Personal computing discussed

Moderators: David, Thresher

 
chuckula
Gold subscriber
Gerbil Jedi
Topic Author
Posts: 1572
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 9:18 pm
Location: Probably where I don't belong.

The A9X Benchmarked in the Real World

Mon Nov 30, 2015 12:46 pm

Here is a link to a detailed and very informative article about the A9X when benchmarked using loads other than the "magical" GeekBench: http://www.pcworld.com/article/3006268/ ... aptop.html

I won't post every CPU benchmark there, but the findings from PCWorld mirror my own personal experience having actually used an admittedly first-generation and non-optimized Core-M for over a year now: While the Core-M is by no means a performance powerhouse as far as Intel CPUs go, Apple needs to -- at bare minimum -- double the performance of the A9X CPU cores to be able to honestly say they can beat a 2014-era Core M in a meaningful way. Furthermore, while the gulf in graphics power isn't as huge, it turns out that Apple's favorable GPU benchmarks fall down when apples to apples performance benchmarks are run and Apple can't rely on 16-bit low-precision GPU paths that make their GPU look better than it actually is.

I will make a note that the much of the vaunted GPU power on the A9X appears to be gained from using lower-precision FP16 math to produce graphics with higher performance but while making sacrifices in image quality. Once the fast code-paths are removed using professional grade benchmarking software, even the "incompetent" Broadwell Core-m GPU from 2014 effectively ties the GPU in the A9X, and Skylake flat out destroys the A9X:

http://images.techhive.com/images/artic ... -large.png

The article also includes a detailed discussion of our friend Geekbench, and I personally don't think Geekbench comes out looking like a proper benchmark judging by the spin they told the author.

Once again, the A9X is a powerful (at least as far as ARM goes) table SoC. At 147^2mm, which is 25mm^2 larger than a full-bore desktop Skylake part like the 6700K, it darn well better be a strong tablet chip. However, sites like the Verge and Ars Technica that spend 15 minutes running Geekbench and then declare victory for Apple are *not* doing proper hardware performance reviews and can't be trusted as reliable sources of information.
4770K @ 4.7 GHz; 32GB DDR3-2133; GTX-1080; 512GB 840 Pro (2x); Fractal Define XL-R2; NZXT Kraken-X60
--Many thanks to the TR Forum for advice in getting it built.
 
whm1974
Gerbil Elder
Posts: 5466
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2014 5:29 am

Re: The A9X Bencmarked in the Real World

Mon Nov 30, 2015 1:10 pm

Being in a tablet form factor limits the A9x performance anyway. Fat chance the Apple will try to make a high performance MBP or desktop with the A9X...
 
jihadjoe
Gerbil Elite
Posts: 616
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 11:34 am

Re: The A9X Benchmarked in the Real World

Mon Nov 30, 2015 1:14 pm

Blasphemer! :evil:
 
NoOne ButMe
Gerbil Elite
Posts: 696
Joined: Fri May 15, 2015 9:31 pm

Re: The A9X Bencmarked in the Real World

Mon Nov 30, 2015 1:14 pm

The tests show Core M being almost equal to the ULV chips pretty much invalidate it.

Core M power usage and Clockspeed ESPECIALLY over user tasks is far slower. Upon further reading this is shown in real world testing on 2nd page.

Also, real world testing kinda proves it. And the one real world test shows substance performance being slow than the A9X for Core M5y571.

Cord M can boost to it's me clock for a good 45-50 seconds... In single thread. Average Clockspeed estimate of 2.7 Ghz. More reasonable the test is MT, first 29 seconds are 2.9Ghz, rest if test at 1.7-1.8Ghz. Average of about 2.3Ghz. Or slightly faster than Twister clock per clock.

The best part is he RWT forums quotes talking about benchmarks, not about speed of the SoC itself. The CPU specifically has been accepted IPC increase over A8(x) parts while the A8x part was about Haswell.


