Saturday, November 29, 2014

Samsung and Apple reach agreement for supply of future Apple processors

According to an article published by the Korea Times on November 17, 2014, Samsung and Apple have reached an agreement for the supply of future Apple application processors. The agreement is reported to involve Samsung supplying 80% of Apple's application processors in 2016. The fact that GlobalFoundries has also aligned with Samsung's 14nm FinFET process technology is cited as an additional motivation for Apple, in order to eliminate production capacity concerns.

Agreement will take a long time to come to fruition


However, it is clear from the article that this is long-term agreement that will take considerable time to bring financial benefits to Samsung and involves potential risks and delays given the technological advancements involved in Samsung's new 14nm FinFET process. A research report quoted in the article notes that Samsung's 14nm process for external customers will only start to contribute in the second half of 2015, illustrating that mass production for customers such as Apple is still some way off.

Given the high amount of investment required to bring its advanced 14nm FinFET process to high volume production, it is obvious that Samsung needs clear commitments from third parties that will utilize the process with significant volume. In the article, apart from Apple, Qualcomm and NVIDIA are also mentioned as potential customers.

TSMC continues to benefit from its existing leadership position


Meanwhile, TSMC, which is manufacturing Apple's current generation A8 and A8X and may also produce additional next-generation Apple chips before the Samsung agreement bears fruit, will continue to to benefit from supplying the vast majority of Apple's chips for some time, starting from its current 20nm production. Even though TSMC's 16nm FinFET process technology (evolving from 16FF to 16FF+) is less advanced in terms of feature size than Samsung's 14nm process, its more evolutionary nature most likely will allow TSMC to ramp to stable production much earlier and more smoothly (see also my earlier article), with Apple interested in using it, just as most other major SoC players. In fact Apple was reported to have a signed a multi-year deal with TSMC last year including not only TSMC's 20nm process but also its 16nm FinFET technology.

Capacity constraints at TSMC may disappear


There is also potential for the current shortage of wafer capacity at TSMC to become much less acute in the future, which would diminish one of the main motivations for Apple and other companies to invest in Samsung's production capacity. DigiTimes has already reported that chip orders for Apple's current latest generation devices have reached their peak and are already declining, which may result in a less constrained capacity environment at TSMC in the near term.

Transition to more cost-effective SoCs for performance-oriented segment may reduce wafer requirements


Another potential reason for less wafer capacity requirements at TSMC in the near future is the transition in the performance-oriented segment of the smartphone SoC market from large die size, relatively costly chip platforms such as Qualcomm's Snapdragon 800 series (more or less comparable to Apple's SoCs in terms of cost) to more economical Cortex-A53-based SoCs such as Snapdragon 610, Snapdragon 615 and MediaTek's next generation of chips.

Currently, Qualcomm supplies the Snapdragon 800 series to a large part of the market (even for segments for which its performance is greater than required) because it is less affected by the cost of the chip because of the large margins it achieves through its patent royalty schemes, as well as a performance gap in its product lines of SoCs with integrated modem. However, even for Qualcomm transitioning to less costly chips has the potential to increase profits, and in the past Qualcomm has already benefited from a somewhat similar transition to ARM's economical Cortex-A7 processor core for cost-sensitive platforms.

The new Cortex-A53-based SoCs have the potential to provide performance that is adequate for a large part of the performance segment, while being power efficient and due to the smaller die size may significantly reduce the total number of wafers required for performance-oriented smartphone SoCs.

Sources: Korea Times article, Blog article from 3 October

Updated December 5, 2014.

Wednesday, November 12, 2014

China tablet processor market: Intel and MediaTek projected to gain share in Q4, Allwinner continues to decline

According to a recent report by DigiTimes, shipments of tablet applications processors in China grew slower than expected in Q3 2014, increasing only by 6%, affected by affordable models from global brand-name manufacturers. DigiTimes also published a forecast with estimated shipments and market share figures for the China market in Q4 2014, with overall shipments projected to increase by a modest 4.7%.

Intel pushing into Chinese tablet market


The articles do not give a complete overview of market share figures or shipments by company, but they do provide details about the strong growth of Intel's tablet processor chips in China (most likely primarily due to a push into the Chinese white-box market), growing to 2.5 million units (7.5% share) in Q3 2014, with a projection of about 5 million units (14.5% share) in Q4, reaching the number three position in terms of market share.

MediaTek highly competitive, with capacity constraints likely to improve for Q4


While MediaTek is reported to have seen 25% unit growth in worldwide tablet processor shipments in Q3, surpassing the worldwide unit shipment of Rockchip, in China MediaTek's shipments declined, with its market share in China declining from 27.2% to 22.6%. The overall unit growth for MediaTek probably for a large part reflects the ramp of design wins for Amazon Kindle tablets that are manufactured through Taiwanese ODMs. As I explained an earlier article, the MT8135V chip used by Amazon is likely to be relatively high-cost, low-margin chip that has taken up a significant portion of MediaTek's limited wafer capacity for tablet processors at TSMC, which is the likely explanation for the shipment decline in China as MediaTek has been unable to satisfy demand for its otherwise very efficient and cost-effective solutions for both WiFi-only and 3G-enabled tablets, prioritizing shipments for Amazon and other international brand-name manufacturers.

However, DigiTimes expects MediaTek to lead the Chinese tablet processor market in Q4 2014, which would be the first time MediaTek has achieved that position. This implies fairly strong shipment growth for MediaTek in China and must be the result of an improved wafer capacity situation. That MediaTek's capacity has become less limited is apparent in its revenue numbers for October 2014, which saw a significant increase over the prior month.

Rockchip's shipments less than expected, losing leadership position in Q4


Rockchip is reported to have seen shipments decline by about 12% in Q3, much worse than the estimates reported earlier by DigiTimes and discussed in an earlier blog post, which saw Rockchip significantly increasing it leadership position in Q3. It seems the estimates for Rockchip were indeed much too optimistic, also affected by Intel's growth, whose chips to a large extent cover the segment of Rockchip's high-volume mid-range RK3188(T) chip, which is also becoming less competitive from a manufacturing cost standpoint. Rockchip is transitioning to the more cost-effective quad-core Cortex-A7-based RK3126 for the cost-sensitive market, but it appears that this will not prevent Rockchip from losing its leadership position in China to MediaTek.

Allwinner continues to decline


Allwinner's shipments declined by 10% in Q3 2014 from an already relatively low base in Q2, providing evidence that the launch of its new low-cost A33 processor has failed to meet expectations (as discussed in my earlier blog post, there have already been signs that the A33 could be the latest of several consecutive more or less failed product introductions by Allwinner dating back to 2013, all of which show evidence of severe hardware or software engineering issues), and therefore isn't helping Allwinner to recover its market share. Indeed, DigiTimes projects another 17% decline in shipments for Allwinner in Q4 2014, causing it drop behind Intel in the unit shipment ranking. Because of the failed and delayed product introductions, Allwinner has seen its product mix for the high-volume cost-sensitive segment continue to get worse, with its remaining shipments mostly consisting of almost obsolete chips sold for fire-sale prices on which Allwinner cannot make a profit. Although Allwinner has recently brought the high-end A80(T) chip to market, the volume for this chip is likely to be limited with high costs so that it most likely has only worsened Allwinner's financial situation.

Sources: DigiTimes Research (Q3 China tablet AP shipments), DigiTimes Research (Q4 tablet AP shipment projections)

Monday, November 10, 2014

China smartphone SoC market share: MediaTek leads, but Qualcomm likely to gain in the near-term

In a recent report, DigiTimes Research has given detailed figures for smartphone application processor shipments and market share for the Chinese market in Q3 2014. It shows that unit shipments increased 11.7% over Q2 2014, with relatively minor shifts in market share between the different smartphone SoC suppliers.

MediaTek still holds majority share in China with strong 3G shipments


MediaTek remained the largest player with 52.1% market share, followed by Qualcomm with 23.5%. Chinese company Spreadtrum, which concentrates on the low end, had a market share of 11.7%. HiSilicon (the chip division of Huawei, which mostly produces higher-performance SoCs for use in Huawei smartphones) is reported as having a market share of 5.2%, and Leadcore Technology places fifth.

Most of MediaTek's shipments consisted of its established cost-effective 3G solutions, while a significant portion of Qualcomm's shipments consisted of its recent MSM8916 (Snapdragon 410) with integrated 4G, a SoC clocked at 1.2 GHz that uses an early-revision Cortex-A53 CPU core that appears to be limited to ARMv7 compatibility mode, rather than fully supporting the performance improvements associated with ARMv8.

When compared to market share figures provided by DigiTimes Research for Q2 2014, MediaTek's share remained virtually the same, while Qualcomm recorded slight growth (21.4% to 23.5%), and Spreadtrum also grew (9.7% to 11.7%). Among the smaller players, Marvell has dropped out of the top 5, with Leadcore taking its place.

MediaTek likely to lose some market share in the near term


For Q4 2014, DigiTimes research forecasts sequential growth of 9.5% when compared to Q3 2014. This estimate is incompatible with other articles published by DigiTimes that talk about widespread inventory issues in the Chinese smartphone supply chain.

MediaTek has forecast smartphone SoC unit shipments to remain approximately the same in Q4 when compared to Q3 with overall company revenues decreasing slighty. The flat growth for MediaTek, combined with likely increased export market shipments to countries such as India, probably implies lower unit shipments in China for MediaTek even as the market is expected to grow, with a declining market share in terms of units, while its overall product mix will temporarily have a higher proportion of low-cost solutions such as its dual-core chips that are popular in the export market (although offset by the initial ramp of mid-range integrated 4G solutions). This is also compatible with MediaTek's projection of a small decline in revenues in Q4 2014 while maintaining its level of unit shipments for smartphone chips.

Sales projections and continuing transition to 4G suggest market share gain for Qualcomm in China in Q4


Qualcomm is forecasting sequential growth in chip shipments in Q4, although it continues to put an emphasis on issues in China regarding royalty collection related to the Chinese regulatory probe into monopolistic practices, and is not clear about its short-term growth prospects in China

Although most of Qualcomm's revenues and shipments are derived from international brand-name manufacturers such as Samsung, LG, HTC and Sony, it is likely that Qualcomm will gain market share in China in the short term, based on its leadership position with SoCs with integrated 4G baseband, which have been adopted by the largest Chinese manufacturers. There are simply few alternatives for cost-effective 4G smartphones. Samsung's increased use of internally produced Exynos SoCs in its smartphones also makes it likely that Qualcomm's sequential growth is concentrated in other segments, such as China.

