Galaxy S11 may slap Moore's Law with new ARM Cortex-A77 processor and a gaming boost

Galaxy S11 may slap Moore's Law with new ARM Cortex-A77 processor and a gaming boost
Pity Huawei that can't use ARM's mobile chip architecture until further notice, as the British chip-drawing bureau just announced its new Cortex-A77 processor design that will allow a 20% boost in performance at the current 7nm production node.

In fact, ARM is so proud of its creation that it boasts about "performance comparable to today’s mainstream notebooks." What we are most pumped about, though, is the big leap in graphics performance. 

Those chip-makers that chose to go with ARM's in-house Mali GPU solution, like Samsung's Exynos, will be greeted by a 40% performance increase with the new Mali-G77 architecture, and a 30% power draw reduction. That's not an either/or improvement, though, as you get them both, plus a 60% boost of machine learning speeds.


ARM achieved these significant increases by employing a brand new Valhall architecture for the first time with Mali-G77. Complex titles like Fortnite and PUBG which require a lot of graphics processing prowess and lead to battery exhaustion can now be played for longer, while the GPU is optimized for faster AR experience as well. 

The processors built on the Cortex-A77 architecture and the phones and tables powered by them will be available next year, tips the chip designer, so Snapdragon 865 and Galaxy S11 at the earliest. If ARM delivers everything that it promised last summer in the chart below (Deimos is now official as Cortex-A77), it will have defied Moore's Law, and our premium phones will be all the better for it.


FEATURED VIDEO

13 Comments

1. twens

Posts: 1180; Member since: Feb 25, 2012

I’m finally believing David Iyke. I think some aliens are selling us tech. The rate and speed is abnormal. Lol

6. sgodsell

Posts: 7451; Member since: Mar 16, 2013

Well this speed increase and the lower power just means it's better overall for AR and VR. The next major leap forward in computing. They just need to get those 2000 dpi displays ready for or glasses or headsets. I already know a number of companies are working on displays with DPI that high, and some even higher. Great things to come. Think about it, with displays that high covering your vision, then who needs to buy or use a TV anymore, or a tablet, or smartphone.

2. geekyking

Posts: 16; Member since: Jan 31, 2019

Mobile processors are going to kill Intel. Still Intel couldn't work out 10nm processor!

3. Plutonium239

Posts: 1232; Member since: Mar 17, 2015

No, they won't, Intel processors are a completely different architecture. Intel processors are cisc and arm processor are risc.https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/courses/soco/projects/risc/risccisc/

4. geekyking

Posts: 16; Member since: Jan 31, 2019

That wont be a matter bcz Microsoft is already working on snapdragon processor to make Windows compatible. If mobile processors can run faster, works faster then intel architecture will become obsolete.

5. Plutonium239

Posts: 1232; Member since: Mar 17, 2015

Microsoft already has a working emulation layer and can run full windows on an arm processor. If you would read the link you would see that it is of little benefit. With cisc architecture you don't need nearly as much ram.

11. oldskool50 unregistered

But it can only run 32bit apps. It can't run 64bit apps though.

8. 47AlphaTango

Posts: 734; Member since: Sep 27, 2015

How can you run windows apps on a processor that is built for RISC? Even the system requirements for each and every applications on windows needs an intel or an amd processor.

13. oldskool50 unregistered

Because on the virtual layer Microsoft has built into Windows for ARM, the layer does a conversion to the point the application thinks it is running on the native intel processor. It's called emulation. It the same way video game emulators run on yoru Intel or AMD processor. the emulation creates sub-routines that allow it to run on your CPU, but the original game ROM's see it as it's original hardware. This is how Virtual Machines work. This is what makes Android better than IOS on this level. Android is a virtual machine. It runs on a layer that to Android makes all hardware appear to be the same, which allows Android to boot on any configuration. But then there are the drawbacks. A virtual machine can have direct access to the CPU, but not the other componenets. So like in a VM, a VM won't use YOUR real network adapter, but it uses a virtual one that acts just like the real one. It;s exactly how like you can install Virtual CD drivers that treat ISO files like real disks. The other drawbacks is a VM doesn't have direct access to the GPU. This is where IOS having direct hardware access is a plus. Because IOS is not running in a VM, and has a hardware extraction layer just like Windows, this means that IOS can be made ot only boot on specific hardware and if any of that hardware is changed or missing, IOS will fail to boot. So because Android is a VM, it also throws benchmarks off. If Android used a HAL (hardware extraction layer) where you had to make drivers to directly use each hardware, then I know any Qualcomm or Exynos which have equal or more power cores vs the A series, would benchmark much higher especially because the Exynos and SD are all clocked at high speeds vs the A series. But when you benchmark in a VM, you are benchmarking virtualized hardware where the application only has direct access to the CPU only. But is hampered by the fact the benchmark has to make a request to the VM, the VM then sends the request to the virtual hardware layer, which then accesses the hardware. The returned data is delayed do to latency of the 2 intermediate requests. This diagram give an idea how Android works -https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-architecture-of-the-Android-operating-system_fig1_321613033 - Everythign starts at the bottom and works it way to your application. Because of this basically 4 step process, their is delay and latency in the data response, which is why when you benchmarks, those numbers are screwed. When you consider the fact that Apple's Soc is 6 core and 4 may be for heavy lifting and 2 are for lite loads vs Android SoC where you have 8 cores where 4 are for heavy lifting, and 4 for lite and then you add on the fact that Android heavy lifting cores are clocked at higher speeds vs the A series, if Android has direct hardware access, it would blow iPhone's out the water.

