anon (anon.delete@this.anon.com) on June 4, 2013 4:03 am wrote:
> 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.
>

You need to distinguish between Intel marketing, and Intel engineers. I have generally found Intel engineers to be rather forthright about their expectations.

Frankly, I'm with Exophase here. Intel has hard measurements for A15 implementations and Silvermont. ARM has no hard basis for predictions of Intel hardware. Just given those facts, I'm much more inclined to take Intel's numbers more seriously.

David