While MediaTek will soon increase shipments of mid-range SoCs with integrated 4G that will significantly raise the bar for performance of affordable smartphones, MediaTek does not yet have a low-cost 4G solution for the highest-volume entry-level 4G segment, while Qualcomm is better able to address this market, first with versions of its Snapdragon 400/410 platforms (of which the new Snapdragon 410 already shows indications of cost reduction), and soon with the cost-reduced Snapdragon 210 platform. The gap in MediaTek's product line will only be filled when the cost-reduced MT6735 (low-end SoC with integrated 4G) ships in 2015.

Sources: DigiTimes (DigiTimes Research smartphone AP shipments in China in Q3 2014), Qualcomm Q3 2014 Financial Results

Updated December 1, 2014.

MediaTek Q3 results: Affected by transition to 4G, but high level of shipments maintained in Q3 and Q4

Recently, MediaTek released its Q3 2014 financial results, and revenues for the month of October 2014 have also come in. Although MediaTek has lost some market share to due the transition to 4G, its forecast for Q4 is somewhat better than expected by financial markets and it expects to maintain a high level of smartphone SoC unit shipments.

Lateness of integrated 4G solutions impacts results, but high level of unit shipments maintained


MediaTek reported sequential revenue growth for Q3 2014 of only 6% compared to Q2 2014, a relatively low increase given normal seasonal trends. In its Q3 results conference call, MediaTek cited the transition from 3G to 4G smartphones as a reason for the relatively low growth, since MediaTek has not yet ramped production of SoCs with integrated 4G baseband and currently still relies a two-chip solution to provide 4G. Competitor Qualcomm has already been selling SoCs with integrated 4G for some time and dominates that segment, providing a threat to MediaTek's market share. I believe that a lack of wafer production capacity at TSMC was also a major contributor to MediaTek's low growth in Q3 2014, which the company has not publicly commented on.

Even though 4G growth in markets such as China has been lower than expected, the lack competitive 4G solutions means that MediaTek has lost some market share as 4G adoption grows, as was already apparent when looking new product lines from major MediaTek customers in China such as TCL (Alcatel One Touch), Coolpad, Lenovo and ZTE, whose 4G models mostly use Qualcomm Snapdragon SoCs. Some loss of market share in China is corroborated by a market share report for smartphone SoCs in China in Q3 2014 from DigiTimes Research, although MediaTek still held greater than 50% of the market.

Q4 2014 forecast better than expected


Still, MediaTek maintained smartphone SoC solution unit shipments in the 90 to 100 million range in Q3 2014 and expects similar shipments in Q4 2014, somewhat better than expected by the market. The expectation that overall revenues for Q4 2014 (which also includes MediaTek's other diverse product lines) will fall in the range between a 6% decline and 2% growth from Q3 2014 is also better than expected by the market. For Q4 2014, MediaTek expects that more than 20% of its smartphone SoC shipments will be 4G (presumably mostly reflecting the start of shipment of new integrated solutions), representing about 20 million units, reaching a full year 2014 shipment target of 30 million units. MediaTek noted volatile movements in the ASP (average sellling price) of smartphone chips due to strong competition, with limited visibility for 2015.

MediaTek disclosed that for the whole year (2014), it expects to ship about 350 million smartphone SoC solutions (of which 30 million 4G), as well as 40 million tablet SoCs. For smartphone SoCs, although China is MediaTek's largest market, the export market (reflecting smartphone SoCs sold to companies in India and other countries, with a large proportion of low-end dual-core chips) is growing in importance, with its share growing from 30% of shipments in the first half of 2014 to 40% in the second half. The increased proportion of low-end dual-core smartphone chips in Q4 (although offset by the ramp of higher-end 4G solutions) is likely to contribute to MediaTek's slight revenue decline in Q4 2014 at similar level of unit shipments.

MediaTek will be more competitive in 4G performance segments, low-cost 4G solution to follow


Looking forward, MediaTek expects the ramp of its integrated 4G solutions in 2015 to result in a better product mix, which makes sense since new chips such as MT6752 and MT6795, both with octa-core ARM Cortex-A53 CPU, make MediaTek a lot more competitive for higher-performance segments. MediaTek has also indicated that its upcoming cost-reduced MT6735 and MT6735M SoCs, which will come to market in the first part of 2015, will improve its competitiveness for the low-cost 4G market.

In the near term, MediaTek only has the MT6732 to address the lower-priced part of the integrated 4G SoC market, but this chip is relatively expensive to manufacture for a low-cost solution, being more suited for the lower part of the mid-range segment. An important reason for the relatively high cost seems to be the use of an ARM Mali-T760 MP2 GPU, which although providing good performance and power efficiency, has a relatively large die area not suited for the low-cost segment. The upcoming cost-reduced MT6735 changes the GPU to a more cost-effective Mali-T720. The manufacturing process node may also play a role. Although information is scarce, it is likely that the MT6732 is manufactured using TSMC' s more expensive 28HPM process like MediaTek's higher-end SoCs, while the MT6735 will probably be manufactured using the more cost-effective 28LP process that is more suitable for cost-sensitive applications. In its conference call, MediaTek noted that the LP process is preferable for products for the entry-level segment.

Lack of production capacity likely to have affected MediaTek


Although not publicly discussed by Mediatek, I believe lack of wafer production capacity at TSMC (primarily earlier in the year) has significantly depressed MediaTek' s sales levels for recent quarters such as Q2 2014 and Q3 2014. In its Q3 2014 conference call, MediaTek noted that it needs to work with multiple foundry partners due to its size. Reports earlier in the year from sources such as DigiTimes provided hints that MediaTek has been facing a shortage of production capacity. It has been reported that MediaTek made a failed attempt to ramp production at GlobalFoundries in 2014, which would have affected its planned capacity. DigiTimes has also reported on planned MediaTek production ramps at UMC in the face of capacity tightness. Signs that MediaTek has not been able to satisfy demand for its chips are apparent in the tablet market, for which the company has several very competitive solutions that have not shipped in the volume (especially in China) that one would normally expect in an efficient market, opening up the opportunity to take market share for companies that do not rely on TSMC for production capacity such as Rockchip and Intel.

However, MediaTek's revenues for the month of October 2014 came in at NT$21.6 billion (US$706 million), representing an increase of 16.5% from the month of September, suggesting an improvement in its capacity situation. For November 2014, revenues dropped to NT$16.8 billion. MediaTek was already conservative about its Q4 revenues when October revenues were known, so the drop is likely to have been expected by the company. Factors involved could be seasonal declines in several product segments (including its legacy product segments), production transitions (such as from MT6592 to newly ramping mid-range SoCs with 4G), competition from Qualcomm and other players with low-end smartphone SoCs within integrated 4G (a segment for which MediaTek does not have a good solution in the near term), as well as being a reflection of the wafer shortage at TSMC that may have reached its peak a few months ago.

Sources: DigiTimes (DigiTimes Research smartphone AP shipments in China in Q3 2014), DigiTimes (MediaTek Q3 results), DigiTimes (MediaTek October 2014 revenues), MediaTek (Q3 2014 conference call)

Updated December 5, 2014.

Friday, November 7, 2014

Analysis of tablet processors by chip company, with a focus on Geekbench CPU performance

The Geekbench browser, which includes hundreds of thousands of mobile benchmark results, provides access to a wealth of information about the CPU and memory performance of smartphone and tablet SoCs. Because certain subtests within Geekbench results (such as the single-core JPEG Compress test) correlate well with CPU clock speed for a given CPU core, it is possible to determine the actual maximum clock speed of the CPU, which sometimes does not correspond to the advertised clock speed or even the clock speed reported by the operating system.

By assessing the number of entries for a specific chip or model, the database of also provides an indication about the unit volume and popularity of specific chips and models. The approximate arrival on the end market of specific chips can also be estimated.

In this post, I am analysing the Android ARM and x86-based tablet processor market of the last two years or so from the low-end (mostly chip used in Chinese white-box tablets) to high-end devices from well known brand names, with a focus on CPU performance and other information that can be found after studying the Geekbench results database. The article takes on tablet SoC chip companies in alphabetical order, one-by-one.

Although the article specifically focuses on tablet chips, there is some overlap with smartphone chips since many players in smartphone chip space also compete in tablets with solutions that are generally similar to their smartphone chip solutions. HiSilicon, the chip division of Huawei, is becoming more prominent for smartphone SoCs but has been omitted because it does not really target tablets. A similar argument applies to the Chinese low-end smartphone chip designer Spreadtrum. These companies may be covered in a future update or in an article focusing on smartphone chips.

Actions Semiconductor


Actions a Chinese chip company with a long prior history in the MP3 player chip market, which has operated at the bottom-level of the white-box tablet market in the last few years.

Chip      Arrival  Fab    CPU             Clock speed  Geekbench  Multi   GPU
                          configuration   (typical)    JPEG C.    core x

ATM7021   Q4 2013  40nm  2 x Cortex-A5    1.3? GHz                        PowerVR SGX540
ATM7029A  Q1 2013  40nm  4 x Cortex-A5    1.0 GHz      296   681  2.30    Vivante GC1000
ATM7029B           40nm  4 x Cortex-A5    1.2? GHz                        PowerVR SGX540
ATM7059            28nm  4 x Cortex-A9    1.6 GHz                         PowerVR SGX544 MP

The ATM7029A from Actions is a low-end quad-core SoC that was one of the first affordable quad-core tablet processors to appear on the market, and has been sold in fair numbers in low-end tablets. However, the chip cuts corners with regard to performance in a rather unorthodox way. Actions advertised the chip as containing Cortex-A9 (later "Cortex-A9 family") CPU cores, while actually containing Cortex-A5 cores that perform about half as fast at a given clock speed (also significantly slower than Cortex-A7). Actions also modified the Android kernel to hide the actual CPU core type and also to falsely report a 1.2 GHz clock speed while the actual maximum speed is 1.0 GHz. The SoC displays very poor multi-core performance scaling for a quad-core CPU of only 2.3x for the JPEG Compress test in Geekbench, probably due to a very small and slow L2 cache.