12. oldskool50 unregistered

Mobile CPu's will never be faster than Intel desktop, due to throttling, low voltage and no active cooling.

7. sgodsell

Posts: 7451; Member since: Mar 16, 2013

Check out the Snapdragon 8CX, they say it's faster than an Intel i5 Processor.

10. oldskool50 unregistered

Yes I have read that. But it's not. Again please understand that there is no way possible that a mobile processor, which uses less voltage and doesn't even have active cooling, would not be able to run at the caliper of a desktop processor which basically has unlimited access to power and cooling options. benchmarks that say yes a mobile processor can handle a certain amount o data crunching is not taking into consideration the fact that when a processor is getting more request, it will also ask for more power. More power then means the processor will get hotter. Without a method of cooling, then the mobile CPU will throttle down as we see them do in benchmarks on mobile phones. Again you can't use benchmarks. A CPU is like a car. The manufacturer says your car should get a certain amount of mileage or whatever, but its not until you own it that you can see and many times you find out you don't get what you think you are getting.

9. oldskool50 unregistered

I've stated many times that when you look at benchmarks for mobile CPU vs desktop CPU, that even though mobile CPU's seem to have the power to rival a desktop, that the diffeerdnce in arcjitecture makes a huge difference. But the simple minds ehere don't get it. But now we have side by side proof. Samsung Book 2 is using Qualcomm's new 8xxx series chip designed specifically for mobile computers like laptops. In a side by side comparison with the laptop running Windows 10, for normal everyday tasks it did well. But it has several trade-off and is why i didn't by it. 1 - You can only run the x86 version of Windows 10 and application. It does not support 64Bit apps 2 - It handle simple media conversions like converting WAV to MP3 as an example, but rendering full length movies without 64Bit and because of low RAM and less CPU power, the process was much slower. 3 - Even with Direct X gaming is sluggish. It was ok for games that run very well in 32BIT which covers alot. But because it's an ARM based CPU, and is only using the graphics potential of the chip, the performance was considerably slower than Intel's own integrated 620 and 630 graphics that is avail on the 7th and 8th generation Intel CPU's. Basically gaming perforce is exactly what you get on something like an iPad or Samsung Tab S device; or you smartphone if you have a premium Android like a Galaxy S or Note. I summed up this from watching several videos on the Samsung Book vs the Surface Pro 6 -https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=samsung+book+2+vs+surface+pro+6 The fact is, the Samsung Book did well. if all you wnat to do is general everday tasks like email, web surfing, playing movies, listening to music and workign with Microsoft Office or similar, then it is perfect for that and occasional lack-luster gaming. The reviews peg the SD laptop as being on par with a Surface with a low-end i5 CPU. The i5 is very powerful and is good for everyday tasks and thus someone interested in a Surface Pro 4/5/6 will be OK. But SD chipsets are not desktop class CPU's and that makes the A series from Apple no different. ARM is ARM and even though Apple does customize their CPU and they could release a version of OS X that could most certainly run on the A series, it will comes with the same caveats at what is being experienced anywhere else. But the guys here don't get it. x86/64 apps are far heavier with more code. Windows alone has over 50M lines of code. That and many apps have half as much as that. While IOS and android apps, may have less than 5M lines of code. So nice at least YOU understand this difference and its not just benchmarks.

Latest Stories

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. You can order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers at https://www.parsintl.com/phonearena or use the Reprints & Permissions tool that appears at the bottom of each web page. Visit https://www.parsintl.com/ for samples and additional information.