Thursday, December 14, 2017
Search
  
Submit your own News for
inclusion in our Site.
Click here...
Breaking News
IBM Announces Collaboration With Leading Companies to Accelerate Quantum Computing
Bing Gets Intelligent Search Features, Powered by AI
New MediaTek Sensio Solution Brings Health Monitoring to Smartphones
LG's Upgraded Gram Laptop Deliver Longer Battery Life, More Power
New Samsung Notebook 9 Pen and Notebook 9 Released
T-Mobile Enters The pay-TV Market With the Acquisition of Layer3 TV
Samsung Patents 'Double-sided' Smartphone
Apple Invests in FaceID Component Maker Finisar
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
Google Opening Artificial Intelligence Research Center in China
Intel Introduces Cost-optimized Pentium Silver and Intel Celeron Processors
Intel Uses Cobalt Interconnect for 10nm, Global Foundries Detail EUV Lithography for 7nm
IBM Says New POWER9-based AC922 Power Systems Offer 4x Deep-learning Framework Performance Over x86
IBM Scientists Demonstrate 10x Faster Machine Learning Using GPUs
Intel to Unveil Platform For Autonomous Cars at CES
Intel and Warner Partner to Develop In-Cabin Experiences in Autonomous Cars
U.S. Government Warns Businesses About Vulnerabilities Of Management Engine in Intel Chips
Samsung to set up AI Research Center
Samsung Forecast to Top Intel as Larger Semiconductor Supplier in 2017
Cray Adds Arm Processors to the Cray XC50 Supercomputer
Intel Doubles Capacity of the Optane SSD DC P4800X

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 .