The AT7029B is an improved version of the ATM7029 that replaces the less compatible Vivante GC1000 GPU with a more proven PowerVR SGX540.

The ATM7021A is an ultra-low-end dual-core Cortex-A5 processor that arrived in the market at the end of 2013. It only supports 512MB RAM and has been sighted in ultra-cheap tablets advertised on the internet.

The ATM7039c/7039s/7059 family consists of higher performance SoC designs that incorporate a quad-core Cortex-A9 running at 1.6 GHz. The ATM7039s and ATM7059 are manufactured at 28nm so have increased power efficiency, although the aging Cortex-A9 core is much less power efficient (as well having much large die area) than the Cortex-A7 used by most competitors. The chips have been in the pipeline for some time and Actions remains hopeful that they will appear on the market in 2014. However, it terms of cost efficiency the chips give the impression of following Rockchip's RK3188(T) long after the fact at a time when such a solution has almost ceased to be competitive.

Allwinner Technology


Allwinner is a Chinese tablet chip company that for some time (2012-2013) dominated the worldwide unit volume for tablet processors with cost-effective chips like the A1x series, and has probably shipped more than 100 million units in total. More recently, the company has suffered from loss of market share due to problematic and delayed new product introductions.

Chip      Arrival  Fab    CPU              Clock speed Geekbench   Multi   GPU
                          configuration    (typical)   JPEG C.     core x

A10       Q1 2012  55nm   1x Cortex-A8     1.00 GHz     423   424  1.00    Mali-400
A13       2H 2012  55nm   1x Cortex-A8     1.00 GHz     416   418  1.00    Mali-400
A20       Q3 2013  55nm   2x Cortex-A7     1.00 GHz     384   785  1.97    Mali-400 MP2
A23       Q3 2014  40nm   2x Cortex-A7     1.20 GHz     463   922  1.99    Mali-400 MP2
A31s      2013     40nm   4x Cortex-A7     1.01 GHz     387  1571  4.06    PowerVR SGX544 MP2
A33       Q3 2014  40nm   4x Cortex-A7     1.20 GHz     466  1450* 3.11*   Mali-400 MP2
A80T      Q3 2014  28nm   4x Cortex-A15/A7 1.60 GHz     927  4020  4.34    PowerVR Series 6
A83T      Q4 2014? 28nm   8x Cortex-A7     2.0? GHz                        PowerVR
* The CPU performance of the A33 shows different CPU scaling in different entries, with some close to 4 as expected for a fully utilized quad-core CPU, while many others show a scaling factor of only about 3.1 or even as low as 2.6. Some other scores seem to correlate with the CPU scaling factor variation, with the multi-core JPEG Decompress result scaling to all CPUs when the JPEG Compress test is low. Scheduling characteristics such as thermal throttling or other factors could be involved.

The A10 was Allwinner's first successful chip targeting tablets, with its relatively high level of integration providing significant cost advantages, which catapulted Allwinner into dominance of the Chinese white-box tablet market in 2012. The A13 was a cost-reduced version of the A10 with a 16-bit external memory interface, which later caused problems as memory bandwidth requirements increased with newer Android versions and higher resolution screens. The old Cortex-A8 CPU core had relatively competitive integer performance while floating point performance was much lower than more recent designs.

The A31s (a cost-reduced version of the A31 that was released a little earlier), a quad-core Cortex-A7-based SoC with a powerful PowerVR SGX544 MP2 GPU, arrived on the market in 2013 and was more or less Allwinner's last succesful product introduction. Although the 40nm process limited clock speeds due to power and heat limitations, the A31/A31s were a reasonable success in higher-end Chinese tablets and also used by some well known brand names such as HP, although due to cost not suited for the really high-volume part of the Chinese white-box market. This chip has continued to be sold for a long time.

The dual-core A20 was intended as a pin-compatible successor to the succesful A10 processor, which was also manufactured at 55nm as early as 2012 and widely used at the time. The A20 is notable for using Cortex-A7 cores with a trailing-edge 55nm process. Originally announced in 2012, the product suffered from serious delays and quality issues related to firmware when it arrived in the market in the second half of 2013 and was not a success, contributing to Allwinner's decline. I have personal experience with an early A20-based Android tablet which came with grossly misconfigured firmware (unstable, running at 0.7 GHz, with very slow screen refresh), which nevertheless ran a custom Linux OS without problems at 1.0 GHz, suggesting that much of the problem was very sloppy software engineering related to low-level chip initialization in the Android firmware.

The A23 is the replacement for the A20 using a more sensible 40nm process. However, it also did not come to market smoothly and the Geekbench database provides evidence that it only arrived on the market as recently as Q3 2014, being more or less immediately superseeded by the Allwinner's quad-core A33 which is arriving at the same time. Geekbench results provide evidence that the kernel has been modified by Allwinner to falsely report the CPU speed as 1.54 GHz, with all shipping devices actually running at an estimated maximum speed of 1.20 GHz.

The quad-core A33 is logical extension of the A2x and was announced in June 2014 as a entry-level tablet solution, with mass production already having commenced, highly important for any recovery of Allwinner's market position. As of early November 2014, a few entries in the database have appeared suggesting the use of the A33 but this is not yet suggestive of a successful product introduction. The results listed seem to reflect devices based on A23 ("sun8i") firmware, and show lower than expected multi-core performance scaling of only about 2.6 - 3.1 for the Geekbench JPEG Compress benchmark (close to 4 would be expected), which could be due to limited L2 cache size or other factors, and the chip also shows a very low memory performance score. A possible explanation for the lower than expected performance is that the L2 cache (which should have the very reasonable size of 512KB according to Allwinner) is disabled due to hardware defects in earlier revisions of the A33. However, some recent entries in the Geekbench database show CPU scaling close to 4.0 (as expected) for A33-based devices, with variation for other benchmark tests such as JPEG Decompress also being observed. CPU clock speed appears to be falsely reported as 1.34 GHz, because actual single-core performance suggests a 1.20 GHz maximum clock speed for the Cortex-A7 cores. Allwinner has announced that HP (who earlier used the A31s) is using the A33 in the new HP 7 G2 and HP 8 G2 tablets, and mentioned having achieved one million units shipments of A33. However, the Amazon website evidence shows no reviews for these models, suggesting that actual volume availability is still doubtful. The A33 being another failed product introduction from Allwinner cannot be ruled out at this point.

Finally, the ambitious octa-core big.LITTLE A80 SoC is Allwinner's attempt to address the high-performance market. After several delays, which saw the A80 pitched mainly at development boards and other non-tablet applications, with suggestions of power and heat issues, numerous entries for the Allwinner A80T-based Onda V989 tablet have started to appear in the Geekbench database in the last few months. The results are consistent with a Cortex-A15 clock speed of about 1.6 GHz, lower than the advertised 2.0 GHz. This is confirmed by independent research. Although the chip provides high performance relative to previous Allwinner chips, performance is still lower than previous generation, lower-power SoCs such as Qualcomm's Snapdragon 800 for smartphones. The chip also shows lower multi-core performing scaling than comparable chips from competitors such as HiSilicon's Kirin 920 for smartphones, although there is evidence that the Cortex-A7 cores are also utilized (use of Global Task Switching), as well as showing low memory performance for a SoC with a dual-channel memory interface.

Intel


Intel has started targeting the tablet market in earnest only recently in 2014, using its increasingly efficient Atom processor cores and SoCs and employing a contra-revenue strategy that subsidizes tablet manufacturers that use its platform. First gaining traction in the first half of 2014 with brand-name manufacturers such as Asus, in the second half of 2014 Intel started penetrating Chinese white-box tablets primarily due to the introduction of lower cost Atom SoCs with a 32-bit memory interface such as Z3735G/Z3736G and addition to the Z3735F/Z3736F with 64-bit memory for higher performance segments, also helped by a general shortage of efficient tablet processors from competitors such as MediaTek due to the tight wafer capacity environment at TSMC. Because of the advanced 22nm process, Intel's SoCs provide relatively high CPU and GPU performance as well as high power efficiency. Part of the efficiency advantage stems from Intel's ability to integrate a fast and large 2MB L2 cache (Z37xx series), much larger than the L2 cache in typical cost-sensitive tablet processors.

Chip      Arrival  Fab    CPU              Clock speed Geekbench   Multi   GPU         Memory
                          configuration    (typical)   JPEG C.     core x              Interface

Z2560     Q2 2013  32nm   2x Saltwell      1.6 GHz      617  1711  2.77    SGX544 MP2  2 x 32-bit
Z2580     Q2 2013  32nm   2x Saltwell      1.6 GHz                         SGX544 MP2  2 x 32-bit
Z3735F    Q3 2014  22nm   4x Silvermont    1.33 GHz*    821  2803  3.35    Intel HD    64-bit
Z3735G    Q3 2014  22nm   4x Silvermont    1.33 GHz*    827  2773  3.42    Intel HD    32-bit
Z3736F    Q4 2014  22nm   4x Silvermont    1.33 GHz*    968  2858  2.95    Intel HD    64-bit
Z3736G             22nm   4x Silvermont    1.33 GHz*                       Intel HD    32-bit

* The chips have a so-called burst (turbo) frequency of 1.83 GHz (Z3735) or 2.16 GHz (Z3736).

Intel's Atom SoCs for mobile devices, although compatible with the x86 and x86-64 instruction sets used with PC processors, are based on CPU cores specifically designed for the mobile market and not derivatives of PC-class architectures.

The Saltwell core (which does not support x86-64) in previous generation Atom SoCs such as Z2560 and Z2580 has performance approximately equivalent to an ARM Cortex-A7 clocked at the same frequency, but the higher typical clock speed of 1.6 GHz results in higher single-core performance than typical Cortex-A7 configuration that are clocked lower. However, the dual-core CPU configuration with HyperThreading results in lower multi-core performance scaling than a typical quad-core Cortex-A7. The per-core 512K L2 cache is not really optimal for mobile applications and suggests that the architecture was not yet fully optimized for low power mobile applications, and overall the SoCs have significantly lower performance/Watt than competitive solutions that use ARM Cortex-A7 cores.

