Intel's next-generation "Silvermont" Atom processors are due out later this year. Thanks in part to a revamped architecture with out-of-order execution, those processors are supposed to be much faster than the current generation. If a leaked benchmark result spotted by Hardware.info is any indication, next-gen Atoms are also be a fair bit quicker than competing, ARM-powered chips.
Hardware.info grabbed the benchmark score from AnTuTu, an Android benchmark database. It says the Bay Trail-T system-on-a-chip, which packs two 1.1GHz cores, scored 43,416 points. By contrast, devices with quad-core Qualcomm Snapdragon 800 silicon reportedly score in the 25,000 to 30,000 range.
Those numbers jibe with the performance claims Intel has been making in public. As we reported two months ago, Intel claims that dual-core Silvermont chips can outperform quad-core ARM chips by a factor of 1.6 when power draw is similar. Intel also says Silvermont can draw 2.4 times less power when delivering similar performance as the quad-core, ARM-based competition.
I think this is the first time we've seen benchmark figures in the wild, outside of Intel's own claims. Of course, this is just a single result from a single benchmark with an unknown source, so we shouldn't make too much of it. The true test will come when we can get our hands on Silvermont-based chips like the Bay Trail SoC inside of real consumer devices like tablets. Then we can size up Intel's new Atom against the ARM-based competition.
|In the lab: FLIR's One thermal camera||9|
|Black Friday deals: Dell's U3415 curved monitor for $650 and more||17|
|Abu Dhabi government fund may be shopping GlobalFoundries||21|
|Asus goes for the gold with its 20th Anniversary GTX 980 Ti||5|
|MSI's Eco motherboards let owners fine-tune power consumption||4|
|Gigabyte's Z170X-Gaming G1 motherboard reviewed||12|
|Star Wars Battlefront video review||38|
|Club 3D active adapters convert DisplayPort 1.2 to HDMI 2.0||22|
|Phanteks' Power Splitter lets two systems run on one PSU||45|
|This is the answer to SSK's question on the Firefox news post.||+33|