Saturday, February 24, 2018
Search
  
Submit your own News for
inclusion in our Site.
Click here...
Breaking News
IBM Researchers Talk About the Future of EUV at SPIE
Xiaomi and Microsoft Expand Their Collaboration in cloud, Devices and AI Areas
Google's Augmented Reality SDK ARCore 1.0 Released, Google Lens Updated
Google Assistant is Going Global
TEAC Releases New Reference Series Hi-Res Audio Models
First Affordable Android Go Smartphones Coming Next Week
Samsung Breaks Ground on New EUV Line in Hwaseong
Samsung Max Android Application Offering Mobile Data Saving Mode and Privacy
Active Discussions
Which of these DVD media are the best, most durable?
How to back up a PS2 DL game
Copy a protected DVD?
roxio issues with xp pro
Help make DVDInfoPro better with dvdinfomantis!!!
menu making
Optiarc AD-7260S review
cdrw trouble
 Home > News > Mobiles > Has Int...
Last 7 Days News : SU MO TU WE TH FR SA All News

Friday, July 12, 2013
Has Intel Really Beaten ARM?


EE Times member Jim McGregor debunked a recent ABI Research report claiming that AnTuTu benchmark results and a recent ABI Research report claiming, "Intel apps processor outperforms Nvidia, Qualcomm, and Samsung."

New AnTuTu benchmark results and a recent ABI Research report claim that Intel surpassed the entire ARM ecosystem in mobile processors for the high-end smartphone segment.

In response to the report, EE Times member Jim McGregor investigated further and compiled a variety of benchmark information from tech reviewers, benchmarking organizations and other industry resources. In particular, he looked at processors from Samsung, Intel and Qualcomm and, in effect, debunked the entire report, showing that ARM-based processors came out on top. At the same time, he pointed to the nuances and traps of processor benchmarking in general.

"Evaluating current mobile processors is challenging because these processors, known as systems-on-chips (SoCs), are complex systems of heterogeneous processing elements combined with memory, I/O, high-speed networks, communications modems and a host of other dedicated system functions," a forum user wrote.

"Integration of the processors into mobile devices further complicates any evaluation because the overall performance and efficiency of these processors is impacted by the other system components. As a result, the industry turns to benchmarks to compare processors and devices. Unfortunately, mobile benchmarks are plagued by many issues and also fall short of providing an accurate evaluation."

Despite what seemed a fairly comprehensive conclusion, the EE Times community took McGregor's analysis, and benchmarking in general, to task, with an emphasis on power consumption:

"...this analysis kinda sidestep[s] the issue of power consumption. It was not the processor's computational speed that was in question. It was that Intel CPU had more or less the same performance at HALF the current drain/power."

"Well, long calls affecting battery life is much more a function of the RF chipset efficiency and software control of transmit levels, etc. I don't see how it would fit into a comparison of digital SoCs."

"Also, what OS was running on each platform to carry out these tests, since a highly optimized OS can make these benchmark tests show amazing performance on a slow processor vs. poor results on a badly ported OS running on a considerably faster processor."

"The ABI article is clearly more about the current draw than about raw performance. So, while I agree that they could have done a better job by averaging multiple benchmarks, I think the point of the article is that Intel seems to have finally conquered what analysts have considered its 'Achilles' heel': power consumption."

"The RAM scores seem highly unusual. Is there some kind of "cheating" going on with AnTuTu?"

On the topic of compilers:

"What's wrong with Intel getting ahead using better compiler technology?"

"Nothing, if we're talking about making real applications run faster. But that's not what we're talking about here.

What we're talking about here is the compiler removing portions of the benchmark, contrary to the intent of the benchmark. As a result, the benchmark results become meaningless."

The discussion continues to heat up. Clearly, all benchmarks should be questioned and none used exclusively; and recent headlines were more sensational than truthful.


Previous
Next
Apple Also Looks At Globalfoundries To Ensure Chip Capacity Flow        All News        Microsoft Cuts Prices Of Surface RT In Japan
Microsoft Sues U.S. Customs For Not Enforcing Google Phone Ban     Mobiles News      Windows Phone 8 GDR2 Update Brings New Features

Get RSS feed Easy Print E-Mail this Message

Related News
Intel Brings 5G Connectivity to PCs
ARM Wants to Integrate a SIM Card into SoCs for IoT
Intel Releases Updated Firmware for 6th, 7th and 8th Generation Intel Core Processors, Intel Xeon Scalable Processors
Investors and Consumers Sued Intel Over Meltdown and Spectre CPU Security Flaws
Intel SSD DC P4510 and P4511 Series Come in New Form Factors, 64-layer TLC 3D NAND
Intel Focuses on Silicon Spin Qubits for Quantum Computing
Intel Graphics Drivers Add Game Optimization Feature
Intel Raises Bug Bounty Awards, Expands Program
ISSCC: Samsung Working on 7-nm EUV SRAM, Intel Details 10-nm SRAM
Arm's Project Trillium Offers Scalable, Machine Learning Compute Platform
New 8th Gen Intel Core i3 Processor Expands Performance Options for Thin and Light Laptops
Intel Releases Spectre Microcode Update for Skylake Chips

Most Popular News
 
Home | News | All News | Reviews | Articles | Guides | Download | Expert Area | Forum | Site Info
Site best viewed at 1024x768+ - CDRINFO.COM 1998-2018 - All rights reserved -
Privacy policy - Contact Us .