The current generation Z373x series are faster than Z25xx with improved power efficiency and fall somewhere in the mid-range with regard to performance, since they do not reach pure CPU processor speed of competitive mobile SoCs  targeting the performance segment (approaching the speed of less optimized Cortex-A1x designs like Allwinner A80T and RK3288, but falling short of the performance of high-end Exynos and Snapdragon 801/805 chips for tablets and smartphones).

The Silvermont-based SoCs show evidence of an optimized memory subsystem, so that the Z3735G with 32-bit memory shows memory performance comparable to Rockchip's RK3288 with a much more expensive dual-channel memory design. The CPU burst mode benefits single-core performance but means that multi-core performance does not scale as well as most ARM-based chips. The SoCs also have relatively fast GPU performance for a mobile chip, benefiting from the low power design and the large cache memory inside the chip.

Leadcore Technology


Leadcore is an upcoming Chinese designer of SoCs for smartphones that has been on focusing on the TD cellular standards primarily used in China, and also offers tablet chips with integrated modem. Although still a relatively small player, its designs show evidence of good product planning with efficient, cost-effective solutions and the company has attracted the attention of Xiaomi, which is rumoured to be interested in acquiring a majority stake in the company.

Chip      Arrival  Fab    CPU              Clock speed Geekbench   Multi   GPU            Modem
                          configuration    (typical)   JPEG C.     core x

LC1913    2013?    40nm   4x Cortex-A7     1.4 GHz                         Mali-400 MP2   3G (TD)
LC1960    2014     28nm   6x Cortex-A7     2.0? GHz                        Mali-T628 MP2  4G
LC1980    2014?                                                            Mali-T720 MP6

On paper, the LC1913 appears to be a cost-effective chip for tablets with integrated 3G connectivity, being similar to MediaTek's MT8382 but on a 40nm instead of a 28nm process. I have not yet located any entries using this chip in the Geekbench database. The hexa-core LC1960, which most likely has a dual-channel external memory interface like the LC1860 for smartphones, promises to be a reasonably balanced, efficient design that provides good but low-power CPU performance while addressing performance bottlenecks with the use of a dual-channel memory interface, potentially making it suitable for higher resolution screens (but see note below about fillrate of the Mali-T628 MP2 GPU). Although the dual-channel memory increases PCB cost, the SoC has the hallmarks of being relatively low-cost and the wide memory interface may in fact contribute to increased power efficiency because of the reduction in memory transaction duration. This is one of the first chips to combine a wide memory interface with a relatively efficient CPU configuration (most existing chips with dual-channel memory tend to be high-end designs using heavy, performance-oriented CPU cores such as Cortex-A15, Krait-400 or Cortex-A57 as well as heavy GPUs).

The Mali-T628 MP2 GPU clocked at about 690 MHz inside the L1960 provides greatly improved triangle throughput (173 Mtri/s) when compared to the Mali-400 from typical low-end SoCs, as well as OpenGL 3.x support. However, the MP2 configuration limits pixel throughput to 1380 MPix/s, equivalent to Mali-400 MP2 or 450 MP2 clocked at the same frequency. Since comparable GPUs used by competitors (such as Mali-450 MP4 used by MediaTek and HiSilicon and Mali-T628 MP4 and MP6 used by HiSilicon and Samsung) have at least double the amount of GPU cores and thus twice the pixel rate at the same clock frequency, and are already relatively limited in fill-rate when compared to high-end GPUs from competitors, it remains to be seen how much of a bottleneck this willl be in practice. Game performance is likely to be severely impacted at higher screen resolutions.

MediaTek


MediaTek is a Taiwanese company with a relatively long history of activity and success as a chip platform provider for the the Chinese mobile phone market. MediaTek also has a long history targeting segments such as digital TVs and set-top boxes, DVD players and several other segments, and has generally been successful in those segments. In the past few years, MediaTek has had a large share of the SoC market for smartphones among Chinese manufacturers and other cost-sensitive manufacturers with cost-effective, power efficient, highly integrated SoCs. MediaTek was the company that spearheaded the emergence of a multi-core ARM Cortex-A7 configuration manufactured at 28nm as a very efficient, low cost and adequately performing CPU solutions for smartphones ranging from entry-level to mid-range. Since 2013, MediaTek has also been successful in the tablet chip market, with both modemless application processors targeting WiFi-only tablets and chips with integrated modem.

Chip      Arrival  Fab    CPU              Clock speed Geekbench   Multi   GPU                Modem
                          configuration    (typical)   JPEG C.     core x

MT8125    H1 2013  28nm   4x Cortex-A7     1.20 GHz     472  1893  4.01    PowerVR SGX544 MP  -
MT8121    Q2 2014  28nm   4x Cortex-A7     1.30 GHz     505  2002  3.96    PowerVR SGX544 MP  -
MT8127    Q3 2014  28nm   4x Cortex-A7     1.30 GHz     508  2023  3.98    Mali-450 MP4       -
MT8135V   Q3 2014  28nm   2x Cortex-A15/A7 1.50 GHz     896  1884  2.10    PowerVR Series 6   -

MT8389    2H 2013  28nm   4x Cortex-A7     1.21 GHz     469  1894  4.04    PowerVR SGX544 MP  3G
MT8312    Q4 2013  28nm   2x Cortex-A7     1.30 GHz     505  1011  2.00    Mali-400 MP        3G
MT8382    Q1 2014  28nm   4x Cortex-A7     1.30 GHz     505  2013  3.99    Mali-400 MP2       3G
MT8392    2014     28nm   8x Cortex-A7     1.66 GHz     644  4745  7.79    Mali-450 MP4       3G
MT8732    Q4 2014? 28nm   4x Cortex-A53    1.5? GHz                        Mali-T760 MP2      4G
MT8752    Q4 2014? 28nm   8x Cortex-A53    1.69 GHz     952* 5046* 5.30*   Mali-T760 MP2      4G
* The CPU performance of the MT8752 as reported for the CUBE T7 and for the equivalent MT6752 for smartphones shows different CPU scaling in different entries, with some around 7.7 as expected for a fully utilized octa-core CPU, while others show a scaling factor of about 5.3. It is notable that the PNG Decompress test shows CPU scaling close to 8 when JPEG Compress scaling is 5.3, while PNG Decompress scaling is a little above 5 when JPEG Compress scaling is close to 8. This could the result of scheduling algorithm differences, or something else related to Geekbench, since similar behaviour with regard to JPEG Compress benchmark variation is also noticeable for recent entries for other chips like the Allwinner A33.

MediaTek's MT8125 was its first really successful tablet chip, providing high power efficiency and good performance. Performance and efficiency benefits from four low-power Cortex-A7 cores, a relatively large 1MB L2 cache, and a PowerVR SGX544MP GPU. The chip was prominently adopted by the Asus MemoPad 7 HD and other brand-name tablets.

The MT8121 is a lower-cost, more highly integrated version of the MT8125 that does not appear to have been widely used outside of a few Lenovo tablet models. The MT8127 is a relatively fast and cost-efficient tablet processor within the bounds of a single-channel memory interface, with the Mali-450 MP4 GPU providing relatively good game performance as long as the resolution is not too high. Both processors appear to have been affected by the shortage of wafer supply for MediaTek in mid-2014, with some production capacity most likely prioritized for the MT8135V used in new Amazon Kindle tablets, as well as higher-margin tablet processors with integrated modem.

The MT8135V is a variant of the high-end MT8135 tablet processor that was announced in mid-2013 but has failed to materially appear on the market. The MT8135V appears to be a custom design for new Amazon Kindle tablets that are positioned at the entry-level segment of the US retail market, probably as the result of a long-standing agreement. However, the MT8135V shares much of the MT8135's higher-cost design features making it seem rather unsuitable for entry-level tablets with a small form factor, although the memory interface has been halved from double to single-channel. Power efficiency is also likely to be a problem. It is ironic that use of the MT8127, although having lower single-core performance, would probably easily have fit the bill for the Kindle tablets with significant advantages for cost and power consumption.

MediaTek has been one of the first companies to offer cost-effective solutions for tablets with integrated 3G cellular data or voice connectivity, mostly based on comparable smartphone products, and has for some time dominated that market. The previous-generation MT8389(T) corresponded to the MT6589(T) for smartphones, while the dual-core MT8312 and quad-core MT8382 are the equivalent of the MT6572 and MT6582. The MT8392 matches the MT6592 octa-core smartphone processor. Tablet manufacturers also commonly utilize MediaTek's smartphone chips directly. Chip such as the MT8312/MT6572 and MT8382/MT6582 have a relatively optimized CPU achitecture, with no unexpected bottlenecks, providing good performance for their cost segment.

The upcoming MT8732 (quad-core) and MT8752 (octa-core) are Cortex-A53-based tablet SoCs with integrated 4G modem that correspond to similar upcoming chips for smartphones (MT6732 and MT6752). The use of a many-core Cortex-A53 configuration is promising to significantly raise performance for low-power SoCs and is likely to be able to address several segments including the high-performance segment, while greatly reducing cost. There are signs that the MT8732, because of the relatively large die area associated with the Mali-T760 MP2 GPU core, will not be cost-effective enough for entry-level segments and will be superseeded by a chip (equivalent to MT6735 for smartphones) that has a more economical but lower-performance Mali-T720 GPU.

NVIDIA


NVIDIA, with a long history as a leader in PC, console and laptop GPUs, has recently increased its focus on the tablet market and more or less given up on its long-term goal of penetrating the high-volume smartphone market with integrated SoCs. NVIDIA has been designing its Tegra tablet processors for tablets for quite some time, but has seen mixed success, while eventually not being successful in the high-volume mainstream tablet market. It has gained a few high-profile design wins for high-end devices, most recently for the HTC Nexus 9.

Chip              Arrival  Fab   CPU                 Clock speed  Geekbench   Multi  GPU
                                 configuration       (typical)    JPEG C.     core x
Tegra 250 T20     Q1 2010  40nm  2x Cortex-A9        1.0 GHz                         GeForce ULP
Tegra 3 T30       Q4 2011  40nm  4x + 1x Cortex-A9   1.4 GHz       605  2238  3.70   GeForce ULP
Tegra 4 T114      Q2 2013  28nm  4x + 1x Cortex-A15  1.8 GHz       938  3850  4.10   GeForce ULP
NVIDIA K1         Q1 2014  28nm  4x + 1x Cortex-A15  2.2 GHz      1296  5359  4.14   Kepler DX1
NVIDIA K1 (ARMv8) Q3 2014  28nm  2x NVIDIA Denver    2.5 GHz      2002  3941  1.97   Kepler DX1

NVIDIA's Tegra and Tegra 2 processors saw fairly widespread adoption in the early days of the tablet market. Tegra 2 had some architectural deficiencies that made it less competitive, for example, it did not have an up-to-date video decoder, and lacked ARM's almost standard NEON SIMD extension. NVIDIA was not able sustain its market share momentum as the market became increasingly dominated by Chinese white-box tablets as well as brand names such as Apple and Samsung.

NVIDIA has developed its own ARMv8-compatible CPU core, Denver, which is a large core with very high single-core performance, and which has been implemented in the ARMv8 version of the NVIDIA K1 processor in a dual-core configuration. The chip provides leading single-core performance, but multi-core performance is less than even upcoming mid-range solutions. The GPU performance of both K1 processors is industry-leading.

Rockchip


Chinese company Rockchip, which has a history as a supplier of MP3/MP4 video players, held a strong position in the very early tablet market before Allwinner displaced it with its A10 chip in 2012. Rockchip subsequently regained traction with relatively high-performing chips including the RK3066 and RK3188, and later expanded its product offering for low-end segments. Although Rockchip has led the tablet processor market in 2014 in terms of volume, it has continued to use Cortex-A9 cores for most of its products which are considerably less efficient in terms of chip cost (die area) and power efficiency when compared to the Cortex-A7 cores used by competitors.

Chip      Arrival  Fab    CPU             Clock speed  Geekbench   Multi    GPU
                          configuration   (typical)    JPEG C.     core x
RK2926/28 2013     55nm   1x Cortex-A9     1.01 GHz     430   430  1.00     Mali-400 MP
RK3066    Q3 2012  40nm   2x Cortex-A9     1.61 GHz     696  1202  1.73     Mali-400 MP4
RK3188    Q2 2013  28nm   4x Cortex-A9     1.61 GHz     699* 2604* 3.73     Mali-400 MP4
RK3188T   Q3 2013  28nm   4x Cortex-A9     1.42 GHz     617  2441  3.96     Mali-400 MP4
RK3026/28 1H 2014  40nm   2x Cortex-A9     1.01 GHz     443   885  2.00     Mali-400 MP2
RK3168    Q2 2014  28nm   2x Cortex-A9     1.5 GHz                          PowerVR SGX540
RK3288    Q3 2014  28nm   4x Cortex-A12    1.8 GHz      980  3873  3.95     Mali-T760 MP4
RK3126/28 Q4 2014  40nm   4x Cortex-A7     1.3 GHz                          Mali-400 MP2
"MayBach"          28nm   8x Cortex-A53                                     OpenGL ES 3.0-class

* RK3188-based deviced running at 1.6 GHz (probably reflecting the use of the original RK3188
  rather than the cost-reduced RK3188T) show a relatively high amount of variation in benchmark
  scores between devices and runs, probably reflecting thermal throttling or other scheduler
  characteristics.

The RK3066 was a relatively high-performance chip at the time of its introduction (second half of 2012), and was successful in the mid-range of the white-box tablet market, as well as gaining design wins with companies like HP. The relatively high clock frequency Cortex-A9 cores on a 40nm process, as well as the Mali-400 MP4 GPU, constrained its power efficiency.

The RK3188 (in practice more often the lower-clocked RK3188T in a cost-reduced package) was introduced as the logical successor to the RK3066 addressing the higher-performance part of the white-box tablet market as well as being adopted in brand name models from Asus and others. Although Cortex-A9 cores are not very power-efficient, efficiency is improved by the use of a relatively advanced 28nm HKMG process at Global Foundries. Rockchip has benefitted from the fact that it was one of the few companies with plentiful wafer supply in 2014, being one of the few customers of GlobalFoundries while many of its competitors faced a very tight capacity environment at TSMC and to a lesser extent other foundries. In 2014, the RK3188T has been observed not only in more performance-oriented tablets, but also in significant numbers in cheaper tablets with relatively low-cost and low-quality components outside of the processor, being seemingly out of place. This scenario probably unfolded because of shortages of tablet processors due to the tight foundry capacity environment outside of GlobalFoundries, while GF may have offered low prices for wafers in the face of excess capacity.

The RK3168 was announced in 2013 as a power-efficient dual-core processor, but only arrived in Q2 2014 with relatively limited adoption among signs that its power efficiency leaves something to be desired.

The dual-core Cortex-A9 RK3026 and RK3028 appeared in numerous low-end tablets in 2014, while the pin-compatible RK3126 and RK3128, which are due to appear in Q4 2014, will finally see Rockchip transition away from the relatively inefficient Cortex-A9 to the more efficient (in terms of cost and power consumption) Cortex-A7.

Finally, the RK3288 is an ambitious high-end processor utilizing four Cortex-A17 (technically Cortex-A12) cores also manufactured at GlobalFoundries. The RK3288 was delayed and for some time pitched to manufacturers of media boxes and other devices amongst indications that hardware work-arounds were required to circumvent hardware issues related to the chip. Reports suggest power consumption and heat production can be problematic. The RK3288 has recently appeared in the Geekbench database in several entries for the Teclast P90HD tablet. Results show performance roughly comparable with Allwinner's A80, with memory performance lower than the A80 and significantly lower than other competitor's chips that also use a 64-bit or dual-channel memory interface, including smartphone platforms. One TV box result shows more acceptable memory performance, probably as the result of a faster DRAM frequency, although still falling short of the performance of smartphone platforms like Exynos 5430 and Snapdragon 801. A relatively steep fall-off in game performance at higher resolutions can be explained by a memory bandwidth bottleneck imposed by the less-than-optimal memory controller. When not constrained by memory bandwidth, the Mali-T764 GPU provides excellent game performance, although the exact nature of the Mali-T764 GPU (a model number not used by ARM) remains in doubt.

Despite the announcement by ARM that the latest version of the Cortex-A12 core is equivalent in performance to Cortex-A17 and the name Cortex-A12 will therefore by retired, a comparison of Geekbench results for the Cortex-A12-based RK3288 with the real Cortex-A17-based MT6595 shows a not insignificant performance difference in pure CPU performance when corrected for clock frequency of about 13% in favor of Cortex-A17, with Cortex-A15 in the middle. This suggests RK3288 does not use the latest version of Cortex-A12 to which ARM referred when making the performance comparison to Cortex-A17.

Qualcomm


Qualcomm has dominated the entire higher-end part of the smartphone SoC market in recent years, largely based on leverage of its patent royalty schemes which are based on the total selling price of a device, enabling Qualcomm to coerce most well-known device manufacturers to use Snapdragon chips for a large proportion of their line-up. More recently, Qualcomm has started targeting the tablet space. Clearly, its integrated 3G/4G modem technology and patent royalty leverage gives it opportunities to penetrate 3G/4G-enabled tablets, but Qualcomm has also been targeting WiFi-only tablets for which it does not have direct patent royalty leverage.

Chip      Arrival  Fab    CPU              Clock speed Geekbench     Multi  GPU          Modem
                          configuration    (typical)   JPEG C.       core x
APQ8064    2013     28nm   4x Krait 300    2.0 GHz       1035  4207  3.22x  Adreno 320   -
MSM8026    2014     28nm   4x Cortex-A7    1.2 GHz                          Adreno 305   -
MSM8074    2014     28nm   4x Krait 400    2.36 GHz                         Adreno 330   -
 
MSM8226    2013     28nm   4x Cortex-A7    1.19 GHz       461  1791  3.85x  Adreno 305   3G
MSM8926    2014     28nm   4x Cortex-A7    1.19 GHz       466  1883  4.04x  Adreno 305   4G
MSM8974-AC 2014     28nm   4x Krait 400    2.45 GHz      1273  4969  3.90x  Adreno 330   4G

Qualcomm's modemless applications processors for WiFi-only tablets are generally variants of smartphone SoCs that do have an integrated baseband. Snapdragon platforms that have modemless counterparts include Snapdragon 400, 600 and 801, while Snapdragon 805 is also technically a modemless processor that might be applicable to WiFi-only tablets.

For tablets with integrated 3G or 4G, Qualcomm uses smartphone chips from the Snapdragon 400 and Snapdragon 800 series. The Cortex-A7-based versions of Snapdragon 400 are power-efficient SoCs comparable in performance to MediaTek's offerings with a reasonably fast GPU. Qualcomm has been leading the integration of 4G modems into SoCs and dominates that part of the smartphone market, which it can also apply to 4G-enabled tablets.

The Snapdragon 800 series has long been the performance leader in the high-end smartphone SoC market outside of Apple, dominating high-end smartphones. This product line is also being used in some tablets from brand-name manufacturers such as Samsung. The Snapdragon 800 series is characterized by relatively high CPU performance, reasonable power efficiency, wide memory interfaces with high bandwidth, and a high-end mobile GPU able to drive high resolutions. From a chip cost standpoint, the series is expensive to produce because of a relatively large die area, but this affects Qualcomm only slightly because of the virtual monopoly it has had from the leverage its patent royalty schemes, which allows it to maintain high margins.

Samsung


Samsung has a fairly extended history developing Exynos SoCs for devices such as smartphones and tablets. A few years ago, when the baseband/modem was generally not yet integrated with the applications processor in performance-oriented smartphones, Samsung used a significant number of Exynos application processors in international versions of its flagship smartphones such as the Galaxy S II. Later, although Samsung prominently announced the use of new high-performance Exynos chips in new flagship smartphones, actual shipments were overwhelmingly dominated by Qualcomm Snapdragon-based variants of the same model. Only recently in 2014 has Samsung started to again use more of its own Exynos chips (including Exynos 3470, Exynos 5430 and Exynos 5433/Exynos 7 Octa) in new smartphones. Samsung also uses Exynos SoCs in tablets, primarily WiFi-only models.