Still, good to shine light on geek bench being a **** benchmark. And that manages to be one of the better ones out there.
http://core0.staticworld.net/images/article/2015/11/ipad_pro_unzip_1gb_files-100628787-orig.png
Average Clockspeed of the core M part? max clock for 15-20s and 1.7-1.9Ghz for the remains time.
currently running: Clevo W230SD, i7-4710MQ, 1TB SSD, 960m, win10 Pro + 1 HP Pavilion 22XI monitor and sometimes a 1080p 32" Vizio TV.
 
chuckula
Gold subscriber
Gerbil Jedi
Topic Author
Posts: 1572
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 9:18 pm
Location: Probably where I don't belong.

Re: The A9X Benchmarked in the Real World

Mon Nov 30, 2015 1:22 pm

jihadjoe wrote:
Blasphemer! :evil:


Yeah, we already have one of the usual suspects on here pretending that real-world benchmarks don't count while Geekbench does and attacking the only in-depth review I've actually seen of the A9X.
4770K @ 4.7 GHz; 32GB DDR3-2133; GTX-1080; 512GB 840 Pro (2x); Fractal Define XL-R2; NZXT Kraken-X60
--Many thanks to the TR Forum for advice in getting it built.
 
Glorious
Gold subscriber
Grand Admiral Gerbil
Posts: 10303
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2002 6:35 pm

Re: The A9X Benchmarked in the Real World

Mon Nov 30, 2015 1:37 pm

NoOne ButMe wrote:
The tests show Core M being almost equal to the ULV chips pretty much invalidate it.


Why? It was mostly slower, and the writer indicates that he doesn't have a lot of faith in TabletMark to begin with.

Hey! It's almost like he started with that one to make the point that maybe we shouldn't rely so heavily on one-or-two benchmarks!

NoOne ButMe wrote:
Core M power usage and Clockspeed ESPECIALLY over user tasks is far slower.


I have no idea what this statement is even intended to mean.

NoOne ButMe wrote:
Upon further reading this is shown in real world testing on 2nd page.


How? The writer even explicitly states the obvious: unzipping a 1GB file isn't a straightforward CPU test, as it heavily involves other things which might be the limiting factors instead.

NoOne ButMe wrote:
And the one real world test shows substance performance being slow than the A9X for Core M5y571.


Which one is that? The one that gives a result you merely think is the closest to what you want? :o :roll:

NoOne ButMe wrote:
Cord M can boost to it's me clock for a good 45-50 seconds... In single thread. Average Clockspeed estimate of 2.7 Ghz. More reasonable the test is MT, first 29 seconds are 2.9Ghz, rest if test at 1.7-1.8Ghz. Average of about 2.3Ghz. Or slightly faster than Twister clock per clock.


What sorcerygibberish is this? Where are you getting these magic numbers? Do you have actual cites, or incoherent wild-eyed mumbling? Because this stuff doesn't appear in the article chuckula listed, and you haven't provided or even mentioned any other source....

EDIT: Not that it even matters, because getting precise like 45-50 seconds is self-evidently ridiculous: What about the cooling system? Environmental conditions? It's always EXACTLY 29 seconds when multi-threaded (And all intensive computation imposes the same thermal load too)? Are you serious or just delirious?

NoOne ButMe wrote:
The CPU specifically has been accepted IPC increase over A8(x) parts while the A8x part was about Haswell.


What is this? "It is accepted that Alice can beat Bob, we're pretty sure that Bob could beat Carl, therefore Alice can definitely beat Carl?"

Is this seriously how you imagine people perform quantitative analysis?

NoOne ButMe wrote:
And that manages to be one of the better ones out there.


No duh. It gives the results you want = TEH BESTY!!!!!111

NoOne ButMe wrote:
Average Clockspeed of the core M part? max clock for 15-20s and 1.7-1.9Ghz for the remains time.


...And it still beat the A9X. At least for what you appear to be referring to (as it is the only benchmark on page 2).

This "stuff" of yours isn't even internally consistent dude.
 
chuckula
Gold subscriber
Gerbil Jedi
Topic Author
Posts: 1572
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 9:18 pm
Location: Probably where I don't belong.

Re: The A9X Benchmarked in the Real World

Mon Nov 30, 2015 1:46 pm

No one Butt Me: YOU DON'T GET IT! CORE M ONLY RUNS AT 1.1GHZ IN THE REAL WORLD!! JUST LOOK AT THAT UNZIP BENCHMARK!!

