Thursday, September 21, 2017
Search
  
Submit your own News for
inclusion in our Site.
Click here...
Breaking News
GLOBALFOUNDRIES and IBM Develop Custom 14nm FinFET Technology That Leverages both FinFET and SOI
Google Brings Affordable moto x4 to Project Fi
BlackBerry Enters Self-Driving Car Partnership With Delphi
Nest Unveils Home Alarm System, 'Hello; Video Doorbell and the Cam IQ Outdor Camera
Apple to Fix Watch Series 3 Battery and LTE Connectivity Issues
Rambus Runs First DDR5 Silicon in its Labs
HTC Expected to Announce Deal with Google
Xbox One X Console Pre-orders Available Today
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 Showcases 10 nm Updates, a new aspect for Moore's Law, FPGA Progress and 64-Layer 3D NAND for Data Center
Waymo's Self-Driving Car to have Intel Chips Inside
Facebook Opens AI Research in Montreal
Xilinx, Arm, Cadence, and TSMC Announce First CCIX Silicon Demonstration Vehicle in 7nm Process Technology
IBM and MIT to Establish MIT-IBM Watson AI Lab
European Top Judges Send Intel Antirust Case Back to Lower Court
IFA: Huawei Says it Has an Edge Over Apple With New Kirin 970 Mobile AI Chipset
Garmin Introduces the vivomove HR Touchscreen Hybrid Smartwatch
Intel Releases Xeon-W Processors For Workstations
Intel's Movidius X VPU Announced
Microsoft Unveils Project Brainwave for Real-time AI
Intel First 8th generation Processors Released

Most Popular News
 
Home | News | All News | Reviews | Articles | Guides | Download | Expert Area | Forum | Site Info
Site best viewed at 1024x768+ - CDRINFO.COM 1998-2017 - All rights reserved -
Privacy policy - Contact Us .