Talk:List of ARM microarchitectures

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Cortex release dates[edit]

Request: A date for the release of each Cortex architecture will be very helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

You can search through press releases at
You can contact ARM at
SbmeirowTalk • 22:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I added a release timeline for all Cortex cores. Older cores still need to be added. • SbmeirowTalk • 17:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that, but the layout made it a little difficult to read. So I broke the cores into columns for the embedded, real-time, and application cores. And each year is restricted to a single row. I think this makes it easier to read and understand the information. Now, to add older cores. Should third-party cores be included? --Imroy (talk) 05:10, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, better way of viewing it. • SbmeirowTalk • 05:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
I started adding older cores. I hid cores with comments until a date can be determined for those cores. • SbmeirowTalk • 06:55, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Again, I think a single combined table looks much better than lots of small tables. It fits much better with calling the section a "timeline", allowing readers to see the information quickly and easily.

How about this?

Year Classic cores   Cortex Cores
ARM7 ARM8 ARM 9 ARM10 ARM11 Embedded Real-time Application
1996 ARM810
1998 ARM7TDMI(-S)
2002 ARM1136J(F)-S
2003 ARM966E-S
2004 Cortex-M3
2005 Cortex-A8
2006 ARM996HS
2007 Cortex-M1 Cortex-A9
2009 Cortex-M0 Cortex-A5
2010 Cortex-M4 Cortex-A15
2011 Cortex-R4
2012 Cortex-M0+ Cortex-A53
2013 Cortex-A12
2014 Cortex-A17

--Imroy (talk) 13:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry that I didn't reply sooner. I didn't see this table when you posted it. Yes, your unified table looks better, except (1) the double vertical line isn't needed between classic and cortex, (2) we need to pull my comments out into a one comment section so we'll all know which cores are missing, (3) I wonder if a 64bit App Core column should be added on the right side (thoughts?), (4) should rows be added for the missing years (thoughts?), (5) should we plan for older cores on the left side or just start with ARM7 (I think skipping ARM6 and older is fine otherwise too many columns and rows) (thoughts?). • SbmeirowTalk • 19:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

ARM2, ARM3 relationship to ARM250[edit]

The ARM250 is not more related to the ARM2 than the ARM3. In fact it is an ARM3 without the cache. "It is interesting to notice that the ARM3 doesn't 'perform' faster - both the ARM2 and the ARM3 average 0.56 MIPS/MHz. The speed boost comes from the higher clock speed, and the cache." Maybe the ARM250 should be put in the ARM3 Family? Jonpatterns (talk) 14:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Cortex-M with Cache[edit]

ARM doesn't sell a design for cache for M0-M4, but they did keep all the signals you'd need to hook one up available, and so there are some Cortex-M cores with caches, just not caches designed by ARM[1]. Most Cortex-M's running on flash have a very small instruction prefetch cache like ART on STM32[2], and some Cortex-M's with external memory interfaces have general-purpose(both instructions and data) caches[3]. Could we phrase this better instead of "No Cache"? Maybe "Optional caches" or "SoC-provided caches"? Rsaxvc (talk) 05:49, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


Refactor ARM Core Tables?[edit]

Would it make sense to refactor the "Cache (I / D), MMU" of ARM Cores Designed by ARM" column into multiple columns? It seems like it has become overgrown with things like TCM, ECC and MMU extensions all in the same column. Trustzone also appears in multiple columns, perhaps because it has no home. Rsaxvc (talk) 04:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It's a tough call of what columns to add, since not all flavors have some features. ECC/Parity are related to Cache and TCM, so it belongs in those columns. Possibly: Cache, TCM, MMU, FPU, Instruction Set. Another thing to consider is duplicating a section, so we can support more columns. I think more people should respond and we get a game plan together, like agree on a column list from left to right before a major overhaul starts! The bigger the table, the more work and risk of mistakes, so best to not get in a big hurry. • SbmeirowTalk • 05:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)