By: anon (anon.delete@this.anon.com), June 4, 2013 4:03 am
Room: Moderated Discussions
Exophase (exophase.delete@this.gmail.com) on June 3, 2013 9:31 am wrote:
> anon (anon.delete@this.anon.com) on June 3, 2013 8:54 am wrote:
> >
> > > Interesting slide from ARM at Computex shows 28nm A15 perf than
> > > Silvermont at 22nm FF. Dispels Intel's Marketing FUD?
> >
> > http://www.pcworld.com/article/2040582/arm-claims-processor-superiority-over-intels-silvermont.html
> >
>
> I take Intel's marketing with a lot of salt but at least they have realistic access to real Cortex-A15
> hardware. The same can't be said for ARM and Silvermont. Furthermore, most of Intel's claims come
> from comparing vs Saltwell, where they're more likely to do a fair test running the same binaries.
Why would you think that? Intel has not proven to be particularly honest when they have not had the advantage -- which up to now has been "most of the time", when trying to compete with ARMs.
> anon (anon.delete@this.anon.com) on June 3, 2013 8:54 am wrote:
> >
> > > Interesting slide from ARM at Computex shows 28nm A15 perf than
> > > Silvermont at 22nm FF. Dispels Intel's Marketing FUD?
> >
> > http://www.pcworld.com/article/2040582/arm-claims-processor-superiority-over-intels-silvermont.html
> >
>
> I take Intel's marketing with a lot of salt but at least they have realistic access to real Cortex-A15
> hardware. The same can't be said for ARM and Silvermont. Furthermore, most of Intel's claims come
> from comparing vs Saltwell, where they're more likely to do a fair test running the same binaries.
Why would you think that? Intel has not proven to be particularly honest when they have not had the advantage -- which up to now has been "most of the time", when trying to compete with ARMs.