Originally posted by ldesnogu
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
The ARM Cortex-A9 Can Beat Out The Intel Atom
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Kano View PostWell the benchmark is a bit useless because a atom n450 usually runs with 1.66 ghz. so the cortex cpu needs first a higher clockspeed to match the atom. btw. there are also quad core atoms out there.
Comment
-
Originally posted by uid313 View PostMaybe 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!
Comment
-
Originally posted by gururise View PostThe only problem is that the Intel ATOM series chips don't use Open-Source graphics. Instead we are stuck with the proprietary PowerVR Poulsbo crap. So really, there is no advantage to going x86 on the phone/tablet platforms.
Comment
-
Originally posted by bachinchi View PostThat's gonna change with Intel's Valleyview.
Comment
-
Where's My Cortex A15 Smartbook?
My question is, where's my Cortex A15 based smartbook with open source Mali graphics drivers for Linux? Heck, I'd probably be willing to settle for a Cortex A9 as long as it was unlocked and fully supported under Linux. Well, I can dream anyway.
Comment
-
Originally posted by CFWhitman View PostMy question is, where's my Cortex A15 based smartbook with open source Mali graphics drivers for Linux? Heck, I'd probably be willing to settle for a Cortex A9 as long as it was unlocked and fully supported under Linux. Well, I can dream anyway.
Comment
-
Originally posted by CFWhitman View PostMy question is, where's my Cortex A15 based smartbook with open source Mali graphics drivers for Linux? Heck, I'd probably be willing to settle for a Cortex A9 as long as it was unlocked and fully supported under Linux. Well, I can dream anyway.
Comment
-
Originally posted by schmidtbag View PostAnyways back to the tests, anyone else find it weird that Atom under 64 bit overall did worse? Any particular reason for that?
AMD64 architecture has more registers, but the address pointers are bigger. So: if the program did not fit well in the CPU registers and the CPU was taxed by the lag of waiting for memory, is most likely that was slower than the same CPU which would not wait for memory, because all data fits in either L1 cache (32 KB) or L2 cache (512 KB).
This is also why most likely A9 was faster than Atom on those specific programs: A9 is out-of-order design but it has a slow(er) memory bus than Atom has. So most likely the speculative execution will make Atom to advance doing computations, even the CPU has a crippled memory bandwidth, but it could still make computations that Intel CPU simply had to wait.
Comment
-
What Exactly Is the Point of this comparison!
As much as, one - for academic purposes- would love to see or read about how different hardware platforms perform at a an arbitrary operating point, it would have been a preferable and beneficial exercise if all these different hardware had been compared using the standard form in which each platform is sold on the market.
This would have been a more useful exercise for someone needing to make a choice of hardware platform for a pending project
Comment
Comment