Ok, let's look at that unzip benchmark:
1. The supposedly broken Core-M flat out wins over the A9X. Period.
2. Let's say No one butt me (NOBM) is right: That stupid Core-m only runs at 1 GHz due to all that thermal throttling and the magical A9X runs at the "unprecedented" 2.26 GHz the whole time.
3. But the Core-m flat out wins...
4. Therefore, NOBM would like to state unequivocally for the record that a Core-M at 1 GHz has substantially more than twice the IPC than the A9X since that 1 GHz Core-m... according to NOBM... flat-out beats the A9X at 2.26 GHz.
5. OH BUT WAIT THAT'S NOT WHAT HE MEANT!! Yes it is. You can't have it both ways. You can't pretend that Intel "cheats" with turbo boost speeds while claiming that the chip only runs at 1GHz then turn around and act all high & mighty when your A9X miracle chip flat out loses to that over-one-year-old Core-m.

One More Thing (TM): I am fully ready to acknowledge that Apple implemented a very powerful NVMExpress storage interface on the new iPad Pros that gives the iPad Pro a *massive* advantage over a year-old Dell Venue system using a regular SATA SSD. So yes, I fully acknowledge that piece of technology in the iPad Pro that has literally nothing to do with the architecture of the A9X gives the iPad Pro a massive advantage in this particular benchmark. And the iPad pro still flat out loses to a year old Dell tablet that was widely insulted as not being very good when it came out a year ago.

Of course, there's no reason that an NVMe interface can't be put on an x86 tablet. Just watch out when that happens.
4770K @ 4.7 GHz; 32GB DDR3-2133; GTX-1080; 512GB 840 Pro (2x); Fractal Define XL-R2; NZXT Kraken-X60
--Many thanks to the TR Forum for advice in getting it built.
 
maxxcool
Silver subscriber
Gerbil Elite
Posts: 854
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2002 8:40 am
Location: %^&*%$$
Contact:

Re: The A9X Benchmarked in the Real World

Mon Nov 30, 2015 2:16 pm

I see this grudge match has found new purchase ? Interesting.
Cybert said: Capitlization and periods are hard for you, aren't they? I've given over $100 to techforums. I should have you banned for my money.
 
chuckula
Gold subscriber
Gerbil Jedi
Topic Author
Posts: 1572
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 9:18 pm
Location: Probably where I don't belong.

Re: The A9X Benchmarked in the Real World

Mon Nov 30, 2015 2:21 pm

maxxcool wrote:
I see this grudge match has found new purchase ? Interesting.


I've had my fill of the RDF and a big dose of reality needs to be applied.

Then again, reality is rearing its head in another way: http://www.target.com/sb/ipad-tablets-e ... xtf0Z4vqqz

Target ran a big Cyber-monday sale on the iPad pro.

So not only is the iPad Pro not sold-out, but third-party retailers like Target are throwing discounts at it less than 3 weeks after it debuted.
4770K @ 4.7 GHz; 32GB DDR3-2133; GTX-1080; 512GB 840 Pro (2x); Fractal Define XL-R2; NZXT Kraken-X60
--Many thanks to the TR Forum for advice in getting it built.
 
whm1974
Gerbil Elder
Posts: 5466
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2014 5:29 am

Re: The A9X Benchmarked in the Real World

Mon Nov 30, 2015 2:33 pm

I'll say that this thread is entertaining at the least...

Tim Cook really needs to move away from the RDF along with No One But Me...
 
the
Gold subscriber
Gerbil Elite
Posts: 851
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 2:26 am

Re: The A9X Benchmarked in the Real World

Mon Nov 30, 2015 3:46 pm

chuckula wrote:
Here is a link to a detailed and very informative article about the A9X when benchmarked using loads other than the "magical" GeekBench: http://www.pcworld.com/article/3006268/ ... aptop.html

I won't post every CPU benchmark there, but the findings from PCWorld mirror my own personal experience having actually used an admittedly first-generation and non-optimized Core-M for over a year now: While the Core-M is by no means a performance powerhouse as far as Intel CPUs go, Apple needs to -- at bare minimum -- double the performance of the A9X CPU cores to be able to honestly say they can beat a 2014-era Core M in a meaningful way. Furthermore, while the gulf in graphics power isn't as huge, it turns out that Apple's favorable GPU benchmarks fall down when apples to apples performance benchmarks are run and Apple can't rely on 16-bit low-precision GPU paths that make their GPU look better than it actually is.


