Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 41

Thread: The ARM Cortex-A9 Can Beat Out The Intel Atom

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,643

    Default The ARM Cortex-A9 Can Beat Out The Intel Atom

    Phoronix: The ARM Cortex-A9 Can Beat Out The Intel Atom

    Here's some interesting test results recently uploaded to OpenBenchmarking.org that compares the performance of ARM Cortex A8 and Cortex A9 cores running at 1.0GHz against an Intel Atom N450. All three systems running at 1.0GHz were also running Gentoo Linux. Clock-for-clock, can the latest-generation ARM Cortex-A9 take out the Intel Atom? For the most part, yes.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=17829

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,028

    Default Great

    This ARM Cortex-A9 would be great for a nettop, netbook, and chromebook or chrometop.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    42

    Default

    They are already used in nettops, netbooks and chromebooks :P

    Tegra 3 with its quad-core @ up to 1.7GHz should be a viable Atom replacement for sure.
    Give my Transformer Prime a decent Ubuntu distro and let's see what happens.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,028

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sacha View Post
    Tegra 3 with its quad-core @ up to 1.7GHz should be a viable Atom replacement for sure.
    The problem with Tegra is that it is Nvidia.
    So no open source device drivers.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    104

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uid313 View Post
    The problem with Tegra is that it is Nvidia.
    So no open source device drivers.
    That applies to pretty much all ARM SoCs at the moment.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Rio de Janeiro
    Posts
    202

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uid313 View Post
    The problem with Tegra is that it is Nvidia.
    So no open source device drivers.
    I believe thats the problem with any arm soc vendor, contrary to, ironically, intel's next gen valleyview soc.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    70

    Default This article is severely flawed...

    Running multi-threaded benchmarks on a top of the line dual-core ARM setup then declaring that it is amazingly superior to an UNDERCLOCKED SINGLE CORE ATOM FROM ALMOST 3 YEARS AGO is not exactly showing that Intel is about to go out of business.

    Larabel *repeatedly* misrepresents the N450 calling it a "dual core" processor. It is *not* dual core but is a single core + HT chip. He could have spent 5 seconds using this new thing called "Google" to go here: http://ark.intel.com/products/42503 and get a full product page describing the N450 that *clearly* shows it is a single core chip. I'd love to see the A9's "beating" the N450 with only one core....

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uid313 View Post
    This ARM Cortex-A9 would be great for a nettop, netbook, and chromebook or chrometop.
    It was always in my mind that it was the compilers that were holding back ARM when compared to the Intel Atom, rather than the architecture, and this article does a lot to confirm it - although I'm sure that someone will tweak the Atom compiler flags to get better figures soon.

    Did the OpenSSL benchmark use any hardware acceleration on the ARM platform?

    This also goes a long way to confirming that ARM based tablets aren't lower performing than an Intel Atom based tablet. In addition the Intel Atom based phones aren't actually going to be faster despite the advertising claims that Intel is paying for for the various new Intel based phones - especially as the ARM devices are getting quad-cores at around 1.5GHz in comparison to the single-core Atom at 1.6GHz.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    106

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sykobee View Post
    This also goes a long way to confirming that ARM based tablets aren't lower performing than an Intel Atom based tablet. In addition the Intel Atom based phones aren't actually going to be faster despite the advertising claims that Intel is paying for for the various new Intel based phones - especially as the ARM devices are getting quad-cores at around 1.5GHz in comparison to the single-core Atom at 1.6GHz.
    Especially when the claimed frequency of 1.6 GHz is turbo frequency. The "standard" frequency of Medfield is 1.3 GHz.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,028

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sykobee View Post
    This also goes a long way to confirming that ARM based tablets aren't lower performing than an Intel Atom based tablet. In addition the Intel Atom based phones aren't actually going to be faster despite the advertising claims that Intel is paying for for the various new Intel based phones - especially as the ARM devices are getting quad-cores at around 1.5GHz in comparison to the single-core Atom at 1.6GHz.
    Maybe Intel Atom can get popular on smartphones, tablets and embedded devices anyways.
    All the graphics on ARM are closed source. Then comes Intel with open source Ivy Bridge graphics on Intel Atom? Me like!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •