Article: Medfield, Intel's x86 Phone Chip
By: David Kanter (dkanter.delete@this.realworldtech.com), January 24, 2012 11:34 pm
Room: Moderated Discussions
IntelUser2000 (Intel_user2000@yahoo.ca) on 1/24/12 wrote:
---------------------------
>David Kanter (dkanter@realworldtech.com) on 1/24/12 wrote:
>---------------------------
>>So what is your estimate for the performance of Medfield on SPECint2000 relative to say, OMAP5, Tegra3 or S4?
>>
>
>I agree with Wilco on this one. There's no way a single >core 1.6GHz Medfield will
>surpass similarly clocked dual core A15 in ANY benchmark.
I'd be very surprised if it did too. But I'm not sure what frequency we'll see and under what circumstances.
>If we assume the Sunspider benchmark represents real world >case, Medfield is anywhere
>from equal to 10% slower per clock compared to A9. Good >thing Medfield is clocked 30-60%(depending on Burst) >higher.
>That's on a single thread benchmark. However, the competition is dual core. Hyperthreading
>on Atoms do a lot, but dual cores do way more.
Agreed.
>I've seen >benchmarks of 2 core Atom
>with Hyperthreading disabled vs Hyperthreading enabled >single core Atom. The 2 core is 30 or so percent faster.
OK. I'm not sure what that says about A9...actually honestly that tells me that Intel made a really good choice in terms of hyperthreading.
Generally HT adds about 20% power consumption, but you're saying it tends to add around 50-70% performance, so that's a fantastic trade-off. Given that info, I can see why they wouldn't bother with another core.
>Then maybe, thanks to Hyperthreading, 1.6GHz Medfield can >be on par with 1.2GHz
>A9 parts. Now you see why suggesting equivalence to higher clocked A15 parts are
>ridiculous. Assuming only 20% IPC gain, and 1.5GHz clock speed, the A15 part will
>have 25-30% advantage in single thread and about 50-60% in >multi-threads. Now most
>people are expecting IPC gains of 40%+.
What is the power consumption though? Essentially what does the curve of perf. vs. frequency look like?
David
---------------------------
>David Kanter (dkanter@realworldtech.com) on 1/24/12 wrote:
>---------------------------
>>So what is your estimate for the performance of Medfield on SPECint2000 relative to say, OMAP5, Tegra3 or S4?
>>
>
>I agree with Wilco on this one. There's no way a single >core 1.6GHz Medfield will
>surpass similarly clocked dual core A15 in ANY benchmark.
I'd be very surprised if it did too. But I'm not sure what frequency we'll see and under what circumstances.
>If we assume the Sunspider benchmark represents real world >case, Medfield is anywhere
>from equal to 10% slower per clock compared to A9. Good >thing Medfield is clocked 30-60%(depending on Burst) >higher.
>That's on a single thread benchmark. However, the competition is dual core. Hyperthreading
>on Atoms do a lot, but dual cores do way more.
Agreed.
>I've seen >benchmarks of 2 core Atom
>with Hyperthreading disabled vs Hyperthreading enabled >single core Atom. The 2 core is 30 or so percent faster.
OK. I'm not sure what that says about A9...actually honestly that tells me that Intel made a really good choice in terms of hyperthreading.
Generally HT adds about 20% power consumption, but you're saying it tends to add around 50-70% performance, so that's a fantastic trade-off. Given that info, I can see why they wouldn't bother with another core.
>Then maybe, thanks to Hyperthreading, 1.6GHz Medfield can >be on par with 1.2GHz
>A9 parts. Now you see why suggesting equivalence to higher clocked A15 parts are
>ridiculous. Assuming only 20% IPC gain, and 1.5GHz clock speed, the A15 part will
>have 25-30% advantage in single thread and about 50-60% in >multi-threads. Now most
>people are expecting IPC gains of 40%+.
What is the power consumption though? Essentially what does the curve of perf. vs. frequency look like?
