Results 1 to 10 of 17

Thread: ARM's 64-bit Juno Platform Should Be Quite Exciting

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,413

    Default ARM's 64-bit Juno Platform Should Be Quite Exciting

    Phoronix: ARM's 64-bit Juno Platform Should Be Quite Exciting

    Announced yesterday by ARM was their Juno development platform as the first "open" development board for 64-bit ARM with its ARMv8 instruction set...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTczMzM

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,738

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by phoronix View Post
    Phoronix: ARM's 64-bit Juno Platform Should Be Quite Exciting

    Announced yesterday by ARM was their Juno development platform as the first "open" development board for 64-bit ARM with its ARMv8 instruction set...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTczMzM
    How "open" are the graphics for this.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    346

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 89c51 View Post
    How "open" are the graphics for this.
    They use Mali, so the Lima driver should work. Not sure how well, though. I've just ordered a pcDuino3, so soon I'll know

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    848

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by phoronix
    Mali-T624 graphics
    Quote Originally Posted by 89c51 View Post
    How "open" are the graphics for this.
    The graphics driver uses binary blobs. The hardware is not yet listed as supported by the reverse engineered Lima driver: http://limadriver.org/Hardware/ (though I understand that work has started already).

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    210

    Default

    Its a shame really. The Apple A4 has been out how long now??? Well I would like to see how well this compares to x86_64 both in integer and floating point, and especially performance per watt. What intel charges for their cpus, especially their xeons is just highway robbery nowadays.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Bathurst, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    49

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bnolsen View Post
    Its a shame really. The Apple A4 has been out how long now???
    Over 4.5 years. If you meant the 64-bit A7, that'd be 9 months now.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    117

    Default

    "They will only be available to qualified partners and developers" - basically, these boards are not for the mere mortals. You will not be able to buy them even if you wanted to...

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,480

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bnolsen View Post
    Its a shame really. The Apple A4 has been out how long now??? Well I would like to see how well this compares to x86_64 both in integer and floating point, and especially performance per watt. What intel charges for their cpus, especially their xeons is just highway robbery nowadays.
    According to geekbench 3, the a7 @1.3GHz (abi compatible with arm v8a) is about 30% faster than the Core i5-2520M @ 2.50 GHz. So, clock for clock, it looks pretty good. My guess is, though, it'll be either the gen after a57, or a later rev before it gets serious. There's also the question of how fast these new archs can clock, with the best newest Intel going past 4GHz.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    51

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by liam View Post
    According to geekbench 3, the a7 @1.3GHz (abi compatible with arm v8a) is about 30% faster than the Core i5-2520M @ 2.50 GHz. So, clock for clock, it looks pretty good. My guess is, though, it'll be either the gen after a57, or a later rev before it gets serious. There's also the question of how fast these new archs can clock, with the best newest Intel going past 4GHz.
    I don't know what benchmarks you're looking at, but the statements above strike me as very wrong.
    A more accurate claim, IMHO, would be that (averaged over a range of code) the Apple A7 has about equivalent IPC to an i3.

    There are multiple ways to look at this. On the one hand, that's a whole lot slower than an i3 clocked twice as fast, let alone an i7 clocked at 4GHz. On the other hand, the A7 is a whole lot cheaper and smaller, and uses less power (at the same frequency, and vastly less than a 4GHz CPU).

    Basically the only honest thing to say is that the A7 is a remarkably impressive effort for only the second Apple core.
    Extrapolating beyond that (which is what people are essentially doing when they perform say an i7@4GHz comparison) heads into territory that NO-ONE knows anything about, so you're simply guessing. Yes, Intel can drive their CPU at 4GHz and Apple can't, so advantage Intel. But maybe Apple could? Who knows? They just have no need to do so.
    Maybe Intel's advantage is all process, and Apple (or at least their manufacturing partners) will get to Intel's level of process soon enough, given their higher volumes?
    Maybe Intel's advantage is circuits, and Apple does not have that sort of expertise, so they'll be at around half to a third of Intel's max frequency for quite a few years?
    Maybe Apple have a deliberate plan in mind, a specific ordering by which they will add things to their SoC (2014 means higher frequency, HW TM, better uncore; 2015 means revised micro-architecture that's 30% higher IPC than today and quad-core; 2016 means kilo-instruction-processing techniques and performance equivalent to Intel at half the frequency)? They're following the plan that gets them to where they want to be with the most appropriate CPUs at each point along the way.

    It's fun to speculate and all, but let's be realistic here. None of us have a clue what Apple's end goal is: (Replace the CPUs in all Macs with an Apple SoC? Replace the CPUs in Apple's server centers with an Apple SoC? Sell an Apple CPU to the world and compete with Intel?) let alone the capabilities of their manufacturing partners. Which means that extrapolations (implied or otherwise) beyond the actual facts --- the actual frequencies Apple ships, for the actual target products Apple sells --- tell us nothing except that Apple targets phones (where Intel is largely unsuccessful) and Intel targets servers (where Apple has zero presence today, and no claim of a presence tomorrow).

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •