By: Exophase (exophase.delete@this.gmail.com), June 4, 2013 10:36 am
Room: Moderated Discussions
anon (anon.delete@this.anon.com) on June 4, 2013 4:03 am wrote:
> 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.
>
Intel's tests comparing Silvermont and Saltwell are more likely to be accurate than tests between an x86 and ARM processor. They don't have a strong incentive to make their current product look bad when it'll be selling for another six months. So I doubt they deliberately sabotaged it by using inferior binaries than they could have, using poorly representative test setups, etc.
Most of Intel's test numbers were comparing with Saltwell, and those numbers alone paint a strong picture. As for comparisons between Saltwell and various ARM cores, I'd feel better using third party tests - fortunately those exist.
> 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.
>
Intel's tests comparing Silvermont and Saltwell are more likely to be accurate than tests between an x86 and ARM processor. They don't have a strong incentive to make their current product look bad when it'll be selling for another six months. So I doubt they deliberately sabotaged it by using inferior binaries than they could have, using poorly representative test setups, etc.
Most of Intel's test numbers were comparing with Saltwell, and those numbers alone paint a strong picture. As for comparisons between Saltwell and various ARM cores, I'd feel better using third party tests - fortunately those exist.