Chip works has released a die-shot and what they found was rather interesting. It is only a two core design, just like the Core M. The general expectation before launch was that it would be a triple or quad core design to leap frog its A8X predecessor. While the A9X is faster the lack of additional cores makes the performance jump rather small. Increasing the core count would help put the system on par with the other Intel platforms in multithreaded workloads. Considering the size of a core on the A9X die, going quad core wouldn't be too difficult.

Furthermore, the shared L3 cache for the entire SoC has been removed. Apple does have rather large L2 caches for its CPU cores so this isn't as big of an issue for the CPU side but this could easily affect the performance of the other SoC components who could use that cache. It would be interesting to see if additional logic blocks on the SoC increased the size of any exclusive caches as well to compensate compared to the A8X.

Regardless, Apple appears to be on the level of a Sandy Bridge chip without SMT clock-for-clock, core-per-core. That is still respectable today and especially so in the context of its power consumption. However, it isn't the uber chip Geekbench likes to make it out to be. I also have a few minor issues with that PC World article too. The zip test really needed to explore how much acceleration the A9X chip got from coprocessors. AES encryption/decryption isn't handled by the CPU core itself but by a special crypto unit. This is one of the reason ARM cores in general can show extremely high crypto scores despite having otherwise week CPU scores. The crypto unit can also handle compression/decompression work too. A more interesting comparison would be with a different compression and encryption algorithm that isn't accelerated on either platform.

chuckula wrote:
I will make a note that the much of the vaunted GPU power on the A9X appears to be gained from using lower-precision FP16 math to produce graphics with higher performance but while making sacrifices in image quality. Once the fast code-paths are removed using professional grade benchmarking software, even the "incompetent" Broadwell Core-m GPU from 2014 effectively ties the GPU in the A9X, and Skylake flat out destroys the A9X:

http://images.techhive.com/images/artic ... -large.png


While 16 bit precision is common in mobile as it uses less power and image quality isn't a concern, Intel is adding to Kaby Lake GPUs. They'll be on equal footing in a year and the comparison with the A10X will be very interesting.

nVidia will also be doing some optimizing around 16 bit floats next year with Pascal too.

chuckula wrote:
The article also includes a detailed discussion of our friend Geekbench, and I personally don't think Geekbench comes out looking like a proper benchmark judging by the spin they told the author.


I would argue that some of the subtests are rather fair and comparable across platform. However, they also tend to fall into Linus's criticism of fitting into L2 cache, if not the L2 cache.

I do think that PC World was approaching problem with a more real world focus but kinda dropped the ball to make the tests equivalent across platforms. Granted, it isn't easy with the walled garden app eco system of the iOS to find true equivalents but that is where they should have started looking for applications for performance testing, not the other way around.*

(*There is still value in trying to find Windows application equivalents on iOS as that indicates what work a user can bring over from PC to tablet. However, that criticism is appropriate for a general device review than scientific performance testing which their article was attempting to do.)

chuckula wrote:
Once again, the A9X is a powerful (at least as far as ARM goes) table SoC. At 147^2mm, which is 25mm^2 larger than a full-bore desktop Skylake part like the 6700K, it darn well better be a strong tablet chip. However, sites like the Verge and Ars Technica that spend 15 minutes running Geekbench and then declare victory for Apple are *not* doing proper hardware performance reviews and can't be trusted as reliable sources of information.


In fairness, TSMC 16 nm FinFET has virtually the same density as their lamented 20 nm process so the chips being larger than the Intel one isn't too surprising. Intel still holds a manufacturing edge here.

The more interesting comparison is that Apple's SoC is larger than most other tablet SoC's as well.