Chip         Arrival  Fab    CPU                   Clock speed Geekbench   Multi   GPU                Memory  Modem
                             configuration         (typical)   JPEG C.     core x                     bus

Exynos 4210  2011     45nm  2x Cortex-A9           1.2 GHz                         Mali-400 MP4       2 x 32  -
Exynos 4212  2011     32nm  2x Cortex-A9           1.2 GHz                         Mali-400 MP4       2 x 32  -
Exynos 4412  2012     32nm  2x Cortex-A9           1.6 GHz       486  1290  2.65   Mali-400 MP4       2 x 32  -
Exynos 5250  2012     32nm  2x Cortex-A15          1.7 GHz                         Mali-T604 MP4      2 x 32
Exynos 5420  2013     28nm  4x Cortex-A15/A7       1.9 GHz      1212  4337  3.58   Mali-T628 MP6      2 x 32  -
Exynos 5260  Q2 2014  28nm  2x + 4x Cortex-A15/A7  1.7 GHz                         Mali-T624          2 x 32  -
Exynos 5422  Q2 2014  28nm  4x Cortex-A15/A        1.9 GHz                         Mali-T628 MP6      2 x 32  -
Exynos 3470  2014     28nm  4x Cortex-A7           1.4 GHz                         Mali-400 MP4       32      4G
Exynos 5430  Q3 2014  20nm  4x Cortex-A15/A7       1.8 GHz      1053  4910  4.66   Mali-T628 MP6      2 x 32  -
Exynos 5433  Q3 2014  20nm  4x Cortex-A57/A53      1.4-1.9 GHz  1376  6130  4.45   Mali-T760 MP6      2 x 32  -

Some Exynos SoCs, including Exynos 4412 and Exynos 5420, have been sold to parties outside of Samsung such as Chinese tablet manufacturers.

The use of the relatively power-hungry ARM Cortex-A15 core has made it a challenge for Samsung to preserve power efficiency, generally limiting the use of these Exynos processors to tablets. Samsung' s implementation of big.LITTLE has become more optimized over time, progressing to the ability to do full Global Task Switching and implementing improvements in power efficiency. Power use is also helped by newer versions of the Cortex-A15 core, process improvements (e.g. 20nm), and reducing the maximum clock rate for the Cortex-A15 cores (which were sometimes set in an unbalanced way at a high speed for marketing purposes, at the cost of the practical experience such as shorter battery life).

Sources: Geekbench browser

Initial version (November 7, 2014): Geekbench CPU benchmark results still have to filled for most SoCs
Updated (November 8, 2014):  Add Atom Z2560, MT812x benchmarks, correct description of MT8121.
Updated (November 9, 2014): Improve Intel section.
Updated (November 13, 2014): Provide more CPU benchmark scores, some other improvements.
Updated (November 18, 2014): Provide CPU benchmarks for Qualcomm and Samsung chips.
Updated (November 27, 2014). Improve Samsung section, add CPU benchmarks, fix RK3288 CPU configuration, add MT8752 CPU benchmarks, comment on variation in JPEG Compress CPU scaling scores for MT8752 and Allwinner A33.
Updated (November 30, 2014). Add note about MT8121.
Updated (December 5, 2014). Add NVIDIA section, other tweaks.

Saturday, October 18, 2014

Samsung's 64-bit Exynos 5433 SoC renamed to Exynos 7 Octa, used in some Galaxy Note 4 models

Recently, Samsung renamed its Exynos 5433 SoC to Exynos 7 Octa. The new Exynos chip is used by Samsung in the new Galaxy Note 4 smartphone, although how material actual shipments are has been unclear because most regions were first served primarily by Qualcomm Snapdragon 805-based versions of the Galaxy Note 4. However, evidence from the Geekbench result database suggests roughly a quarter of models currently sold are Exynos versions.

Signs of actual adoption of Exynos 7 Octa in high volume becoming apparent


Samsung has in the past frequently announced the use of Exynos SoCs in prominent smartphones, but shipments were often limited to very low volumes for smaller regions such Korea, with the vast majority of shipments using Snapdragon SoCs. During the last two years, only Samsung's tablets have seen widespread use of Samsung high-performance mobile SoCs. Although Samsung has recently ramped mid-range chips such as Exynos 3470 in presumably high volume for the Galaxy S5 Mini, strong evidence would be required to establish that the situation will be different this time around in terms of a high profile Exynos SoC (Exynos 7 Octa) being actually used in high volume in smartphones.

However,  searching for Galaxy Note 4 models on the Geekbench Browser provides evidence that at least one quarter of units currently sold contains the new Exynos chip, with the other three quarters or so using Snapdragon 805. Exynos versions are primarily represented by the SM-N910C, SM-N910S and SM-N910K models, while Snapdragon versions are mainly represented by SM-N910A, SM-N910T, SM-N910F and several other models.

Number of Geekbench entries for each Samsung Galaxy Note variant as of 24 October:
  • SM-N9100: Snapdragon 805, 7 entries
  • SM-N9109W: Snapdragon 805, 4 entries
  • SM-N910A: Snapdragon 805,  635 entries
  • SM-N910C: Exynos 5433, 425 entries
  • SM-N910F: Snapdragon 805, 496 entries
  • SM-N910H: Exynos 5433, 24 entries
  • SM-N910K: Exynos 5433, 73 entries
  • SM-N910L: Exynos 5433, 33 entries
  • SM-N910R4: Snapdragon 805, 23 entries
  • SM-N910P: Snapdragon 805, 238 entries
  • SM-N910S: Exynos 5433, 197 entries
  • SM-N910T: Snapdragon 805, 559 entries
  • SM-N910V: Snapdragon 805, 69 entries
  • SM-N910W8: Snapdragon 805, 10 entries

For the listed models, the total count is 752 Exynos and 2041 Snapdragon, representing an Exynos proportion of about 27%.

All things being equal, one would expect Samsung to prefer to use the internally manufactured Exynos chipset if enough supply is available, although with four Cortex-A57 cores the SoC is likely to be relatively expensive to manufacture. On the other hand, there are significant performance differences, with the Exynos platform clearly faster in terms of CPU processing but with a question mark in terms of power efficiency, while Snapdragon 805 can be regarded as mature, stable technology. Qualcomm may also be able to enforce a certain quotum of Snapdragon chips based on its leverage of patent royalties and licensing fees (which are considerable for a high-end smartphone).

Some anomalies are evident in the chips used for certain models. For example, a number of the SM-N910S results (which officially uses the Exynos 5433) in the Geekbench database show the use of an APQ8064 (Snapdragon 600) SoC clocked at 1.89 GHz, which is significantly slower that Exynos 5433 (or Snapdragon 805). Similarly, for the SM-N910C, starting from October 30 a not insignificant number of results labelled as SM-N910C show the use of the aging Exynos 4412 SoC (also used in old models such as the Galaxy S III) with four Cortex-A9 cores clocked at 2.0 GHz, much slower than Exynos 5433. These anomalies probably represent counterfeit production by Chinese manufacturers (both APQ8064 and Exynos 4412 have been common in the supply chain in the past). For models that officially use Snapdragon 805, no anomalies are evident.

Update as of December 5, 2014

Reassessing the share of Exynos 5433 vs Snapdragon 805 in the Geekbench database after a few months of production should be informative about whether Samsung is really serious about ramping Exynos production for smartphones. The following is apparent:
  • The Exynos-based SM-N910C count has increased from 425 to 4390.
  • The Exynos-based SM-N910S count has increased from 197 to 578.
  • The Exynos-based SM-N910K count has increased from 73 to 212.
  • The Exynos-based SM-N910H has increased from 23 to 757, while SM-N910L has increased from 33 to 91.
  • The new Exynos-based SM-N910U shows a count of 1062.
  • The Snapdragon 805-based SM-N910A count has increased from 635 to 2258.
  • The Snapdragon 805-based SM-N910T count has increased from 559 to 2089.
  • The Snapdragon 805-based SM-N910F count has increased from to 496 to 3857.
  • The Snapdragon 805-baed SM-N910P count has increased from 238 to 1162.
  • The Snapdragon 805-based SM-N910R4 has increased from 23 to 61, SM-N9100 from 7 to 58, SM-9109W from 4 to 20, SM-910V from 69 to 1685, and SM-910W8 from 10 to 636.
  • The new Snapdragon 805-based SM-N910G shows a count of 903, SM-N9106W shows 22, SM-N9108V shows 1.

For the listed models, the total count is 7090 Exynos and 12752 Snapdragon, representing an increased share of Exynos-based models in the Geekbench database from about 27% to about 36%, clearly suggesting that the share of Exynos-based models is increasing, and recent production may already have a much greater proportion of Exynos-based models.

First 20nm ARMv8 SoC targeting Android


One of the first smartphone SoCs manufactured using a 20nm process, at Samsung's own fabs, the Exynos 7 Octa is the first chip featuring ARM's Cortex-A57 and Cortex-A53 cores in a big.LITTLE configuration to appear on the market. The Cortex-A5x cores support the 64-bit ARMv8 instruction set, although using the 32-bit variant of the ARMv8 instruction set also appears to bring benefits while avoiding the performance degradation (related to increased memory use for pointers and addressing) that is associated with going to full 64-bit.

It is not the first 20nm SoC to support the ARMv8 instruction set, since Apple's A8 chip has already ramped to high-volume production during most of the year at TSMC for use in the iPhone 6 models. And already in 2013, Apple introduced the first ARMv8 chip with the Apple A7. As I have explained in an earlier article, there are reasons to believe the CPU cores in the Apple A7/A8 may have great similarities to ARM's Cortex-A57 CPU core, and in that sense the Exynos 7 Octa technically may not actually be the first SoC with Cortex-A57 cores to hit the market.

Fast, but power efficiency may be a problem


Reviews of Exynos 7 Octa-based devices such as the Galaxy Note 4 are still scarce. Already several months ago, early benchmarks results showed Exynos 5433 (as it was known then) providing the highest performance in the mobile space, significantly outscoring Snapdragon 805 in most benchmarks. This is not unexpected given the use of high-performance Cortex-A57 cores at a fairly high clock frequency.

However, there are signs that maintaining power efficiency with higher-clocked Cortex-A57 cores may be a challenge. Some early hands-on preview have suggested relatively high power consumption and mediocre battery life for an Exynos 5433-based Galaxy Note 4. More definite test results should clarify the situation.

