flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.
Index
> Non-x86 architectures > ARM 2.0GHz Multi-Core (5x faster than Intel Atom) Goto page 1, 2 Next |
Author |
|
r22 16 Sep 2009, 17:01
www.arm.com/products/CPUs/ARMCortex-A9_MPCore.html
Supposedly 5x faster with the same power requirements as an Intel Atom. Although I couldn't find specific comparisons/benchmarks. Intel would be in trouble if this thing could only run Windows 7. |
|||
16 Sep 2009, 17:01 |
|
Borsuc 16 Sep 2009, 17:15
How do they know it's 5x faster if you can't even run the same apps on them (different architectures)
|
|||
16 Sep 2009, 17:15 |
|
mattst88 20 Sep 2009, 18:23
They took some code and compiled it before running it?
|
|||
20 Sep 2009, 18:23 |
|
revolution 22 Sep 2009, 09:55
My experience with the ARM cores is that the current TI OMAP versions with a v7 CPU and DDR memory interface are about 30% faster per clock than an Intel Core2. The MP core versions (not yet available commercially) are not likely to change that much except for the upgrade to a DDR2 memory interface.
For power consumption there is no competition. sub-1W compared to 120W for a Core2. I don't know how the ARM compares the Atom. Since the Atom is such a ridiculous chip when compared to the ARM that I have not even bothered to buy any for testing. They are something like 6W power usage and physically enormous, they just don't fit the type of application that the ARM chips are aimed at. So any comparison is not really valid. |
|||
22 Sep 2009, 09:55 |
|
Borsuc 22 Sep 2009, 15:33
revolution wrote: For power consumption there is no competition. sub-1W compared to 120W for a Core2. I actually find what you said hard to believe. Sub 1W with Ghz of speed? I wonder why Nvidia & Intel & AMD are so dipshits then. My guess is, you probably counted minimum power consumption for ARM. _________________ Previously known as The_Grey_Beast |
|||
22 Sep 2009, 15:33 |
|
revolution 22 Sep 2009, 16:02
Borsuc wrote: I actually find what you said hard to believe. Sub 1W with Ghz of speed? Minimum consumption is sub-10mW in standby mode, and ~1mW in sleep mode. |
|||
22 Sep 2009, 16:02 |
|
r22 22 Sep 2009, 20:56
I would love to have a SmartPhone sized Linux box using a new ARM chip and IGP.
- DVI port - Headphone jack - 4 USB slots - 128 Gb SSD Since ARM implemented multi-core and SIMD there's really no saving grace for x86. Kind of sad, even though there's incremental enhancements the "'majority' of the" industry still pushes for the status quo. |
|||
22 Sep 2009, 20:56 |
|
Borsuc 22 Sep 2009, 21:44
128GB SSD???????? how expensive is it there? it's INSANELY expensive here.
r22 wrote: Since ARM implemented multi-core and SIMD there's really no saving grace for x86. _________________ Previously known as The_Grey_Beast |
|||
22 Sep 2009, 21:44 |
|
revolution 22 Sep 2009, 23:45
Borsuc:
r22 wrote 128 Gb. And the idea of Intel (or ARM) winning anything is not valid. They are not in competition with each other. They produce entirely different product lines. Indeed Intel used to make the things. The Atom is not suitable for handheld devices. It is too power hungry, too physically large and requires complex (power hungry and large) support interface IC's. The ARM is mostly designed for handheld devices. |
|||
22 Sep 2009, 23:45 |
|
Borsuc 23 Sep 2009, 00:30
ah, my bad. I'm used to bytes.
When I said Intel will win, I meant in the long run, not with their "Atom" series. _________________ Previously known as The_Grey_Beast |
|||
23 Sep 2009, 00:30 |
|
revolution 23 Sep 2009, 02:02
Borsuc wrote: When I said Intel will win, I meant in the long run, not with their "Atom" series. |
|||
23 Sep 2009, 02:02 |
|
Raedwulf 23 Sep 2009, 10:48
A cookie.
If worse comes to worse, they will just invest into another architecture, albeit RISC or some new massively parallel CISC... or whatever. Even still, legacy applications will always remain -- their dependency of x86 would mean x86 will have a market for a long time yet; and while the x86 isn't getting slower, unless ARM's chip becomes several magnitudes faster than x86, the balance in the market won't suddenly tip. Having said that, I want one of those ARM cpus... revolution buy me one! Now! _________________ Raedwulf |
|||
23 Sep 2009, 10:48 |
|
revolution 23 Sep 2009, 13:22
Raedwulf wrote: Having said that, I want one of those ARM cpus... |
|||
23 Sep 2009, 13:22 |
|
Borsuc 23 Sep 2009, 13:38
revolution wrote: Intel will win what? Why do so many people think RISC is so good? Like I said before, this depends on the application, not on some imaginary or specific "performance test". Last time I checked, ARM didn't have a division instruction (and I could be wrong, revolution correct me on this, since ARM don't publish their stuff). Now imagine that in a division-intensive application... RISC also wastes memory/cache, and with micro-opcodes the CISC parallelism "problem" is nullified. RISC sucks. _________________ Previously known as The_Grey_Beast |
|||
23 Sep 2009, 13:38 |
|
revolution 23 Sep 2009, 13:53
Borsuc wrote: Why do so many people think RISC is so good? Like I said before, this depends on the application, not on some imaginary or specific "performance test". Last time I checked, ARM didn't have a division instruction (and I could be wrong, revolution correct me on this, since ARM don't publish their stuff). Now imagine that in a division-intensive application... Borsuc wrote: RISC also wastes memory/cache, and with micro-opcodes the CISC parallelism "problem" is nullified. RISC sucks. |
|||
23 Sep 2009, 13:53 |
|
Borsuc 23 Sep 2009, 15:05
That's due to lazyness, but they improve. The bit scan instructions were horribly slow and now they improved them and some people even recommend using them in algos.
RISC sucks because true RISC would only have one instruction... (and yes you would use div if you needed precise results, like in some scientific app or something) _________________ Previously known as The_Grey_Beast |
|||
23 Sep 2009, 15:05 |
|
revolution 24 Sep 2009, 04:50
Borsuc wrote: RISC sucks because true RISC would only have one instruction... |
|||
24 Sep 2009, 04:50 |
|
Tomasz Grysztar 24 Sep 2009, 09:00
Borsuc wrote: RISC sucks because true RISC would only have one instruction... That would be an URISC, not just RISC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_instruction_set_computer |
|||
24 Sep 2009, 09:00 |
|
revolution 24 Apr 2015, 15:19
Cortex-A72 at 2.5GHz is said to be 3.5 times the performance of A15 at 1.6GHz. That would appear to work out to 2.24 times the performance per clock cycle, but the graph in the article does not show anything above 1.5 times relative performance increase per clock cycle. Where did it go wrong? Did some marketing-droid mess up the figures again?
http://www.anandtech.com/Show/Index/9184 |
|||
24 Apr 2015, 15:19 |
|
Goto page 1, 2 Next < Last Thread | Next Thread > |
Forum Rules:
|
Copyright © 1999-2024, Tomasz Grysztar. Also on GitHub, YouTube.
Website powered by rwasa.