By: Michael S (already5chosen.delete@this.yahoo.com), February 5, 2013 1:51 am
Room: Moderated Discussions
anon (anon.delete@this.anon.com) on February 5, 2013 12:38 am wrote:
>
> Seems like a pretty bad test overall. I wouldn't be surprised if the ARM had a little
> edge in power efficiency under a range of workloads (not just the load points that make
> it look good). However if you properly and fairly designed a solution for a given level
> of capacity, I would be shocked if the difference at the wall was even 2x.
>
I suspect, with test like SPECpower_ssj2008 the difference between current Calxeda offerings and IvyB-based Xeon-E3 will be bigger than 2x, but not in favor of Calxeda.
>
> Seems like a pretty bad test overall. I wouldn't be surprised if the ARM had a little
> edge in power efficiency under a range of workloads (not just the load points that make
> it look good). However if you properly and fairly designed a solution for a given level
> of capacity, I would be shocked if the difference at the wall was even 2x.
>
I suspect, with test like SPECpower_ssj2008 the difference between current Calxeda offerings and IvyB-based Xeon-E3 will be bigger than 2x, but not in favor of Calxeda.