With true 14 nm production more than a year away from TSMC and 10 nm further on the horizon from all the players, I'm curious just how large a die Apple is willing to produce for mobile. While efficiency can still be increased, any major performance leap will have to come from additional parallelism and that means more transistors and larger dies.
Dual Opteron 6376, 96 GB DDR3, Asus KGPE-D16, GTX 970
Mac Pro Dual Xeon E5645, 48 GB DDR3, GTX 770
Core i7 3930K@4.2 Ghz, 32 GB DDR3, GA-X79-UP5-Wifi
Core i7 2600K@4.4 Ghz, 16 GB DDR3, GTX 970, GA-X68XP-UD4
 
the
Gold subscriber
Gerbil Elite
Posts: 851
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 2:26 am

Re: The A9X Benchmarked in the Real World

Mon Nov 30, 2015 3:50 pm

chuckula wrote:
maxxcool wrote:
I see this grudge match has found new purchase ? Interesting.


I've had my fill of the RDF and a big dose of reality needs to be applied.

Then again, reality is rearing its head in another way: http://www.target.com/sb/ipad-tablets-e ... xtf0Z4vqqz

Target ran a big Cyber-monday sale on the iPad pro.

So not only is the iPad Pro not sold-out, but third-party retailers like Target are throwing discounts at it less than 3 weeks after it debuted.


Bad example. Target is applying that same percentage discount to the other iPads, not just the Pro. It is more of indicative of Target wanting to make a sale than on the popularity of the iPad Pro as a whole.

A better analysis would be to see if iPad Pro prices continue to carry such a discount well beyond Cyber Monday and across multiple retailers throughout the holiday season and until the next iPad fresh (I'd predict in March/April for the 10" Air which would also be good timing to drop the price on the iPad Pro if necessary).
Dual Opteron 6376, 96 GB DDR3, Asus KGPE-D16, GTX 970
Mac Pro Dual Xeon E5645, 48 GB DDR3, GTX 770
Core i7 3930K@4.2 Ghz, 32 GB DDR3, GA-X79-UP5-Wifi
Core i7 2600K@4.4 Ghz, 16 GB DDR3, GTX 970, GA-X68XP-UD4
 
homerdog
Gerbil First Class
Posts: 190
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 9:34 am
Contact:

Re: The A9X Benchmarked in the Real World

Mon Nov 30, 2015 3:57 pm

Lol I didn't even know there were folks claiming A9X as superior to Core M. They play in different ballparks and Apple still have a ways to go before they're in the Big Leagues. But I don't think they'll ever catch Intel.
Antec 300Two + i7-3770K + Gigabyte Z77-D3H + 16GB 1866MHz + GTX970 + SeaSonic S12II 520W + 180GB Intel 330 + 240GB Intel 530
CM Elite 120 + i5-3550 + Gigabyte H77N-WIFI + 16GB 1600MHz + HD7950 + SilverStone ST45SF 450W + 250GB Crucial MX100
 
windwalker
Gerbil First Class
Posts: 125
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2011 2:25 pm

Re: The A9X Benchmarked in the Real World

Mon Nov 30, 2015 5:33 pm

Moving the goalposts will work fine for you when preaching to the choir.

Geekbench has been fine for many years but when Intel is left in the dust we suddenly get "professional benchmarks". Give me a break.
If Geekbench is so easy to game why hasn't Intel done it by now?
TabletMark? MeeTooMark. How about LOLMark?

The only benchmarks that will matter to the ideologically uncommitted mass market are real world performance results: web browsing, image processing, word processing, spreadsheets, gaming.
Nobody sane cares who "cheats" by having special acceleration hardware or other such similar intricacies.

Normal people ask two questions: "what can I do with it?" and "how much?"
Because the first question is "what can I do with it?" and not "what can it do?", Apple's usability advantage comes into play.
The cost part is obvious, no need to rub that one in.
 
chuckula
Gold subscriber
Gerbil Jedi
Topic Author
Posts: 1572
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 9:18 pm
Location: Probably where I don't belong.

Re: The A9X Benchmarked in the Real World

Mon Nov 30, 2015 5:41 pm

windwalker wrote:
Moving the goalposts will work fine for you when preaching to the choir.

