Monday, June 1st 2020
AMD "Ryzen C7" Smartphone SoC Specifications Listed
Last year Samsung and AMD announced their collaboration which promises to deliver smartphone chips with AMD RDNA 2 graphics at its heart. This collaboration is set to deliver first products sometime at the beginning of 2021 when Samsung will likely utilize new SoCs in their smartphones. In previous leaks, we have found that the GPU inside this processor is reportedly beating the competition form Qualcomm, where the AMD GPU was compared to Adreno 650. However, today we have obtained more information about the new SoC which is reportedly called "Ryzen C7" smartphone SoC. A new submission to a mobile phone leaks website called Slash Leaks has revealed a lot of new details to us.
The SoC looks like a beast. Manufactured on TSMC 5 nm process, it features two Gaugin Pro cores based on recently announced Arm Cortex-X1, two Gaugin cores based on Arm Cortex-A78, and four cores based on Arm Cortex-A55. This configuration represents a standard big.LITTLE CPU typical for smartphones. Two of the Cortex-X1 cores run at 3 GHz, two of Cortex-A78 run at 2.6 GHz, while four little cores are clocked at 2 GHz frequency. The GPU inside this piece of silicon is what is amazing. It features four cores of custom RDNA 2 based designs that are clocked at 700 MHz. These are reported to beat the Adreno 650 by 45% in performance measurements.
Source:
@HansDeVriesNL (Twitter)
The SoC looks like a beast. Manufactured on TSMC 5 nm process, it features two Gaugin Pro cores based on recently announced Arm Cortex-X1, two Gaugin cores based on Arm Cortex-A78, and four cores based on Arm Cortex-A55. This configuration represents a standard big.LITTLE CPU typical for smartphones. Two of the Cortex-X1 cores run at 3 GHz, two of Cortex-A78 run at 2.6 GHz, while four little cores are clocked at 2 GHz frequency. The GPU inside this piece of silicon is what is amazing. It features four cores of custom RDNA 2 based designs that are clocked at 700 MHz. These are reported to beat the Adreno 650 by 45% in performance measurements.
50 Comments on AMD "Ryzen C7" Smartphone SoC Specifications Listed
At some point you're going to have to gauge the benefits of your customisations compared to the extra expenses in paying more for a certain license type. This is in part why there are so many Cortex-A7 and Cortex-A53 designs out there, since the companies making those chips, only had to pay for the license once.
Then there's the complexity difference, a quad core Cortex-A53 is relatively simple compared to a big.LITTLE design where you end up with larger caches and most likely difference SoC interfaces as well.
The Snapdragon 805 with the Krait 450 was the last custom core they made, so that's 2014.
The X1 actually looks like ARM doing a reverse Intel, as they're strapping one fast(er) core to two sets of slower cores, whereas Intel strapped several slower cores to a fast core with Lakefield.If this in indeed a real thing, then why couldn't AMD have their own SKU name for it, that would be different from whatever Samsung will call it, assuming this is a collaboration between the two?
And well, yes, this is very Lakefield in reverse, but then Lakefield is kind of Intel's take on big.LITTLE, so it goes around I guess?
I didn't know the licencing was per design (frankly I had assumed some sort of entry price + per shipped chip or some such), but IMO that further makes the case for ratcheting up the price of entry for a relatively limited market part like the X1 - it's the best, but if you want it, you pay for the privilege. In return you get the fastest chip around, plus a design that can likely scale (depending on your silicon design) from flagship phones to tablets and even laptops. A 2x X1 + 2x A78 + 2x A55 chip would likely make for a very snappy device for most tasks and likely scale from ~3-4W sustained at the low end to 10+W at the high end, even if WoA emulation overhead will make that less than optimal.
I'll still hold off on believing this until we see some better sourced info, but it would sure be interesting.That would actually make perfect sense. A deal for a part like this might for example say that Samsung gets all low-power mobile bins, AMD gets all high performance WoA laptop bins, and there'll likely be some overlap in the tablet/convertible space, with each selling their allotment of chips under their own branding.
I don't think this gets the due credit. Arm is different. You don't get memory buffer overflow with arm. Everything can shuffle the same amount of work. Quite a different environment where there is room for premium since it is open for comparison on a seperate chip with a seperate power target. Qualcomm always wins in power efficiency for instance - never fails. So it means something to win at a benchmark, quite so different on x86. You can have different levels of native performance depending on the software adoption level on x86. On Arm it is dependent on hardware adoption level, imo.
They were 28nm parts en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Qualcomm_Snapdragon_systems-on-chip#Snapdragon_800,_801_and_805_(2013/14)
Oh, I didn't infer that ARM was trying to copy Intel, but it's like we now have Huge.big.LITTLE, which is getting a bit confusing, but it was clearly something that Samsung and Qualcomm got into first with the one or two faster cores.
The license isn't per design, it's per core SKU you want from ARM, but on top of that, if reading the ARM site correctly, depending on the license you have, you also have to pay them at tape-out and a per unit made/sold royalty as well...
I guess we're going to have to wait and see with regards to performance, but this is why I said there's likely to be custom implementations, as we'll most likely see single X1 cores in high-end phones and dual X1 cores in something like what you're proposing.
As for the supposedly AMD part, who knows, right now it's an image on the internet...
That assumption of yours makes sense as well, if they can bin them like that, or at least make a couple of very similar SKUs that doesn't require too much change in terms of manufacturing.
let's see the battle begins in early 2021.
Whoever the winner please shut up and take my money lol
I am ready...
Wouldn't be surprised to see this Ina future Asus ROG phone or the like
Would also be interesting to see Gpd do something with it
Who would believe a 4CU RDNA2 at 0.7GHz with 360GFLOPs could be 45% faster than Adreno 650, which has 3-4x more GFLOPs. It's true, GFLOPs between different architectures don't mean the same performance(RDNA vs Vega), but this is just too much of a difference to be real.
1. Adreno is a transformed Radeon word, and
2. I do Not see any reason why AMD should use ARM technology instead of Ryzen technology for mobile market
1. Adreno is a GPU brand from Qualcomm and they bought Imageon from AMD, that's why It's an Anagram of Radeon.
2. Maybe because ARM provides better performance at very very low TDP <=5W? And I am not sure If Ryzen can use Android without emulating It.
1: It is public knowledge at this point that there will be an Radeon RDNA (2?) GPU in an upcoming Samsung mobile SoC. It has been stated publicly by both companies.
2: It is quite unlikely that Zen can scale low enough in power for applications like this. While Zen 2 cores are extremely efficient for PC chips, and can run on just a couple of watts at relatively high speeds, that's not enough for a smartphone or tablet SoC. It would need at least 4 cores (ideally 8) and peak at ~5W with sustained power draw at ~3W, which would likely be impossible with Zen. They also couldn't use infinity fabric, again due to power draw.
There are miss spellings. Who did proofread the leaked information. Gaugin, Arm microarchitecture is nothing to do with Ryzen made of ZEN microarchitecture. Gaugin, arm microarchitecture can not put on Ryzen made of ZEN microarchitecture. Even an amateure can understand that!!! Do not insist something with wrong information!!!
A fabless ccompany went woo wrong. They should consider doing something without mistakes.