David
Topic | Posted By | Date |
---|---|---|
Medfield article online | David Kanter | 2012/01/23 01:51 PM |
server error | bakaneko | 2012/01/24 03:00 AM |
Fixed | David Kanter | 2012/01/24 04:02 AM |
Fixed | Joel | 2012/01/24 07:43 AM |
Fixed | Ricardo B | 2012/01/24 11:25 AM |
Fixed | David Kanter | 2012/01/24 05:29 PM |
Fixed | Gabriele Svelto | 2012/01/24 01:07 PM |
Fixed | David Kanter | 2012/01/24 05:30 PM |
Reference platform battery life | Doug Siebert | 2012/01/24 02:03 PM |
standby time | Foo_ | 2012/01/25 06:58 AM |
standby time | Anon | 2012/01/26 03:42 AM |
standby time | Foo_ | 2012/01/26 04:02 AM |
standby time | Doug Siebert | 2012/01/26 12:39 PM |
standby time | Anon | 2012/01/26 01:22 PM |
standby time | anon | 2012/01/26 02:08 PM |
standby time | Anon | 2012/01/26 06:03 PM |
standby time | anon | 2012/01/26 08:57 PM |
standby time | anon | 2012/01/26 09:01 PM |
standby time | Anon | 2012/01/27 09:32 PM |
standby time | Doug Siebert | 2012/01/27 02:15 PM |
standby time | anon | 2012/01/27 02:41 PM |
Reference platform battery life | David Kanter | 2012/01/27 10:09 AM |
Performance analysis laughable | Wilco | 2012/01/24 03:23 PM |
Performance analysis laughable | David Kanter | 2012/01/24 05:19 PM |
Performance analysis laughable | IntelUser2000 | 2012/01/24 07:30 PM |
Performance analysis laughable | IntelUser2000 | 2012/01/24 07:32 PM |
Performance analysis laughable | David Kanter | 2012/01/24 11:34 PM |
Performance analysis laughable | IntelUser2000 | 2012/01/24 11:56 PM |
Performance analysis laughable | David Kanter | 2012/01/25 02:07 AM |
Performance analysis laughable | Alberto | 2012/01/25 12:54 PM |
Atom HT gain | Wilco | 2012/01/25 05:43 AM |
Atom HT gain | IntelUser2000 | 2012/01/25 06:53 AM |
Atom HT gain | none | 2012/01/25 07:04 AM |
Atom HT gain | IntelUser2000 | 2012/01/25 07:35 AM |
Atom HT gain | Foo_ | 2012/01/25 07:06 AM |
Performance analysis laughable | Wilco | 2012/01/24 08:21 PM |
Performance analysis laughable | David Kanter | 2012/01/24 10:13 PM |
Performance analysis laughable | Wilco | 2012/01/25 04:30 AM |
Performance analysis laughable | none | 2012/01/25 06:14 AM |
Performance analysis laughable | Wilco | 2012/01/25 07:18 AM |
Performance analysis laughable | observer | 2012/01/26 04:17 AM |
Performance analysis laughable | Wilco | 2012/01/26 06:25 AM |
Process numbers | Alberto | 2012/01/26 09:29 AM |
Performance analysis laughable | David Kanter | 2012/02/02 12:38 AM |
Performance analysis laughable | tupper | 2012/01/25 04:27 PM |
Performance analysis laughable | Linus Torvalds | 2012/01/25 08:37 PM |
Performance analysis laughable | Doug Siebert | 2012/01/26 02:12 PM |
Medfield article online | Andreas | 2012/01/25 03:10 AM |
Medfield article online | Alberto | 2012/01/25 09:44 AM |
Medfield article online | IntelUser2000 | 2012/01/25 10:24 AM |
Medfield article online | David Kanter | 2012/01/25 09:58 PM |
Medfield article online | Doug Siebert | 2012/01/26 01:20 PM |
Medfield article online | Eric | 2012/01/26 06:10 PM |
Medfield article online | Doug Siebert | 2012/01/27 02:40 PM |
64-bit | Ingeneer | 2012/01/25 09:28 AM |
64-bit | Foo_ | 2012/01/25 10:23 AM |
64-bit | Ingeneer | 2012/01/25 02:34 PM |
64-bit | Ungo | 2012/01/25 04:08 PM |
64-bit | EduardoS | 2012/01/26 12:55 PM |
Saltwell memcpy | SHK | 2012/01/26 02:41 AM |
Medfield WiFi & Bluetooth | Rob Thorpe | 2012/01/26 03:09 AM |
Medfield WiFi & Bluetooth | David Kanter | 2012/01/27 05:54 PM |
Medfield WiFi & Bluetooth | Rob Thorpe | 2012/01/28 02:22 PM |
Medfield article online (NT) | Anil | 2012/01/26 05:57 PM |
Medfield article online | Anil | 2012/01/26 06:11 PM |
Medfield article online | Mr. Camel | 2012/01/26 06:26 PM |
Medfield article online | none | 2012/01/27 01:41 AM |