Article: Medfield, Intel's x86 Phone Chip
By: Alberto (git.delete@this.git.it), January 25, 2012 12:54 pm
Room: Moderated Discussions
David Kanter (dkanter@realworldtech.com) on 1/25/12 wrote:
---------------------------
>IntelUser2000 (Intel_user2000@yahoo.ca) on 1/25/12 wrote:
>---------------------------
>>David Kanter (dkanter@realworldtech.com) on 1/25/12 wrote:
>>---------------------------
>>>IntelUser2000 (Intel_user2000@yahoo.ca) on 1/24/12 wrote:
>>
>>>>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.
>>>
>>
>>It's that they need a combination of single thread performance(via clock speed
>>for example) and Hyperthreading to match a dual A9. And >that A15 improves on clock and IPC.
>
>No, I think you're missing the point. Intel's approach is better (assuming they can match 2T perf).
>
>I'd ALWAYS rather have one core with higher frequency and equivalent parallel performance
>through MT. That's a much better solution than two cores which will be slower (in single threaded operation).
>
>Now, if Intel's throughput is lower, then it's a question of how much (and how
>the single threaded performance compares). If Intel's throughput is 10% lower, but
>single threaded performance is 10% better, then I'd say go with Intel for almost any phone.
>
>Of course, the reality is totally unclear because the benchmarks are so questionable.
>
>>Though you have a point about process technology giving >limited improvents when
>>designs are equal, A15 uses a new architecture.
>
>Yes it does, but the architecture is mostly wider (which adds power). It is possible
>it's both wider and lower power, but I'd be very skeptical.
Agreed, moreover Qualcomm has chosen a less risky 28nm LP process without HKMG, so i don't know what will be the final clock speed of this Arm design built in a process not much different versus a well proven 40nm (wafer space apart)
I have the suspect that the first bunch of A15 SOCs will are for tablets.........
I think that Silvermont will be out with 22nm earlier that very low power A15 devices.
---------------------------
>IntelUser2000 (Intel_user2000@yahoo.ca) on 1/25/12 wrote:
>---------------------------
>>David Kanter (dkanter@realworldtech.com) on 1/25/12 wrote:
>>---------------------------
>>>IntelUser2000 (Intel_user2000@yahoo.ca) on 1/24/12 wrote:
>>
>>>>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.
>>>
>>
>>It's that they need a combination of single thread performance(via clock speed
>>for example) and Hyperthreading to match a dual A9. And >that A15 improves on clock and IPC.
>
>No, I think you're missing the point. Intel's approach is better (assuming they can match 2T perf).
>
>I'd ALWAYS rather have one core with higher frequency and equivalent parallel performance
>through MT. That's a much better solution than two cores which will be slower (in single threaded operation).
>
>Now, if Intel's throughput is lower, then it's a question of how much (and how
>the single threaded performance compares). If Intel's throughput is 10% lower, but
>single threaded performance is 10% better, then I'd say go with Intel for almost any phone.
>
>Of course, the reality is totally unclear because the benchmarks are so questionable.
>
>>Though you have a point about process technology giving >limited improvents when
>>designs are equal, A15 uses a new architecture.
>
>Yes it does, but the architecture is mostly wider (which adds power). It is possible
>it's both wider and lower power, but I'd be very skeptical.
Agreed, moreover Qualcomm has chosen a less risky 28nm LP process without HKMG, so i don't know what will be the final clock speed of this Arm design built in a process not much different versus a well proven 40nm (wafer space apart)
I have the suspect that the first bunch of A15 SOCs will are for tablets.........
I think that Silvermont will be out with 22nm earlier that very low power A15 devices.
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 |