Performance analysis laughable

Article: Medfield, Intel's x86 Phone Chip
By: tupper (no.delete@this.thanks.com), January 25, 2012 4:27 pm
Room: Moderated Discussions
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:
>>>>---------------------------
>>>>
>>>>"Realistically, Medfield will not have a decisive performance advantage over platforms
>>>>like TI’s OMAP5 or the Snapdragon S4. At best, Medfield will be slightly ahead of
>>>>the competition; but in many cases Intel’s performance may >lag by 10-30%."
>>>
>>>Actually, I updated the article...the new language you might find more reasonable.
>>
>>The new version is more accurate, but still suggests that Medfield could be faster
>>than an A15 or Krait. There is no way Medfield would be close, whether you compare
>>at max frequency, equal frequency or equal watts. Unless of course you're talking
>>about Intel marketing numbers, not actual products.
>>
>>>>I can't believe how anyone could seriously suggest that Medfield will be competitive
>>>>or even have a performance advantage over 1.5-2GHz dual core Krait or A15, especially
>>>>given the fact that a 1GHz A9 outperforms an 1.6GHz Atom.
>>>
>>>We've been over this before...there's no way that an A9 has a 30-40% advantage
>>>in terms of effective IPC. Most A9s have a crappy memory hierarchy and lose in a variety of benchmarks.
>>
>>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.
>

Here is a research work done by UMich and ARM. How much sense does it make for the conclusion :

"In this paper we have characterized interactive smart phone applications, and shown how they differ significantly from SPEC CPU2006 benchmarks. Smartphones have become the primary consumer computing device. As computer architects work to improve the efficiency and performance of such systems they need to consider benchmarks that better match typical use cases along with their library and system interactions. In particular, the interactive smart phone applications have significantly worse instruction cache, TLB miss statistics and branch misprediction rates, which we attribute to heavy use of high level software abstractions. To this end, we have developed an interactive smartphone benchmark suite that includes a web-browser benchmark, BBench, which is representative of the most ubiquitous smartphone application—the web-browser. BBench provides a fully contained, automated and repeatable web-browser benchmark that exercises not only the web-browser, but the underlying libraries and operating system. While there is a place for CPU-intensive portable benchmarks, computer architects and systems designers will be ill-served relying solely on these benchmarks for performance improvement and characterization in the mobile device arena."

Paper:
http://www.eecs.umich.edu/~tnm/trev_test/papersPDF/2011.10.Full-System%20Analysis%20and%20Characterization%20of%20Interactive%20Smartphone%20Applications.pdf
< 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?