Tuesday, August 18th 2020
Apple A14X Bionic Rumored To Match Intel Core i9-9880H
The Apple A14X Bionic is an upcoming processor from Apple which is expected to feature in the upcoming iPad Pro models and should be manufactured on TSMC's 5 nm node. Tech YouTuber Luke Miani has recently provided a performance graph for the A14X chip based on "leaked/suspected A14 info + average performance gains from previous X chips". In these graphs, the Apple A14X can be seen matching the Intel Core i9-9880H in Geekbench 5 with a score of 7480. The Intel Intel Core i9-9880H is a 45 W eight-core mobile CPU found in high-end notebooks such as the 2019 16-inch MacBook Pro and requires significant cooling to keep thermals under control.
If these performance estimates are correct or even close then Apple will have a serious productivity device and will serve as a strong basis for Apple's transition to custom CPU's for it's MacBook's in 2021. Apple may use a custom version of the A14X with slightly higher clocks in their upcoming ARM MacBooks according to Luke Miani. These results are estimations at best so take them with a pinch of salt until Apple officially unveils the chip.
Source:
@LukeMiani
If these performance estimates are correct or even close then Apple will have a serious productivity device and will serve as a strong basis for Apple's transition to custom CPU's for it's MacBook's in 2021. Apple may use a custom version of the A14X with slightly higher clocks in their upcoming ARM MacBooks according to Luke Miani. These results are estimations at best so take them with a pinch of salt until Apple officially unveils the chip.
85 Comments on Apple A14X Bionic Rumored To Match Intel Core i9-9880H
With the push for cloud, we are fast going for global mainframes. Anyway. Grossly offtopic I guess :D
It's also always funny that everybody future CPU is beating 1-2 years old CPU. But in the end, they will fight different architecture.
And Apple have a lot of silicon dedicated to many accelerator and since they live in a closed environement where they control everything, they can easily make use of them. That is actually a good strategy but it come with downside.
The truth is it will be hard to really get a real idea of performance between Apple CPU and the rest of the market. It might end up in a fight between a closed and controlled platform where everything can be set the way apple want and an open environment where everyone is free to do what they want.
Here's Geekbench4's workload: www.geekbench.com/doc/geekbench4-cpu-workloads.pdf
Now I recognize that a lot of Geekbench4's benchmarks fit inside of L1 cache, but that's more of a testament to how big L1 caches have gotten. (128kB on the iPhone). Lets be frank: if 128kB L1 cache is what's needed for the modern consumer, then we should be blaming AMD / Intel for failing to grow their L1 to 128kB (AMD / Intel still have 32kB L1 data caches).
Lets really look at Geekbench4's benchmarks. Unlike Geekbench3, AES is downgraded to be just another test instead of its own category. (And mind you, AMD Zen2 and Intel Xeons have doubled their AES pipelines recently: AES remains an important workload). There's JPEG compression (emulating a camera), HTML5 parse, LUA scripting, SQLite database, and PDF rendering. Lots of good workloads here. Very similar to a wide variety of workloads of the modern, average consumer. Even an LLVM compile (3900 lines of code).
There's a bunch of "synthetics" too: 450kB LZMA compression, Djikestra, Canny (Computer-vision), a 300x300 Raytracer, etc. etc. A bunch of tiny synthetics.
--------------
Geekbench4 is what it is: a small test for testing L1 cache and Turbos of modern processors. Its probably closer to the average phone-user or even desktop-user's workflow than SPEC, LINPACK, or HCPG.
But yes, the iPhone crushes Geekbench. Because the iPhone has 128kB L1 cache. But is that a legitimate reason to call the test inaccurate? We can't just hate a test because we disagree with the results. You should instead attack the fundamental setup of the test, and tell us why its inaccurate.
Its pretty insane that the iPhone has a 128kB L1 cache per core. Yeah, that's its secret to crushing Geekbench4 and its pretty obvious. But Intel Skylake's L2 cache is only 256kB and AMD Zen2's L2 is 512kB. Having such a large L1 cache is a testament to the A12 design (larger caches are usually slower. Having such a large cache as L1 must have been difficult to make).
Sometimes I feel like I'm a developer and have a basic grasp of graph reading, and I'm arguing with people who "know things" and will even post proof opposite what they are saying.
Total system power is 3W to 6W during gaming.
At least cinebench can be and is loop run so 30second turbo mode's don't cheat the figures, total ball's comparison software.
The iPhone doesn't turn off one core and run at half power when you do the test. In singe core performance it takes less than 6W and beats the 9900k in integer performance already. In multicore it throttles down slightly and runs two cores at about the same power. And anyways we are talking about the 5nm EUV A14, that one will beat Intel easily. Give it higher clock speeds ala laptop or desktop form factor and it will beat Intel in FP also most likely.
Don't quote Anandtech and then ignore where they say Apple is faster in integer than the 9900k already and that was a year ago. I have a Epyc 24 core server, a 10900 development machine and a Macbook Pro and Ryzen 4000 latop in the house, and iPad Pro and iPhone (work pays for stuff). I have no problems with performance. The question is why do you believe it isn't fast? Anandtech, every benchmark, every program, and tons of youtube videos are out there, go have fun.
if its a philips head use a philips screwy
flat head use a old shool screwy
just surfin or lightweight tasks use arm .
do actual work or run simulations 24/7 etc use x86.
simple.
ARM is an ISA it has nothing to do with how fast the CPU can be.
www.theverge.com/2020/6/23/21300097/fugaku-supercomputer-worlds-fastest-top500-riken-fujitsu-arm
"Come on. Sustained means nothing, right, the one thing that you know Apple's chips are horrible at in terms of scalability means nothing. Got it." Any chip can run with sustained performance with a bit more cooling and power, yes it means nothing. We are comparing the CPUs, not the form factor.
The chip has to the be designed to be scalable under an increased power envelope. The fact that you believe you can just put any chip out their under better cooling and more power and it will just magically run faster shows how primitive your logic and understanding is on the matter.ARM is an ISA as you said, it can't be fast, careful there you preach what you don't believe yourself it seems. Only thing related to ARM that I mentioned are it's vanilla designs which are fast, in a mobile device.
Take a look at this:
As you can see, the measured power draw of a small thunder core inside iPhone 11 is around 0.3W, this literally proves my point, that 0.3W figure can't be for the whole SoC, RIGHT? It's just a single thunder core. The same story is true for their big core graph.
Stick them in an Ipad and you got a good web browser yes but do any gaming ,3d modeling , engineering or simulation work on it and it will lag way behind that 9900K, which couldn't possibly sit in that form factor tbf.
sustained means nothing to your perception, That 5Nm chip is made for the platform its in, stick it in a laptop and it will clock about the same ,it's silicon limit is what it is.
Suddenly Apple has a 2.6ghz silicon limit, you can't do anything except light work, ARM is an ISA that can't be fast blah blah (despite the world's fastest computer being based on ARM), still trying to suggest Apple uses more power than they do, when you can literally measure it at any time, pretending Anandtech didn't say the A13 was shockingly fast and performant.
No benchmark represents all performance, it creates a statistic that represents complicated information with one number (I guess you'd hate my masters mathematics and statistics education since you hate my developer experience also, btw I hate macs, but I have to make all the web code work with apple devices, iOS in particular). Geekbench 5 is one. Spec2006 is one. How long it takes you to export a video on iPad (faster than my PC since it uses dedicated hardware) also one. Go find 100 benchmarks that all show Apple CPUs at the top in performance efficiency and come back here. That was the A13, wait for the A14X.
Apple is leaving Intel behind for a reason. My 10900 is fast, but nothing special. Same cores from 4 years ago.
your example uses a coprocessor, a special accelerator, something others also do, and certainly a hardware feature that helps with efficiency and performance while doing daily tasks ,like browsing :p, but they are not the cpu are they, apple wins on efficiency is a given, as i said ,put to task, as i think every desktop processor should be ,its entire life, then the 9900k gets way more work done, as for ryzen 4800X/5800X, who knows.
I use everything but Apple devices personally but i have used them , and there's no hate just understanding, I see their wares, i like the Os but no still ,Apple simply cannot do all that i want from one device ,quickly.
funny perspectives aren't they, honestly it doesn't matter to me, I think they will sell well and perform well for their target market , mostly.
and few will complain ,because the perspective that gets one of those devices into your hands in the first place means you knew what you wanted and were going to both get from the device and do with it , apple is built on consistency,ease and reliabilty, with panash, f knows how you spell that ,even checkers baffled.
you still havent told us how you have both cutting edge nodes and high clocks yet either.
You did the same a couple of posts above :
Any bench shorter than the Tau value isn't worth shit regardless IMHO, not really, you can gauge performance to a degree but it's not the whole picture , and that's geek bench for you , short bursts , a test designed for phones and light use cases.