Process numbers

Article: Medfield, Intel's x86 Phone Chip
By: Alberto (git.delete@this.git.it), January 26, 2012 9:29 am
Room: Moderated Discussions
Wilco (Wilco.Dijkstra@ntlworld.com) on 1/25/12 wrote:
---------------------------
>David Kanter (dkanter@realworldtech.com) on 1/24/12 wrote:
>---------------------------
>>Wilco (Wilco.Dijkstra@ntlworld.com) on 1/24/12 wrote:
>>---------------------------
>>>David Kanter (dkanter@realworldtech.com) on 1/24/12 wrote:
>>>---------------------------
>>>>Wilco (Wilco.Dijkstra@ntlworld.com) on 1/24/12 wrote:
>>>>---------------------------
>>>>>David Kanter (dkanter@realworldtech.com) on 1/23/12 wrote:
>>>>>---------------------------
>
>>>We've seen a few benchmarks showing how well the A9 does vs >1.6GHz netbook Atoms,
>>
>>I would hesitate to call them benchmarks.
>>
>>>which may not be perfect, but they tell a different story than what Intel claims.
>>>Unless Medfield has significantly improved IPC, I'd expect it to be a little slower
>>>than the netbook variants due to a slower memory system in >mobiles.
>>
>>Again, I place far greater stock in SPECint than the other benchmarks I've seen. You obviously differ in that regard.
>
>I'd be happy to see public SpecInt results. But I question whether they do translate
>to real world performance on a mobile.
>
>>>Also it can't run indefinitely at 1.6GHz.
>>
>>Which I scrupulously noted : )
>
>Noted.
>
>>>If anything, I expect Medfield running at lower frequencies, having lower memory
>>>bandwidth, and using smaller L2 caches than the 28nm SoCs >coming out this year.
>>
>>You're probably right, but we'll see. Also remember that Medfield has been sampling
>>for a while, while 28nm designs are just starting. So there's a bit of a time skew
>>between them (e.g. in comparison to OMAP5 and S4, which are a much cleaner comparison).
>
>There is not much lag between the first Medfield and Krait products. OMAP5 appears
>at around the same time as the Motorola Medfield phones. Even if A15 or Krait SoCs
>slip, there will be faster A9 SoCs such as Tegra3+ and OMAP4470. So Medfield will
>have to compete with much faster and efficient SoCs from day one.
>
>>>>So what is your estimate for the performance of Medfield on SPECint2000 relative to say, OMAP5, Tegra3 or S4?
>>>
>>>Are we comparing compiler tricks or micro architectures?
>>
>>Do you compile your code? Of course you take the compiler into account, but I think
>>it's fair to stipulate both estimates.
>
>Compilers and options used matter as much as the micro architecture. The bodged
>Phoronix results prove that beyond any doubt!
>
>>>Assuming similar compiler
>>>technology, I'd estimate A9 to be 20-30% faster, and A15/Krait to be 60-100% faster
>>>at the same frequency - obviously varying considerably with >the L2 size and memory of the SoC.
>>
>>What does similar compiler technology mean? For the purposes of SPEC, I'd assume
>>the optimal compiler for each platform, and base submission rules.
>
>For example use GCC or LLVM for both, or VC++ and armcc. Intel's compiler tricks
>to get good Spec results don't translate into real-world performance, so it is best
>to use production compilers as those are used in actual products.
>
>>>Sure, but the efficiency (performance per Watt) isn't the same. Eg. Tegra3 can
>>>run 2 cores at 1GHz using less power than Medfield at 1.6GHz (http://www.nvidia.com/content/PDF/tegra_white_papers/
>>Variable-SMP-A-Multi-Core-CPU-Architecture-for-Low-Power-and-High-Performance.pdf).
>>>That's approximately twice the perf/Watt despite being 1 process node behind. Obviously
>>>these are NVidia vs Intel marketing numbers, so not necessarily reliable, but it gives an idea where things >stand.
>>
>>NV's estimated numbers are not really comparable to Intel's measured numbers, they
>>were measured in different ways on totally different workloads. NV's estimates are
>>using coremark (again, rubbish benchmarks and what SKU/bin?), while Intel's numbers
>>are measured for median bin and a worse case single threaded workload. There are a lot of differences to factor out.
>
>NV's numbers were measured on a reference design according to the link. Tegra3
>isn't binned. Obviously there is a chance parts were cherry picked, but that applies
>to Intel too. Running micro benchmarks like Dhrystone/CoreMark gives close to maximum power consumption.
>
>>>>You don't get 70% more performance while still having something recognizable as a cell phone.
>>>
>>>A process node change can give that kind of improvement due >to faster and lower power transistors.
>>
>>No it's can't. You might get 20-30%.
>
>A recent GF/ARM press release about 20nm states: "The 20nm TQV is based on GLOBALFOUNDRIES’
>next-generation 20nm platform, which is designed to improve performance by up to
>35% and nearly halve power consumption when compared to 28nm technologies.". That
>shows large improvement are being made.