Setting maximum clock frequency creates dilemma


Software techniques such as the use of efficient Global Task Switching with preference for the economical Cortex-A53 cores and throttling down of the clock frequency may be vital to maintain acceptable battery life. Analysis of Geekbench results for the Exynos 5433-based SM-N910C shows a multi-core performance scaling factor of about 4.45 for the largely CPU-bound JPEG Compress test, suggesting that Global Task Switching is implemented in such a way that not just the Cortex-A57 cores are utilized but the Cortex-A53 cores as well when high CPU performance is required.

High-performance CPU cores such as Cortex-A57 tend to have relatively high power consumption that increases as the clock frequency increases. This creates a dilemma for a manufacturer, because for acceptable power consumption with practical use there is little reason to set the maximum clock speed at the relatively high level that desirable for marketing purposes; a speed similar to the one used in Apple's Cyclone cores (e.g. 1.4 GHz) provides more than enough speed for most applications while limiting the excessive power consumption (and potential stability problems) associated with higher frequencies. A similar dilemma is often associated with SoCs with Cortex-A15 CPU cores (such as Samsung's Exynos 5430 used in the Galaxy Alpha) that have performance characteristics (high performance, but low performance/Watt) comparable to Cortex-A57, although Cortex-A57 is likely be more efficient.

Providing superior synthetic benchmark performance can be a matter of high prestige for a company and its marketing department to the extent that an unbalanced high maximum clock frequency may still be used in actually shipping devices, to the detriment of the user experience. Associated with this dilemma is the attraction of "cheating" on benchmarks by detecting when synthetic benchmarks are run and the switching to higher, sustained clock frequencies with reduced heat throttling, which has been demonstrated to be widespread in the past by websites such as AnandTech.

Evidence suggests Exynos 5433's Cortex-A57 cores are already clocked at a relatively low but efficient speed of about 1.4 GHz


Exynos 5433 may in practice already be clocked at a relatively low maximum speed to conserve power. Geekbench consistently reports 1.3 GHz as the clock frequency for all Exynos 5433 devices, however for some devices, including Samsung's big.LITTLE Exynos 5430 with Cortex-A15, Geekbench seems to report the maximum clock speed of the slower LITTLE cores, so the Cortex-A57 are probably clocked higher. However, even for the Cortex-A57 cores in the Exynos 5433, which have dramatically higher performance/cycle than the LITTLE Cortex-A53 cores, a relatively limited maximum speed in the range of 1.3 GHz would by no means be inappropriate for a smartphone platform.

Looking more closely at cross-platform Geekbench results for the Exynos-based Note 4 and the iPhone 5S and iPhone 6, and assuming that Apple' s Cyclone and Cortex-A57 are cores with similar performance characteristics at given clock speed (at least the little available evidence puts metrics like IPC and DMIPS in the same ballpark), gives indications that Exynos 5433 may on average actually be clocked at an effective 1.4 GHz, comparable to the 1.4 GHz of the iPhone 6. However, it can not be ruled out that in the case of the Exynos 5433 the frequency is the average resulting from thermal speed throttling (variation of the CPU speed based on power consumption and heat production).

Apple's SoC architecture is also different because it is a dual-core compared to the big.LITTLE configuration of the Exynos 5433 with four Cortex-A57 cores and four Cortex-A53 cores, and Apple' s cache memory architecture is very different with a large L3 cache and likely highly optimized but smaller L2 cache, and the Apple device has higher external RAM performance. Additionally, the software model (Apple's  64-bit AArch64 vs 32-bit ARMv8 AArch32 used with Exynos 5433) also complicates things, however some conclusions may still be drawn looking at specific benchmarks.

Comparison with Apple A7 and A8 benchmarks provides clues


Performing a detailed comparison of representative results for a SM-N910C and an iPhone 6 with Apple A8 on the Geekbench browser page provides interesting information. On first glance the results are all over the place with some benchmarks (including single-core ones) being faster on Exynos and others on the Apple A8, while Exynos obviously has an advantage for multi-core tests.

However, one can look for sub-benchmarks that are less likely to be affected by a large L3 cache on the Apple device, specifically benchmarks that do not have a large memory working set and source data or do not constantly perform random read access on a large set but do perform a lot of processing, possibly writing (but not reading) a lot of data. Some stream-type algorithms such as common data and image compression and decompression benchmarks fit the bill, because they generally steam the source data sequentially, perform a relatively high amount of CPU processing based on a relatively limited working set (a small part of the stream/file), and write the resulting data sequentially.

This type of benchmark puts the Exynos 5433 somewhat lower but fairly close to the Apple A8 in single-core CPU performance. Further information can be gained from iPhone 5S (Apple A7) results.

Benchmark results: Galaxy Note 4 (SM-N910C) vs iPhone 5S vs iPhone 6, relative speed advantage of iPhones compared to SM-N910C:
Test name                           SM-N910C  iPhone 5S       iPhone 6
BZip2 Compress:                     1187      1109 ( -6.5%)   1187 ( +8.5%)
BZip2 Decompress:                   1366      1394 ( +2.0%)   1538 (+12.6%)
JPEG Compress:                      1378      1196 (-13.2%)   1372 ( -0.0%)
JPEG Decompress:                    1598      1583 ( -0.9%)   1855 (+16.1%)
PNG Compress:                       1391      1427 ( +2.6%)   1577 (+13.4%)
PNG Decompress:                     1490      1301 (-12.7%)   1498 ( +0.5%)
Sobel (image local edge detection): 1701      1584 ( -6.9%)   1922 (+13.0%)
The Apple A8 chip in the iPhone 6 scores somewhat higher than Exynos 5433 in most tests, while Exynos 5433 is on average faster than the Apple A7 in the iPhone 5S. All of this is consistent with the CPU cores in all of the devices having comparable single-core CPU performance, and when making the assumption that Cortex-A57 and Cyclone (which seems to have a lot of architectural similarities with Cortex-A57) have comparable performance per cycle (at a given clock frequency), consistent with a clock frequency for the Exynos 5433 that is similar to the one used in the Apple devices (around 1.3 to 1.4 GHz).

The largely CPU-bound JPEG Compress test, which appears to be closedly tied to clock speed on other chip platforms with limited dependence on factors outside the CPU core, provides evidence that the isolated single-core CPU performance of Exynos 5433 may be close to that of the Apple A8 in the iPhone 6, consistent with a similar effective clock frequency of about 1.4 GHz. To what extent thermal throttling plays a role for the Exynos is not entirely clear. Most of the Geekbench results for SM-N910C for the JPEG Compress test are very close (a score around 1375), suggesting that at least for this test the maximum clock speed is generally maintained, which would be compatible with this speed being about 1.4 GHz.

PNG Decompress seems to be somewhat of a negative outlier for the Apple A7 and A8, but it is consistent across different iPhone results and is probably related to the high amount of memory writes (decompressed image data) associated with the benchmark, which can be affected by the extra layer in the memory subsystem represented by the L3 cache.

One significant caveat for the comparison above is that the Apple devices run in AArch64 mode, while Exynos 5433 in the Note 4 runs in AArch32 mode (the 32-bit version of the ARMv8 instruction set). AArch64 can take advantage of more instructions, in particular instructions operating on 64-bit registers, while the increased pointer/address storage size can decrease performance somewhat. However, the source code for the Geekbench test is likely to be identical (without extensive use of 64-bit integer variables) for AArch64 and unlikely to be specifically optimized, with any optimizations for AArch64 in the generated code depending on the compiler.

Sources: Samsung (Exynos 7 Octa), Geekbench Browser

Updated (24 October 2014): Update with information about proportion of Exynos models based on Geekbench database, and provide performance comparisons with Apple processors.
Updated (30 October 2014): Language tweaks, improve Geekbench comparison table and fix PNG Decompress score for iPhone 5S.
Updated (2 November 2014): Update discussion about clock speed of Exynos 5433, expand description of use of GTS, make note of counterfeit models in Geekbench database.
Updateed (5 December 2014): Update Exynos model share statistics for Galaxy Note 4.

Friday, October 3, 2014

Transition to next-generation FinFET process nodes: Samsung unlikely to be in the lead despite media reports

In the last few months, relatively vague media reports about Samsung gaining back chip orders from Apple that it has recently lost to TSMC, as well new orders for Qualcomm and other players for its next-generation 14nm FinFET technology have surfaced a few times. These media reports have frequently been widely reported in popular technology publications, often been interpreted as if TSMC would be losing market share in 2015 to the point of having significant excess capacity or as if Samsung has a considerable technology lead. However, these media reports as well sweeping conclusions about a presumed superior market competitiveness of Samsung in comparison with TSMC in 2015 are likely to be highly inaccurate.

TSMC currently dominates advanced node foundry production


TSMC currently dominates the foundry market for leading-edge nodes such as 28 and 20nm for chips such as smartphone SoCs and GPUs with a market share in excess of 80%, and faces significantly more demand than it is able to supply, despite unprecedented investment in new production capacity. Samsung's 28nm logic fabs are currently largely empty, and a similar situation is occurring at GlobalFoundries as it has been struggling to gain significant customers apart from AMD. Within this context, it is apparent that TSMC has been doing something right, while Samsung and GlobalFoundries must have had some significant set-backs, otherwise this market share distribution would not be happening. Given this track record, one can wonder how realistic it is to expect that the level of competitiveness of Samsung and GlobalFoundries would recover or even be reversed for next-generation processes as early as 2015.

Chip design companies motivated to seek additional sources of supply, but challenges apparent


Clearly, because TSMC currently has a virtual monopoly and is not able to fulfill demand there is a pressing motivation for chip companies such as Qualcomm and others to seek additional sources of supply. Therefore there is no reason to doubt that major efforts are being made in this area, especially starting from about Q2 2014 when the capacity shortage at TSMC became very evident. However, successful completion within any reasonable time-frame of such a move (especially when the effort has only recently become more intensive) involves substantial technological challenges and risks, which make it unlikely that it will actually happen in any way close to the time-frame and volume that has been suggested be some reports.

The fact that TSMC's 16nm FinFET process is an evolutionary extension of its already highly successful 20nm process to incorporate FinFET technology, rather than the radical technology changes involved in Samsung's 14mn FinFET process, also make it likely that chip design companies will continue to concentrate on TSMC process technology in the near term out of necessity, with any efforts with Samsung likely to only result in significant production at a much later stage.

