Personal computing discussed
Moderators: renee, David, mac_h8r1, Nelliesboo
TheWacoKid wrote:Color me impressed.
DancinJack wrote:Where is NeelyCam when you need him?
ish718 wrote:Is that a cherry picked engineering sample?
chuckula wrote:TheWacoKid wrote:Color me impressed.
Yes Yes Yes.. but what color is Krogoth when he's impressed?
That was a rhetorical question... Krogoth is NEVER impressed.
MadManOriginal wrote:chuckula wrote:TheWacoKid wrote:Color me impressed.
Yes Yes Yes.. but what color is Krogoth when he's impressed?
That was a rhetorical question... Krogoth is NEVER impressed.
It's not a rhetorical question, the answer is:
Krogoth is BLACK because that is the absence of all color.
Da_Boss wrote:However impressive these numbers are, I'd say they're more of a testament to Intel's best-in-the-world manufacture process, than the viability of x86 in low power computing scenarios. At 32nm LP, I don't see how Intel should ever be losing the power consumption fight with any ARM chip at all.
If Intel released a 45nm SoC, we'd have a better discussion of whether x86 can compete with ARM, but as it stands now, Intel's advantage in their process tech will leave that question wide open.
What is answered now is whether or not they can technically compete: Yes they can.
chuckula wrote:Yes Yes Yes.. but what color is Krogoth when he's impressed?
That was a rhetorical question... Krogoth is NEVER impressed.
Arclight wrote:The irony is that Americans call black people "man of color". Oh the humanity!!!!1111
flip-mode wrote:Da_Boss wrote:However impressive these numbers are, I'd say they're more of a testament to Intel's best-in-the-world manufacture process, than the viability of x86 in low power computing scenarios. At 32nm LP, I don't see how Intel should ever be losing the power consumption fight with any ARM chip at all.
If Intel released a 45nm SoC, we'd have a better discussion of whether x86 can compete with ARM, but as it stands now, Intel's advantage in their process tech will leave that question wide open.
What is answered now is whether or not they can technically compete: Yes they can.
Um, no. If it were manufacturing process that determined everything then by that logic the 2600K would use no more power than the lowest end processor on the same process. Clearly ridiculous. The circuit design clearly needs to get credit where it is due.
Arclight wrote:I don't get it. By "x86 myth finished" you meant what exactly? You meant that the myth was that x86 was slower than ARM when they are on the same power envelope and this article proves the contrary?
Da_Boss wrote:I'm not saying manufacturing determines everything, I'm just saying that this article does nothing to prove that x86 is as suitable for low power SoCs as ARM is. It could be, but this article doesn't quite sway me.
According to the article, Intel's process advantage gives them "43% lower dynamic power or 37% higher frequency at the same power level" than any ARM chip shipping. It's kinda hard to look at this and be convinced that Intel's superior x86 architecture is officially as good as ARM, especially since it runs at a frequency faster than anything shipping in a phone today.
Zoomastigophora wrote:So I've been wondering for a while: why do people care what ISAs are powering their mobile devices? Who cares whether an ISA is "suitable" as long as your performance and power needs are met as a consumer? As a developer, I can see you might care if you've been doing low-level asm programming on the architecture, but the vast majority of "app" writers don't have nearly that level of technical competency so why is there so much nerdraging about ARM being better than x86 at blah blah blah or vice-versa?
Sorry Da_Boss, I was just quoting you as an example of a lot posts I see whenever this topic comes up and people ardently defending both ISAs despite the fact that as consumers it shouldn't really matter.