This is not true obviously. As usual manifacturers give peak numbers in optimal circumstances and simple test circuits. Every process node gives 20% of clock boost and a power reduction in shipped devices of around 30/35% (same architecture). Look at the semiconductor history.

Too bad for GF and TSMC (and partners), the 20nm process node will be a nightmare without Finfet or Trigate.
IMO the 20nm process will be more like a so so but feasible 25nm process (half node 28-20nm). Once again Intel will have the absolute lead.
< Previous Post in ThreadNext Post in Thread >
TopicPosted ByDate
Medfield article onlineDavid Kanter2012/01/23 01:51 PM
  server errorbakaneko2012/01/24 03:00 AM
    FixedDavid Kanter2012/01/24 04:02 AM
      FixedJoel2012/01/24 07:43 AM
      FixedRicardo B2012/01/24 11:25 AM
        FixedDavid Kanter2012/01/24 05:29 PM
      FixedGabriele Svelto2012/01/24 01:07 PM
        FixedDavid Kanter2012/01/24 05:30 PM
  Reference platform battery lifeDoug Siebert2012/01/24 02:03 PM
    standby timeFoo_2012/01/25 06:58 AM
      standby timeAnon2012/01/26 03:42 AM
        standby timeFoo_2012/01/26 04:02 AM
          standby timeDoug Siebert2012/01/26 12:39 PM
            standby timeAnon2012/01/26 01:22 PM
              standby timeanon2012/01/26 02:08 PM
                standby timeAnon2012/01/26 06:03 PM
                  standby timeanon2012/01/26 08:57 PM
                    standby timeanon2012/01/26 09:01 PM
                    standby timeAnon2012/01/27 09:32 PM
                standby timeDoug Siebert2012/01/27 02:15 PM
                  standby timeanon2012/01/27 02:41 PM
    Reference platform battery lifeDavid Kanter2012/01/27 10:09 AM
  Performance analysis laughableWilco2012/01/24 03:23 PM
    Performance analysis laughableDavid Kanter2012/01/24 05:19 PM
      Performance analysis laughableIntelUser20002012/01/24 07:30 PM
        Performance analysis laughableIntelUser20002012/01/24 07:32 PM
        Performance analysis laughableDavid Kanter2012/01/24 11:34 PM
          Performance analysis laughableIntelUser20002012/01/24 11:56 PM
            Performance analysis laughableDavid Kanter2012/01/25 02:07 AM
              Performance analysis laughableAlberto2012/01/25 12:54 PM
          Atom HT gainWilco2012/01/25 05:43 AM
            Atom HT gainIntelUser20002012/01/25 06:53 AM
              Atom HT gainnone2012/01/25 07:04 AM
                Atom HT gainIntelUser20002012/01/25 07:35 AM
            Atom HT gainFoo_2012/01/25 07:06 AM
      Performance analysis laughableWilco2012/01/24 08:21 PM
        Performance analysis laughableDavid Kanter2012/01/24 10:13 PM
          Performance analysis laughableWilco2012/01/25 04:30 AM
            Performance analysis laughablenone2012/01/25 06:14 AM
              Performance analysis laughableWilco2012/01/25 07:18 AM
                Performance analysis laughableobserver2012/01/26 04:17 AM
                  Performance analysis laughableWilco2012/01/26 06:25 AM
            Process numbersAlberto2012/01/26 09:29 AM
            Performance analysis laughableDavid Kanter2012/02/02 12:38 AM
          Performance analysis laughabletupper2012/01/25 04:27 PM
            Performance analysis laughableLinus Torvalds2012/01/25 08:37 PM
              Performance analysis laughableDoug Siebert2012/01/26 02:12 PM
  Medfield article onlineAndreas2012/01/25 03:10 AM
    Medfield article onlineAlberto2012/01/25 09:44 AM
    Medfield article onlineIntelUser20002012/01/25 10:24 AM
    Medfield article onlineDavid Kanter2012/01/25 09:58 PM
      Medfield article onlineDoug Siebert2012/01/26 01:20 PM
        Medfield article onlineEric2012/01/26 06:10 PM
          Medfield article onlineDoug Siebert2012/01/27 02:40 PM
  64-bitIngeneer2012/01/25 09:28 AM
    64-bitFoo_2012/01/25 10:23 AM
      64-bitIngeneer2012/01/25 02:34 PM
        64-bitUngo2012/01/25 04:08 PM
          64-bitEduardoS2012/01/26 12:55 PM
  Saltwell memcpySHK2012/01/26 02:41 AM
  Medfield WiFi & BluetoothRob Thorpe2012/01/26 03:09 AM
    Medfield WiFi & BluetoothDavid Kanter2012/01/27 05:54 PM
      Medfield WiFi & BluetoothRob Thorpe2012/01/28 02:22 PM
  Medfield article online (NT)Anil2012/01/26 05:57 PM
  Medfield article onlineAnil2012/01/26 06:11 PM
    Medfield article onlineMr. Camel2012/01/26 06:26 PM
    Medfield article onlinenone2012/01/27 01:41 AM
Reply to this Topic
Name:
Email:
Topic:
Body: No Text
How do you spell avocado?