Geekbench has been fine for many years but when Intel is left in the dust we suddenly get "professional benchmarks". Give me a break.
If Geekbench is so easy to game why hasn't Intel done it by now?



Oh it's you. Well moving goalposts has been an artform for you. After all, when the A8X came out it was supposedly faster than Haswell. But -- mysteriously -- it took the A9X to finally beat Broadwell even though according to you Broadwell is flat-out slower than Haswell. So basically, according to you Intel's parts have been getting slower but EVEN THEN Apple still needed the "miracle" A9X to beat that POS Broadwell. That's moving goalposts.

As for GeekBench, the only people who have ever taken it seriously have been Apple fanboys. It's been a laughing stock for years and as Linus Torvalds -- a guy who knows a hell of alot more about software than you do -- has pointed out, the relatively recent Geekbench 3 has actually taken a huge nosedive in quality over even the not so great Geekbench 2!

As for "gaming benchmarks" your religion has been doing that for years. 1990's Photoshop bakeoffs at MacWorld anyone?
4770K @ 4.7 GHz; 32GB DDR3-2133; GTX-1080; 512GB 840 Pro (2x); Fractal Define XL-R2; NZXT Kraken-X60
--Many thanks to the TR Forum for advice in getting it built.
 
whm1974
Gerbil Elder
Posts: 5466
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2014 5:29 am

Re: The A9X Benchmarked in the Real World

Mon Nov 30, 2015 5:42 pm

Moving the goalposts will work fine for you when preaching to the choir.

Nobody is moving any goalposts here. Tim Cook made the claim that the PC is dead because the iPad Pro is powerful enough to do everything PCs can. This has been shown to not be the case here.
 
auxy
Graphmaster Gerbil
Posts: 1290
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 4:25 pm
Location: the armpit of Texas

Re: The A9X Benchmarked in the Real World

Mon Nov 30, 2015 5:53 pm

chuckula wrote:
As for "gaming benchmarks" your religion has been doing that for years. 1990's Photoshop bakeoffs at MacWorld anyone?
Where can I sign up for the church of chuckula? ヾ(*ΦωΦ)ノ
i7-4790K (NH-C14), 4x8GB DDR3-1866 CL9, GA-Z97MX-GAMING 5, SAPPHIRE TRI-X OC 290X, 2x 256GB Q Series / 128GB Vertex 4 / 3x3TB DT01ACA, CX750M (PSU), VG248QE, 3x M2060SWD2, MIMO 720F, Majestouch-2 (red) / Vengeance M95
 
the
Gold subscriber
Gerbil Elite
Posts: 851
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 2:26 am

Re: The A9X Benchmarked in the Real World

Mon Nov 30, 2015 5:55 pm

whm1974 wrote:
Moving the goalposts will work fine for you when preaching to the choir.

Nobody is moving any goalposts here. Tim Cook made the claim that the PC is dead because the iPad Pro is powerful enough to do everything PCs can. This has been shown to not be the case here.


Well considering that the PC market has been shrinking for the past several years, he isn't entirely incorrect. The key word there is enough as in good enough. And in reality the iPad Pro is genuinely fast enough to handle basic creation (word processing, light photo editing etc.) that most people throw at it and it excels at media consumption. The problem the iPad Pro has now is if it can distinguish itself by being a better solution (not necessarily faster) than cheaper PCs. Otherwise it'll find itself in a niche status.

The performance problem that iPad Pro has is that it isn't fast enough to do the heavy tasks that continue to remain on PCs: content creation like movies being the big one. In this sense, the PC will never die.

