 was especially optimized for laptop usage and can sustain much higher frequencies if given ~25 watts to play with. Acceptable for the phone, but optimized for the laptops. Maybe next generation will flip back. Or maybe this isn't what is happening at all. I do wonder if Apple will do anything specifically for the laptop market or if it is just too small compared to mobile to be worth worrying about.
But the perf/clock curve is interesting even if no one is claiming "the A16 is the same speed as the A15."
> Mark Roulo (nothanks.delete@this.xxx.com) on September 9, 2022 7:41 am wrote:
> > anonymou5 (no.delete@this.spam.com) on September 8, 2022 8:08 pm wrote:
> > > > So ~6% faster.
> > > >
> > > > We probably get a new micro-architecture with the A17?
> > >
> > > Who cares.
> > >
> > > It's a phone.
> >
> > Some of the posters or the Real World Tech forums find CPU performance interesting
> > whether faster CPUs make our text editors run faster or not.
> >
> > You may not be one of these posters, but they do exist.
>
> If you are interested in the technology, then saying "the A16 is the
> same speed as the A15", while technically true is very misleading.
> It's the same speed (actually ~10% faster) at 20% less power...
I didn't read anyone here claiming that "the A16 is the same speed as the A15."
I did read a claim that the performance-per-clock for the A15 and the A16 were the same.
The link, in fact, shows that the performance continue to increase:
A11 2.39GHz: 940
A12 2.49GHz: 1120
A13 2.66GHz: 1340
A14 2.99GHz: 1610
A15 3.23GHz: 1760
A16 3.46GHz: 1879
The perf/clock curve is interesting, though:
A11: 393
A12: 450
A13: 504
A14: 538
A15: 545
A16: 543
Keeping in mind that perf/clock tends to be higher at lower frequencies, the flattening out around the A15/A16 core is interesting. A15 wasn't much of a jump from the A14 and A16 was basically flat with respect to the A15.
The frequency, however, went up by 0.5 GHz from the A14 to the A16, which suggests that Apple was focusing more on getting performance increases from frequency (with whatever micro-architecture changes were needed to support the higher frequency) than with micro-architecture changes to go even wider at the same frequency.
One possibility is that the A16 was especially optimized for laptop usage and can sustain much higher frequencies if given ~25 watts to play with. Acceptable for the phone, but optimized for the laptops. Maybe next generation will flip back. Or maybe this isn't what is happening at all. I do wonder if Apple will do anything specifically for the laptop market or if it is just too small compared to mobile to be worth worrying about.
But the perf/clock curve is interesting even if no one is claiming "the A16 is the same speed as the A15."
