Print 35 comment(s) - last by Xplorer4x4.. on Jul 24 at 11:04 PM

  (Source: Samsung)
New chip has four low power and four high power cores for maximum efficiency

Samsung Electronics Comp., Ltd. (KSC:005930) has at last fully pulled the wraps off its long bragged about upcoming octacore (8-core) offering which it teased at during the 2013 Consume Electronics Show.  The new chip -- destined for the company's premium smartphones and tablets -- has four high power cores and four lower power cores, coupled with a brand-new hexacore (6-core) GPU, which Samsung is licensing from ARM Holdings plc (LON:ARM).

Here's a breakdown of the new core:

Exynos 5420 ("Exynos 5 Octa")
  • Eight arm cores
    • 28 nm HKMG process
    • Four 1.8 GHz ARM Cortex®-A15™ cores
    • Four 1.3 GHz ARM Cortex-A7™ cores
    • "big.LITTLE" layout
    • 20 percent more processing power than predecessor
  • ARM Mali™-T628 based GPU
    • 6-core ("MP6") configuration
    • OpenGL® ES 3.0
    • Full Profile Open CL 1.1 for general-purpose GPU (GPGPU) compute
    • Full HD 60 fps video hardware codec engines for 1080p video recording and playback
  • Multiple image compression (MIC) IP block
    • Lowers power bringing images out of memory to the screen
    • Supports WQXGA (2500x1600 pixel) displays
  • Dual-channel LPDDR3 support
    • 14.9 GB/s
    • 933MHz
Exynos 5 Octa

The new processor was unveiled at the SIGGRAPH 2013 computer graphics industry conference in Anaheim, Calif.  Samsung revealed it is currently sampling and will ship in August at mass production volumes.

Samsung System LSI marketing VP Taehoon Kim brags, "Demand for richer graphic experiences is growing rapidly nowadays.  In order to meet that demand from both OEMs and end users, we developed this processor which enables superb graphical performance without compromising power consumption."

In lieu of its rocky relationship with Apple, Inc. (AAPL), its biggest client, Samsung's semiconductor (LSI) unit is heavily marketing its 28 nm fabs and new Exynos system-on-a-chip (SoC) products to Chinese OEMs.  Samsung is currently in the process of developing 14 nm technologies, which it hopes to bring to production in 2015.

One likely first target for the Exynos 5420 is the Galaxy S IV "Advanced" variant.  This unannounced, but much rumored smartphone is expected to be launched in the early fall to counter Apple's iPhone 5S.

Sources: Samsung on Bloomberg PR, Samsung Electronics

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

moar coares for mobile?
By Concillian on 7/23/2013 1:47:35 PM , Rating: 3
Who really wants an 8 core phone?

If the single threaded performance of one of the 8 cores is good enough, then give me 2 of those and keep the other six so I can have significantly better battery life.

I don't need moar coares... I need the ability for a heavy use day on the road to not leave me scrambling to find an outlet.

RE: moar coares for mobile?
By retrospooty on 7/23/2013 1:54:47 PM , Rating: 4
Well, its 4 cores, but poorly done if you ask me.

Why have 4 high end A15 cores for speed and 4 low power A7 cores to keep things running that dont need speed. The ARM processor already manages that really well. At any given idle time, 3 of the 4 cores are completely asleep and the 4th is scaled down to a few hundred mhz. Why the need for the extra 4? Seems like a waste of effort. The fact that the current Octa8 isnt any faster, or more efficient than other chips says alot.

RE: moar coares for mobile?
By Shig on 7/23/2013 4:18:22 PM , Rating: 3
It's a 14 core phone. CPU cores still need to be active to feed the 6 GPU cores. In many scenarios it's better to have all four A7s + full GPU power and keeping all the A15s off. There are many other variations, I'm not sure of the exact power gating scheme.

RE: moar coares for mobile?
By retrospooty on 7/23/2013 5:03:02 PM , Rating: 2
If it works as its designed it should give better battery life than its competitors... The current Octa doesnt. Maybe this is fixing some flaws in the initial release? Well have to wait for independent benchmarks of a shipping product for that. I hope it rocks!

RE: moar coares for mobile?
By Reclaimer77 on 7/23/2013 8:24:35 PM , Rating: 3
The fact that the current Octa8 isnt any faster, or more efficient than other chips says alot.

It's not? I'm reading different.

20% performance gains, and crazy good memory throughput.

The reason Samsung is going this route, and what authors should be explaining, is that ARM currently has a major drawback. It's architecture scales very poorly with CPU speed increases, unlike our desktop CPU's.

Whatever the reasons, the results speak for themselves. Seeing as how the "international version" of Galaxy S3's and S4's crush their non-Exynos brethren in benchmarks.

"In objective tests, however, the Galaxy S4 with the Exynos 5 Octa shines. Even though it is clocked 300MHz slower than the Qualcomm Snapdragon 600, it produces a Geekbench 2 score higher than the US model. The Exynos 5 produces a score of 3533 against the score of 3238 produced by the Snapdragon 600. The Galaxy S III produces a score of 1764, showing that the in either variant, the Galaxy S4 is much faster. However, it is also clear that the Exynos 5 has a performance edge over the Snapdragon 600 in raw processing performance."

Read more:

RE: moar coares for mobile?
By retrospooty on 7/23/2013 9:19:34 PM , Rating: 2
I have seen alot of benchmarks. Some its better and some not. Its not a slouch, just wasnt what it was cracked up to be...

I am wondering if they ran into a problem and had to re-spin the chip to get it right, thus this new 20% faster model is what it was supposed to be all along, and also the reason why most S4's have the Snappy600.

RE: moar coares for mobile?
By Reclaimer77 on 7/23/2013 10:01:56 PM , Rating: 3
Well the Exynos 4 didn't support North American LTE bands.

But the Exynos 5 does, all 20 bands of it. So I have no idea why America gets stuck with Snapdragon models of Galaxy phones. It could simply be that Samsung doesn't yet have the production ability to supply enough Exynos chips.

In fact this is like the main reason I passed on the Galaxy 3 and now the Galaxy 4. Not having an Exynos in your Galaxy is like having a Corvette without the V8 imo. (oh but that's right, I'm a hopeless paid-off Samsuck shill lol)

RE: moar coares for mobile?
By retrospooty on 7/24/2013 8:14:01 AM , Rating: 2
Well, today the competition is the Snap800, which is a huge leap over the 600 and anything else available. If this thing can beat an 800 or at least get close, while offering better battery life then hats off to Samsung.

RE: moar coares for mobile?
By unimatrix725 on 7/24/2013 12:04:02 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with the original post. Double or more the cores it should be more than 20% faster. That is excluding MHZ/GHz. It is indeed a flaw of the ARM design, perhaps when the new MIPs phones come out we will actually be happy. Hell does Moores Law even apply to cell phones? Does not look that way as they keep adding cores... Guess its time for ARMs Law! Guaranteed to Double Battery Use Every 18 months and get Less Performance!

RE: moar coares for mobile?
By Reclaimer77 on 7/23/2013 4:56:16 PM , Rating: 2
I love how whenever Samsung releases an Octa the same dummies crawl out of their holes to mindlessly troll it. Without having the slightest idea of the facts.

This isn't like an eight core desktop CPU! Samsung is the largest fabricator of mobile SOC's, I think they know what their doing here.

RE: moar coares for mobile?
By drycrust3 on 7/23/2013 5:12:32 PM , Rating: 2
Who really wants an 8 core phone?

Ah ha! The first mistake one can make in technology is to think that some new piece of technology is useless. History is filled with companies that invented something, thought it was useless, sold it off cheap, and someone else made a fortune.
The reason for this is because we always think of new technology in relation to our current technology. For example, no one thought that computers would eliminate office typing pools, nor that email would eliminate telex machines from offices, but that is what happened.
So we think of 8 cores in relation to things like smart phones and tablets, we don't think of them in relation to things like mouse traps, lawn mowers, growing vegetables, fish ponds, etc, because we don't see a need (as yet) to have an 8 core processor involved. Once we do, the low power - high power capability could mean a device can run on a modest battery pack for quite a period of time, and only use the high powered modes when the mouse comes along, the lawn mower sees the grass has grown too high, the vegetables have caterpillars on them, or a cat is looking in the fish pond.
For example, only yesterday we saw various American government departments wanting to ditch their Blackberrys and get Apple iPhones or Samsung Androids instead. With an 8 core processor you could have some really fancy form of video link encryption on a smartphone that would make it really really difficult to decipher without the correct keys.

RE: moar coares for mobile?
By Arsynic on 7/24/2013 10:52:39 AM , Rating: 2
Who really wants an 8 core phone?

Well, if you want to sell phones to people who buy Android phones, you need to step up the spec warz!

No 64-bit?
By Ammohunt on 7/23/13, Rating: 0
RE: No 64-bit?
By amanojaku on 7/23/2013 1:01:31 PM , Rating: 3
Why is 64-bit so important, when most smartphones and tablets have less than 4GiB of RAM? It would likely make the CPU larger (a non-issue for laptops and desktops, but a big deal for phones fighting for that last millimeter), and it makes the OS and applications larger in memory and cache, increasing power consumption.

For server and desktop applications, however, 64-bit ARM is already being worked on. See the ARMv8, including X-Gene and nVidia's Project Denver.

RE: No 64-bit?
By Kurz on 7/23/2013 1:08:09 PM , Rating: 2

Just addressing some inaccuracies.

RE: No 64-bit?
By darkhawk1980 on 7/23/2013 1:17:29 PM , Rating: 2
Offhand, which inaccuracy are you addressing? The one where you link to a wiki page that deals with x86 CPU's and their problems with addressing more than 2.9 to 3.6 GB of memory in Windows?

Yes, because that is evidently relevant here.

RE: No 64-bit?
By amanojaku on 7/23/2013 1:19:18 PM , Rating: 2
Your link is invalid, because it deals with x86 and desktop Windows. My post was correct with regards to smartphones and tablets, unless you can find evidence that ARM, Android, iOS and Windows Phone suffer from the same limitations.

RE: No 64-bit?
By Xplorer4x4 on 7/24/2013 11:04:39 PM , Rating: 2
You realize Android runs on x86 now right?

RE: No 64-bit?
By kmmatney on 7/23/2013 4:50:05 PM , Rating: 2
You went full retard on that one.

RE: No 64-bit?
By Ammohunt on 7/23/2013 1:15:12 PM , Rating: 3
Servers and 64-bit ARM desktops is what i am interested in not mobile CPU's. I long for the day when i can pickup a full featured ARM 64-Bit desktop MOBO. There is a huge demand for it*(see Rasberry Pi)

RE: No 64-bit?
By Reclaimer77 on 7/23/2013 8:05:47 PM , Rating: 2
Servers and 64-bit ARM desktops is what i am interested in not mobile CPU's.

That kinda doesn't explain your OP. What smartphone needs or would even benefit from this Octa deal being 64bit? They don't have much memory, and nobody is compiling 64bit mobile apps anyway.

Look I stick my foot in my mouth all the time too lol. Just admit it and move on :)

RE: No 64-bit?
By Gurthang on 7/24/2013 7:47:39 AM , Rating: 2
Well, personally unless something changes I think we will need 64-bit or some serious 32-bit page flipping nonsense sooner rather than later in Android/WP7 land. The reason is the Java/JavaScript/.NET they use, these JIT engines are nice to code in but how they deal with memory in order to do their magic means that as free RAM diminishes the more time the engine must spend doing garbage collection and this is not some nice linear relationship. It is one of those you need twice as much as you think sort of things to keep the GC monster at bay. Games already must constantly fight with this and I am sure you have experienced the WTF is my phone doing lag from time to time and I'll give a hint throwing more cores at the problem does not solve it.

I am not saying we need it today but using your experiences with Windows/Linux as a measure for the need for 64-bit in Android is a bad assumption as most of their performance apps are written in naitivly compiled C/C++.

RE: No 64-bit?
By Ammohunt on 7/24/2013 12:45:05 PM , Rating: 2
I thought my OP was pretty clear that I am personally waiting for 64-bit arm cpu's for purposes other than mobile computing.

RE: No 64-bit?
By bug77 on 7/23/2013 4:23:26 PM , Rating: 2
Do you even know what 64bit is for? Other than bragging rights, of course.

RE: No 64-bit?
By Ammohunt on 7/23/13, Rating: 0
ARMs strength is in diversity
By foxalopex on 7/23/2013 1:56:43 PM , Rating: 2
ARM's strength is that they are no single company. There are literally hundreds of different ARM manufacturers including Chinese companies that literally undercut everyone. ARM is a platform which they charge reasonable royalties for. Intel's problem is that they are not established at all in this market and unless they're willing to take a massive loss by producing a world class product that's cheaper than even the Chinese manufacturers, good-luck. Heck even Nvidia has more of a presence in the mobile market. I suspect even AMD has a better chance of getting into this market due to it's graphics heritage thanks to ATI.

Another way of picturing this is Intel (Apple PCs) versus ARM (X86 PCs). The X86s won thanks to their diversity in the end even if Apple started off producing nicer hardware.

By Argon18 on 7/23/13, Rating: -1
RE: intel
By retrospooty on 7/23/2013 12:08:49 PM , Rating: 2
Right... because its over in 2013 and Intel will just fade away. LOL

If I am ARM or any ARM licensee, the last thing in the world I want is Intel starting to focus on mobile... and they are.

RE: intel
By ReloadAO on 7/23/2013 12:21:06 PM , Rating: 2
they were trying to catch discrete GPU power for years, yet still no surprise like they say every year. They are always decent in the field they are not best.

Anyway, more participants, cheaper products!

RE: intel
By retrospooty on 7/23/2013 12:47:45 PM , Rating: 2
Not really... It wasnt what they were focusing on. Graphics and mobile were just afterthoughts, the main Core I3,5,7 lines were the focus. They are now starting to focus on mobile. ARM had better keep pushing, that is all I am saying.

RE: intel
By ReloadAO on 7/23/2013 5:02:33 PM , Rating: 2
From my perspective they were focusing on integrated GPU for last few generations of CPUs.

For example previously it was worth to upgrade CPU every time new came out. Right now if you have Sandy i7 or i5 it is not worthy the upgrade(especially if you need new MB)

On the other hand every time they came with new architecture/generation they marketing mostly on 2x 3x performance of HD graphics.Blablabla.

And dont get me wrong, I know they need it for Laptops, mobile segment etc. But I want just pure power for affordable price, without all the stuff I do not need.

RE: intel
By Argon18 on 7/23/13, Rating: -1
RE: intel
By retrospooty on 7/23/2013 1:11:30 PM , Rating: 4
"How many intel powered smart phones are on the market today? Zero? "

There are actually several and they are among the fastest phones out there, and that is with the old 32nm Atom. Add in .22nm Atom and some Haswell speed improvements and its a whole different ballgame.

"Yes, it is over in 2013."
Good luck with that mentality. That is how RIMM and Palm used to think. The last I checked the world doesnt ened in 2013. Intel has time, money and the strongest chip design and manufacturing expertise on earth.

RE: intel
By smilingcrow on 7/23/2013 1:19:59 PM , Rating: 2
"even if intel managed to catch up there's still no mobile OS that runs on x86"

Android does already and in shipping phones. Clueless.

RE: intel
By retrospooty on 7/23/2013 1:23:14 PM , Rating: 2
"Android does already and in shipping phones. Clueless"

LOL I know. If he were paying any attention at all to the mobile phone world in the past few years he would have known that, and even if not - 10 seconds on Google could have told him that...

"Paying an extra $500 for a computer in this environment -- same piece of hardware -- paying $500 more to get a logo on it? I think that's a more challenging proposition for the average person than it used to be." -- Steve Ballmer

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki