Personal computing discussed
Moderators: renee, David, Thresher
jihadjoe wrote:Blasphemer!
NoOne ButMe wrote:The tests show Core M being almost equal to the ULV chips pretty much invalidate it.
NoOne ButMe wrote:Core M power usage and Clockspeed ESPECIALLY over user tasks is far slower.
NoOne ButMe wrote:Upon further reading this is shown in real world testing on 2nd page.
NoOne ButMe wrote:And the one real world test shows substance performance being slow than the A9X for Core M5y571.
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.
NoOne ButMe wrote:The CPU specifically has been accepted IPC increase over A8(x) parts while the A8x part was about Haswell.
NoOne ButMe wrote:And that manages to be one of the better ones out there.
NoOne ButMe wrote:Average Clockspeed of the core M part? max clock for 15-20s and 1.7-1.9Ghz for the remains time.
maxxcool wrote:I see this grudge match has found new purchase ? Interesting.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
Moving the goalposts will work fine for you when preaching to the choir.
chuckula wrote:Where can I sign up for the church of chuckula? ヾ(*ΦωΦ)ノAs for "gaming benchmarks" your religion has been doing that for years. 1990's Photoshop bakeoffs at MacWorld anyone?
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.
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.
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!
chuckula wrote:As for "gaming benchmarks" your religion has been doing that for years. 1990's Photoshop bakeoffs at MacWorld anyone?
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.
windwalker wrote:
That's why iPad Pro is a better choice for many people and that set will only continue to expand.
whm1974 wrote:Oh really? Why would anyone replace their PC with a tablet?
chuckula wrote:tested-why-the-ipad-pro-really-isnt-as-fast-a-laptop.html
whm1974 wrote:Tim Cook made the claim that the PC is dead because the iPad Pro is powerful enough to do everything PCs can.
whm1974 wrote:Oh really? Why would anyone replace their PC with a tablet?
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.
whm1974 wrote:And they are walled gardens and closed ecosystems as well.
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.
chuckula wrote:"higher quality,": Oh really? How's the built in keyboard?
chuckula wrote:"more portable": Not from what people who actually own one... and I find it very telling that you obviously don't... say.
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.