Optimistic projections from sources within Samsung widely reported as fact


In an article on October 1, ZDNet (based on an article from its Korean website) quotes a manager from Samsung's LSI division saying that Samsung is likely to improve profits once it achieves volume production for next-generation products for Apple. The source declined to comment about when Samsung would start mass producing such chips for clients. Combining earlier media speculation, the article goes on to state that 14nm production for clients such as Apple, Qualcomm and AMD would start as early as the end of this year. The article also quotes undisclosed sources that Samsung is producing 30% of Apple's A8 processors, with the rest being manufactured by TSMC. The article has been widely quoted in popular news media.

However, there are several reasons to believe that these reports are relatively inaccurate and misleading. First of all, unofficial remarks from sources within Samsung seem to be the only source of information for the article. As mentioned in the article, Samsung is currently incurring very significant losses from its logic (LSI) fabs because of underutilization after losing Apple SoC orders to TSMC. That sources within Samsung (including managers who in fact may hold primary responsibility within Samsung for achieving profitability of the LSI division) would be inclined to paint to an over-optimistic picture that may not accurately reflect the the current and future market status for production of advanced next-generation designs is not at all surprising.

Apple has explored multiple sources for production of Apple A9


Already in July 2013, an article published by EE Times reported that Apple signed a deal with Samsung with Apple to produce the Apple A9 in 2015.  This article also illustrates that knowledge of TSMC 20nm production for the Apple A8 in 2014 (as mentioned in the article) was already widespread at this time. However, in June 2013, it was already reported that Apple signed a three-year deal with TSMC not only involving 20nm, but also TSMC's next-generation 16nm FinFET and later 10nm FinFET technologies, with Apple A9 being mentioned. Recently, in August 2014, DigiTimes reported that TSMC had gained production of the Apple A9 using its 16nm FinFET process with significant volume as early as Q1 2015. More recent reports suggest Apple A9 will be manufactured at TSMC but using the same 20nm process as Apple A8.

Based on TSMC's track record and in particular its successful high volume ramp of the Apple A8 using its 20nm process, I believe it is very likely that Apple will focus Apple A9 production, at least for the most significant earlier part of its production cycle, at TSMC. Apple will be able to move to FinFET earlier at TSMC if it chooses too because TSMC's 16nm FinFET is to a large extent an evolutionary extension of its 20nm process incorporating FinFET technology, rather than the radical technology change involved in Samsung's 14mn FinFET process, achievement of maturity for high volume production is much less of a challenge which makes it unlikely that Samsung will be able to achieve a similar level of maturity in a time-frame that is competitive with TSMC. The fact that qualifying and bringing a similar chip to stable production at Samsung involves substantial additional investment in chip design, testing and associated risks including the timing of such production will probably even make it attractive for Apple to keep material Apple A9 production at TSMC for its entire life cycle.

Achieving significant production of Apple A8 will be very challenging for Samsung


In addition, the accuracy of the claim that 30% of the production of the Apple A8 is already manufactured by Samsung is highly questionable. Samsung's 20nm process is fundamentally different from that of TSMC in several details, and Apple would have to repeat most of the design/validation cycle that it is has already completed for the TSMC version of Apple A8 in order to be able to produce at Samsung's fabs, resulting in very high additional cost, numerous risks, and substantial delays. Moreover, it is doubtful that the production capacity of Samsung at 20nm (which it already uses for certain Exynos chips such as Exynos 5430 and 5433, and even those do not appear to have already ramped in really high volumes) is ramping fast enough to quickly gain material shipments to Apple, especially when Samsung is supposed to be rapidly transitioning to 14nm FinFET.

While it is not unlikely that Samsung has been aggressively seeking to provide capacity for the Apple A8, working with Apple, whether it would be able to achieve material amounts of production before the latter stages of the life cycle of the Apple A8 in 2015 when production levels will already have decreased is debatable. From Apple's viewpoint, it appears that its relationship with TSMC involves TSMC giving it any level of capacity it needs (to the detriment of competitors who are facing wafer shortages) which makes the apparent benefit for Apple to quickly move part of the Apple A8 production Samsung relatively limited. Samsung may offer lower prices for 20nm manufacturing capacity, but as explained earlier, the complexity, cost, time and risk involved in moving Apple A8 production to Samsung make it unlikely that Samsung will be able to gain a significant share of production within a reasonable time-frame.

Comparison of FinFET technologies at Intel, TSMC and Samsung


Recently, ZDNet also published a much more technical and reliable article discussing the status of FinFET technologies of the major fab players, including Intel, TSMC, Samsung and GlobalFoundries.

Intel started production of processors using FinFET technology at 22nm as early as 2011 and has already shipped 500 million such chips, mostly targeted at PCs but also gaining shipments for tablet applications this year. It also offers the technology to other customers as a foundry. Intel has started volume production of its next-generation 14nm FinFET process, which is a "true shrink" with significantly increased transistor density and delivers a combined 1.6x improvement in performance/Watt across applications ranging from smartphones to servers, and will continue to ramp production into 2015.

TSMC's 16nm FinFET development is at an advanced stage


TSMC's first generation 16nm FinFET process, 16FF, was qualified in November 2013 and already saw product tape-outs as early as April 2014. This suggests TSMC's 16nm FinFET process is already close to high volume production. TSMC's 16FF process will be followed up by its 16FF+ process with tape-outs expected in early 2015. While the performance benefits of 16FF are limited due its similarities (the same back-end metal layers) with TSMC's 20nm process, the 16FF+ process involves a reduction in feature size that makes it competitive with the theoretical performance of 14nm FinFET processes from competitors. TSMC is already in a stage called "risk production" for 15 16nm FinFET products this year and another 45 products next year for a variety of applications. Yields are reported have already reached levels comparable to TSMC's 20nm process. This is not surprising, as TSMC has reported that 95% of the tools used for 20nm can be reused for 16FF, which also brings massive advantages in the required level of investment to ramp capacity and greatly facilitates time-to-market.

TSMC quotes its 16FF+ process as having 15% greater performance when compared to 16FF (40% compared to 20nm) and 30% less power consumption when compared to 16FF. TSMC is already working on 10nm FinFET process technology which involves a more substantial 2.2x increase in transistor density.

SoCs using Cortex-A57 and Cortex-A53 CPU cores already implement TSMC's 16nm FinFET processes


Although 16FF is seen as a stepping stone to FinFET technology, it does provide performance benefits over planar 20nm. TSMC and ARM have announced that a 16nm test chip using Cortex-A57 and Cortex-A53 cores in a big.LITTLE configuration achieved a sustained 2.3GHz clock rate for the Cortex-A57 core with minimal power consumption of 75 milliwatts achieved for the Cortex-A53 core for common workloads. This demonstration involving a currently relevant SoC design illustrates the relative maturity of TSMC's 16nm technology.

For Cortex-A57, 16FF+ is expected to result in a 11% performance improvement relative to 16FF at the same level of power, while power consumption of the Cortex-A53 for low-intensity applications is reduced by 35%. ARM POP IP core hardening (tweaking cores for either performance or low power consumption) is utilized for early 16FF+ SoC designs. Although TSMC does not specifically address the use of Cortex-A53 at higher clock rates for high performance applications instead of Cortex-A57, the quoted numbers are consistent with the better scaling of Cortex-A53 on new processes when compared to performance-oriented "big-core" Cortex-A57 and cores with a similar architecture.

For example, one can speculate that the significant power reduction for the Cortex-A53 will further significantly increase the maximum clock rate and performance of Cortex-A53 CPU cores, more than the 11% quoted for Cortex-A57, making Cortex-A53-only designs more attractive for high-end applications. Already, early reports about MediaTek's MT6795 octa-core SoC running at about 2.2GHz, the first Cortex-A53-based SoC targeting high performance applications, suggest that it will provide premium-level performance at half the price of current premium-performance SoCs. The chip achieves this despite still using 28nm technology, indicating that Cortex-A53-based high-performance designs using more advanced nodes such as 20nm and 16nm FinFET will be even more revolutionary in terms of performance efficiency.

Samsung development of 14nm FinFET well underway, but maturity for high volume production unclear


Production of the first test chip (using a Cortex-A7 CPU core) on Samsung's first generation 14nm FinFET process, 14FPE, already occurred in December 2013. According to the marketing manager for Samsung’s foundry business, the foundry has completed tape-outs of multiple products and has already started early commercial production for some customers. The 14FPE process is claimed to provide either a 20% boost in performance or a 35% reduction in power consumption when compared to be a planar 20nm process. The process is said to result in 15% smaller chips when compared to a 20nm planar process.

Considering the considerable technological changes in Samsung' FinFET process (especially when compared to TSMC's more evolutionary first-generation 16FF process, which is closely aligned with the already almost mature 20nm), the claimed performance and density gains are relatively minor in the context of the high costs and learning curve involved in bringing chips to mature volume production. High theoretical performance of a new process has little value when it involves very high investment in chip design, relatively high manufacturing cost, and when mature volume production is not achieved in a timely manner. A higher performance version of Samsung's 14nm FinFET process, 14LPP, is expected to be qualified in a couple of months time.

Meanwhile, GlobalFoundries has given up on its own 14XM FinFET process and has aligned with Samsung's 14LPE and 14LPP processes. This decision probably means that it will take considerable time before GlobalFoundries will be competitive for volume production using FinFET, providing evidence that its market position will continue to be precarious for some time.

Conclusion


In summary, indications are that TSMC, helped by its more evolutionary transition to FinFET and dominant position in current leading-edge processes, is much closer to stable high volume production of next-generation FinFET processes than Samsung, and that it will continue to dominate leading-edge foundry production in the near term even as chip designers seek additional sources of supply given the very tight capacity environment at TSMC.

While Intel is also well advanced in its FinFET process development and uses it on a large scale for PC processors, it has not yet seen widespread success either as a foundry partner for third parties or as a provider of large numbers of low-power SoC for applications such as smartphones, also illustrated by the fact that early Intel mobile SoCs such as SoFIA that integrate cellular baseband and other components will in fact first be produced at TSMC and not in Intel's own fabs.

Source: ZDNet (Technical article of FinFET technology development), ZDNet (Samsung LSI article), EE Times

Updated October 5, 2014 (Spelling, grammar) .
Updated October 30, 2014 (Grammar, small corrections).
Updated December 26, 2014 (Minor grammatical corrections).