Nebuchadnezzar
Legend
This is quite big news, Samsung gets customers to fill their manufacturing capacity and STM gets top-notch node process, it will be quite a hit if the A9600 would be manufactured on it.
ST-Ericsson Nova A9600: dual-core ARM A15, PowerVR Series 6
- Thread starter rektide
- Start date
This is definitely big news. A little while back, ST-E had to turn to STM for help in getting their new products to market, and this was apparently the back up plan STM was forced to take when ST-E's ambitious fab plans couldn't be properly executed/funded.
I don't believe Samsung's 32 and especially 28nm nodes match up quite to the target ST-E was shooting for -- planning to enable very high clocks, -- so I wouldn't be surprised to see somewhat more conservative specs on ST-E's new chips now when they do finally launch.
Still, it'll be great to get a strong competitor to Qualcomm's integrated solutions with the new NovaThors and also, as far as standalone app processors go, the formidable A9600. Hopefully, ST-E can thrive through this transition.
I don't believe Samsung's 32 and especially 28nm nodes match up quite to the target ST-E was shooting for -- planning to enable very high clocks, -- so I wouldn't be surprised to see somewhat more conservative specs on ST-E's new chips now when they do finally launch.
Still, it'll be great to get a strong competitor to Qualcomm's integrated solutions with the new NovaThors and also, as far as standalone app processors go, the formidable A9600. Hopefully, ST-E can thrive through this transition.
I thought of something entirely different while reading it. Now I don't know if and how many foundry resources has Samsung open at the moment, but if those shouldn't be large enough I'd take that newsblurb to quite far fetched spin and think that Apple might contract another foundry after all.
http://www.imgtec.com/News/Release/index.asp?NewsID=684
Just a coincidence? Probably yes. I just can't help thinking a bit further with the obvious risk of being completely wrong.
If there should be any merit to it I'd expect quite a few things to change in the foundry landscape after all and different IHVs moving parts of their manufacturing needs or their entire crop around to other foundries.
It might be completely unrelated to the topic but I frankly never understood why ST Micro's foundry concentrates for years now only on antiquated processes.
http://www.imgtec.com/News/Release/index.asp?NewsID=684
Just a coincidence? Probably yes. I just can't help thinking a bit further with the obvious risk of being completely wrong.
If there should be any merit to it I'd expect quite a few things to change in the foundry landscape after all and different IHVs moving parts of their manufacturing needs or their entire crop around to other foundries.
It might be completely unrelated to the topic but I frankly never understood why ST Micro's foundry concentrates for years now only on antiquated processes.
Could be. However the xbitlabs newsblurb doesn't mention or imply that ST Micro will have any sort of priority like Apple currently has for manufacturing at Samsung.
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
Samsung is announcing the "new" Galaxy S III Mini and reports claim it has a NovaThor U8420.
Does anyone know what this actually is? Is it the same silicon as the U8500, a downclocked version of the L8540 or something entirely different?
The SGX544 from the L8540 would make it really interesting, but the Mali 400MP1 from the U8500 would make it really boring.
Nonetheless, according to the leaked picture the model looks really boring, it doesn't look like a small Galaxy S III at all, it's more like what a Galaxy Ace 3 would look like.
Unless this "Mini" comes really cheap, I think Motorola's RAZR M/i is a much better option for the same size.
Does anyone know what this actually is? Is it the same silicon as the U8500, a downclocked version of the L8540 or something entirely different?
The SGX544 from the L8540 would make it really interesting, but the Mali 400MP1 from the U8500 would make it really boring.
Nonetheless, according to the leaked picture the model looks really boring, it doesn't look like a small Galaxy S III at all, it's more like what a Galaxy Ace 3 would look like.
Unless this "Mini" comes really cheap, I think Motorola's RAZR M/i is a much better option for the same size.
http://www.linleygroup.com/newsletters/newsletter_detail.php?num=4865
******2nd edit: 28nm it is: http://www.anandtech.com/show/5598/stericssons-novathor-l8540-28nm-cortex-a9-soc-with-integrated-lte
http://www.stericsson.com/press/ST-Ericsson_Pressbackgrounder_Smartphones.pdf
***edit: I'm not sure but considering the rather high frequencies of the SGX544s in the 8540 and 9540 the SoCs might be manufactured under Samsung's 28nm.
******2nd edit: 28nm it is: http://www.anandtech.com/show/5598/stericssons-novathor-l8540-28nm-cortex-a9-soc-with-integrated-lte
A more detail ST roadmap can be seen on page 7 of the following presentation.
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9MTQxMjk1fENoaWxkSUQ9LTF8VHlwZT0z&t=1
Confirms the 8520 as being 2xa9 @1.2ghz and Mali graphics. This is the last chip in the ST roadmap that uses Mali graphics.
Note there is a mistake in the roadmap, as it incorrectly cites the A9540 as being Mali graphics.
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9MTQxMjk1fENoaWxkSUQ9LTF8VHlwZT0z&t=1
Confirms the 8520 as being 2xa9 @1.2ghz and Mali graphics. This is the last chip in the ST roadmap that uses Mali graphics.
Note there is a mistake in the roadmap, as it incorrectly cites the A9540 as being Mali graphics.
Last edited by a moderator:
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
So it's not U8420 bur rather U8520, and it seems to be a direct shrink of the U8500?
Why didn't they just use their own Exynos 4212? Because of the integrated baseband?
Why didn't they just use their own Exynos 4212? Because of the integrated baseband?
Probably because of the baseband. Samsung never shied away from buying SoCs from other manufacturers if it should have a requirement their own SoCs don't include.
tangey,
I think but am not sure that the CPU cores in the SIII mini are clocked at 1GHz.
Oh I have no idea ( or much of an interest) as to the clock speed in the phone, but it looks like the soc is spec-ed up to 1.2ghz
I don't think it deserves a new thread (yet):
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/mobile...ilor_PowerVR_Graphics_Cores_to_Foundries.html
http://www.imgtec.com/News/Release/index.asp?NewsID=699
Hmmmm....
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/mobile...ilor_PowerVR_Graphics_Cores_to_Foundries.html
http://www.imgtec.com/News/Release/index.asp?NewsID=699
Hmmmm....
That is a pretty vague statement regarding memory bandwidth. And why would they need "unheard of" levels of memory bandwidth when TBDR GPU's are supposed to require less memory bandwidth vs. other GPU's? 
On a side note, it's interesting (although not unexpected given the source and given the marketing push behind the Series 6 architecture) to see that he defines GPU horsepower as GFLOP throughput. That is a bit misleading IMHO. GPU's used for gaming are almost never compared on a GFLOP/w or GFLOP/mm^2 basis, because this metric often doesn't correlate well with real world gaming performance. On the other hand, this metric is useful for high performance computing, but even then the metric would only be useful when looking at real world achievable and measureable GFLOP throughput rather than maximum theoretical GFLOP throughput.
On a side note, it's interesting (although not unexpected given the source and given the marketing push behind the Series 6 architecture) to see that he defines GPU horsepower as GFLOP throughput. That is a bit misleading IMHO. GPU's used for gaming are almost never compared on a GFLOP/w or GFLOP/mm^2 basis, because this metric often doesn't correlate well with real world gaming performance. On the other hand, this metric is useful for high performance computing, but even then the metric would only be useful when looking at real world achievable and measureable GFLOP throughput rather than maximum theoretical GFLOP throughput.
Last edited by a moderator:
That is a pretty vague statement regarding memory bandwidth. And why would they need "unheard of" levels of memory bandwidth when TBDR GPU's are supposed to require less memory bandwidth vs. other GPU's?
Just because an architecture needs less bandwidth overall than other architectures, it shouldn't mean that when performance rises by a large degree that bandwidth requirements aren't also rising.
Will that generation of GPUs be used ONLY for gaming? When those GPUs will launch we'll be able to compare them with other next generation GPUs and we'll see how perf/mm2 and/or perf/W looks like in real time achievable fillrates, geometry througput and others.
They've stated elsewhere that Rogue is by 5x times more efficient than the current generation.
Since when do IHVs quote theoretical floating point throughput in achievable rates anyway? Other than that when the time comes we'll also see how Rogue fares with GPGPU.
From the so far announced next generation GPU IP cores ST Ericcson quoted for its future Novathor A9600 over 210 GFLOPs, over 5 GTexels fillrate (without overdraw) and over 350M Tris. ARM has quoted for its Mali T604 72 GFLOPs, 2 GTexels fillrate, both being 4 cluster designs.
Obviously raw bandwidth requirements will increase over time. It is just ironic that ImgTech would promote "unheard of" levels of memory bandwidth rather than bandwidth-saving technologies of their TBDR architecture
As long as the gaming industry is thriving, then GPU's will be used primarily for gaming right? That said, do note that we are talking here about SoC's meant primarily for use in handheld devices (ie. smartphones, tablets). Gaming on these handheld devices could stress the GPU more than just about any other type of application available today. GPGPU and high performance computing is largely irrelevant on smartphones/tablets, especially those due out in the near future or next year.
I think you are reading too much into that marketing note. When they say 5x more efficient, I think they mean 5x more GFLOPS in one Series 6 (Rogue) "cluster" vs. one Series 5 "core". The word "cluster" is a very generic term.
IHV's quote this for high performance computing products, not for consumer-focused gaming GPU's.
As noted above, the word "cluster" is a very generic term and could mean almost anything. By the way, weren't these NovaThor 9600 specs announced more than 1.5 years ago? This product may not even make it to market until middle to end of 2013.
There's no such thing as "enough" bandwidth. Ironically all so far SoC hw units share the very same bandwidth, meaning it's obviously not just for the benefit of the GPU.Obviously raw bandwidth requirements will increase over time. It is just ironic that ImgTech would promote "unheard of" levels of memory bandwidth rather than bandwidth-saving technologies of their TBDR architecture
Primarily in what sense? Would you suggest that GPU blocks keep getting larger as time goes by in small form factor SoCs to sit around completely idle most of the time and just get used for 3D and nothing else? How relevant or not GPGPU will be for the small form factor market remains to be seen. Just because several players in the field don't have any GPGPU capabilities in their SFF GPUs yet, it shouldn't mean that they're not about to move into that direction or that we won't see anything in that direction. Image processing is already used in some cases.
No it's 20x times more FLOPs for comparable target markets according to them. Rogue is at minimum DX10.1 while Series5XT is depending on core either DX9.0 or DX9.0L3. SGX545 is DX10.1; it'll get tricky but it's not too hard to find out where that difference comes from.
Feel free to let IMG"s partners know what they SHOULD use them for according to your opinion.
So do the majority of other next generation GPUs. What's your point again?
I don't think it means IMG is going to deliver unheard levels bandwidth. This quote was phrased badly (intentionally perhaps?). It just means they are working on chips that are built to USE unheard levels of bandwidth.
EDIT: edit for clarity
Last edited by a moderator:
That's exactly where I pointed at in the first paragraph of my post right above yours:
Further:
http://withimagination.imgtec.com/i...meta-cpu-advanced-simultaneous-multithreading
Obviously not directly related but SoCs will need healthy bandwidth increases amongst other things. Besides the original quote I used from the PR in question mentions clearly wide I/O memory amongst others.
Similar threads
- Deleted member 13524
- Mobile Devices and SoCs
- Deleted member 13524
- Mobile Devices and SoCs