Mobile devices have eaten away at PC market but the other reason has been a combination of mediocre hardware improvements over the past 5 years and the disease known as Windows 8. It is easy to erode market share when shooting one's self in the foot.
Dual Opteron 6376, 96 GB DDR3, Asus KGPE-D16, GTX 970
Mac Pro Dual Xeon E5645, 48 GB DDR3, GTX 770
Core i7 3930K@4.2 Ghz, 32 GB DDR3, GA-X79-UP5-Wifi
Core i7 2600K@4.4 Ghz, 16 GB DDR3, GTX 970, GA-X68XP-UD4
 
windwalker
Gerbil First Class
Posts: 125
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2011 2:25 pm

Re: The A9X Benchmarked in the Real World

Mon Nov 30, 2015 8:08 pm

chuckula wrote:
Oh it's you. Well moving goalposts has been an artform for you. After all, when the A8X came out it was supposedly faster than Haswell. But -- mysteriously -- it took the A9X to finally beat Broadwell even though according to you Broadwell is flat-out slower than Haswell. So basically, according to you Intel's parts have been getting slower but EVEN THEN Apple still needed the "miracle" A9X to beat that POS Broadwell. That's moving goalposts.

Off your medication again? You're projecting so hard you risk becoming a multiplex.

chuckula wrote:
As for GeekBench, the only people who have ever taken it seriously have been Apple fanboys. It's been a laughing stock for years and as Linus Torvalds -- a guy who knows a hell of alot more about software than you do -- has pointed out, the relatively recent Geekbench 3 has actually taken a huge nosedive in quality over even the not so great Geekbench 2!

You can do better than that pathetic attempt of revisionist history.

chuckula wrote:
As for "gaming benchmarks" your religion has been doing that for years. 1990's Photoshop bakeoffs at MacWorld anyone?

LOL U mad bro.
 
windwalker
Gerbil First Class
Posts: 125
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2011 2:25 pm

Re: The A9X Benchmarked in the Real World

Mon Nov 30, 2015 8:10 pm

whm1974 wrote:
Nobody is moving any goalposts here. Tim Cook made the claim that the PC is dead because the iPad Pro is powerful enough to do everything PCs can. This has been shown to not be the case here.

Wrong.
1% of users care what their computer can do.
99% of users care what they can do with their computer.
That's why iPad Pro is a better choice for many people and that set will only continue to expand.
 
whm1974
Gerbil Elder
Posts: 5466
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2014 5:29 am

Re: The A9X Benchmarked in the Real World

Mon Nov 30, 2015 8:22 pm

windwalker wrote:
That's why iPad Pro is a better choice for many people and that set will only continue to expand.

Oh really? Why would anyone replace their PC with a tablet?
 
LostCat
Gerbil Jedi
Posts: 1800
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2004 6:18 am
Location: Alphanumeric symbols.

Re: The A9X Benchmarked in the Real World

Mon Nov 30, 2015 8:35 pm

whm1974 wrote:
Oh really? Why would anyone replace their PC with a tablet?

I think a lot of people would prefer (if given the capability,) to only use/upgrade one device...saves on overall cash spent.

It's not quite the world we live in, but things seem to be converging.
And now I'm no longer primarily a PC gamer. *shrug*
 
End User
Gold subscriber
Minister of Gerbil Affairs
Posts: 2454
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2004 6:47 pm
Location: Upper Canada

Re: The A9X Benchmarked in the Real World

Mon Nov 30, 2015 8:53 pm

chuckula wrote:
tested-why-the-ipad-pro-really-isnt-as-fast-a-laptop.html

Fast?

My Core M based laptop is nowhere near as powerful as my Windows 10 PC (3770K) yet I use my laptop for work related tasks because modern low power CPUs are more than powerful enough to get my work done just as fast as my 3770K. I can extend that even further by saying that I can do certain tasks just as fast on my phone as I can on my 3770K.

It therefore comes as no surprise to me that my iPad Pro is as fast as my 3770K.


whm1974 wrote:
Tim Cook made the claim that the PC is dead because the iPad Pro is powerful enough to do everything PCs can.

Tim did not say "the iPad Pro is powerful enough to do everything PCs can".

Tim Cook:

“Yes, the iPad Pro is a replacement for a notebook or a desktop for many, many people. They will start using it and conclude they no longer need to use anything else, other than their phones,”

I think that is a fair statement to make.
Threadripper 1950X build parts have arrived - i'm procrastinating on the build :(
 
windwalker
Gerbil First Class
Posts: 125
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2011 2:25 pm

Re: The A9X Benchmarked in the Real World

Mon Nov 30, 2015 10:09 pm

whm1974 wrote:
Oh really? Why would anyone replace their PC with a tablet?

Because it's cheaper, higher quality, easier to use and to maintain, more portable, usable in more places and circumstances.
Pretty much because it's generally better for most mundane tasks.
 
whm1974
Gerbil Elder
Posts: 5466
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2014 5:29 am

Re: The A9X Benchmarked in the Real World

Mon Nov 30, 2015 10:15 pm

And they are walled gardens and closed ecosystems as well.
 
chuckula
Gold subscriber
Gerbil Jedi
Topic Author
Posts: 1572
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 9:18 pm
Location: Probably where I don't belong.

Re: The A9X Benchmarked in the Real World

Mon Nov 30, 2015 10:17 pm

windwalker wrote:
whm1974 wrote:
Oh really? Why would anyone replace their PC with a tablet?

Because it's cheaper, higher quality, easier to use and to maintain, more portable, usable in more places and circumstances.
Pretty much because it's generally better for most mundane tasks.


"Because it's cheaper,"

A Skylake powered Zenbook that's 100% guaranteed to be faster than the A10X, is actually on sale this year, and that costs $250 less than the non-crippled Maxipad says you are full of it: http://techreport.com/news/29365/asus-u ... core-m-cpu P.S. --> You literally could walk into an Apple store with $250,000 in hard cash and they still wouldn't sell you a maxipad with 8GB of RAM and a 256 GB flash drive.

"higher quality,": Oh really? How's the built in keyboard?

"more portable": Not from what people who actually own one... and I find it very telling that you obviously don't... say.

"usable in more places and circumstances." --> Name one place (you can't). Say, how does it do for movie editing? Apparently not very well considering the reviewer crashed iMovie more than he edited video with the maxipad.
4770K @ 4.7 GHz; 32GB DDR3-2133; GTX-1080; 512GB 840 Pro (2x); Fractal Define XL-R2; NZXT Kraken-X60
--Many thanks to the TR Forum for advice in getting it built.
 
whm1974
Gerbil Elder
Posts: 5466
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2014 5:29 am

Re: The A9X Benchmarked in the Real World

Mon Nov 30, 2015 10:30 pm

Plus we can actually do real work on a laptop.
 
windwalker
Gerbil First Class
Posts: 125
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2011 2:25 pm

Re: The A9X Benchmarked in the Real World

Mon Nov 30, 2015 10:46 pm

whm1974 wrote:
And they are walled gardens and closed ecosystems as well.

You're under the misconception that I'm trying to convince you of something.
It would be foolish to engage in something so futile.
 
whm1974
Gerbil Elder
Posts: 5466
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2014 5:29 am

Re: The A9X Benchmarked in the Real World

Mon Nov 30, 2015 10:55 pm

You are trying to convince me that the iPad Pro can replace my desktop.
 
windwalker
Gerbil First Class
Posts: 125
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2011 2:25 pm

Re: The A9X Benchmarked in the Real World

Mon Nov 30, 2015 10:56 pm

chuckula wrote:
"Because it's cheaper,"

A Skylake powered Zenbook that's 100% guaranteed to be faster than the A10X, is actually on sale this year, and that costs $250 less than the non-crippled Maxipad says you are full of it: http://techreport.com/news/29365/asus-u ... core-m-cpu P.S. --> You literally could walk into an Apple store with $250,000 in hard cash and they still wouldn't sell you a maxipad with 8GB of RAM and a 256 GB flash drive.

Maybe you should try to do that. I sounds like your maxipad needs changing.

chuckula wrote:
"higher quality,": Oh really? How's the built in keyboard?

It doesn't exist.
This point fits perfectly in the larger picture of the legacy product being better only when looking at the niches the new product simply doesn't cover.

chuckula wrote:
"more portable": Not from what people who actually own one... and I find it very telling that you obviously don't... say.

I can't decide whether to focus on the logical fallacies or the paranoia.

chuckula wrote:
"usable in more places and circumstances." --> Name one place (you can't). Say, how does it do for movie editing? Apparently not very well considering the reviewer crashed iMovie more than he edited video with the maxipad.

The reviewer bend over backwards to try to find video in a format that would not work.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest