Wilco (Wilco.Dijkstra.delete@this.ntlworld.com) on June 4, 2013 3:56 pm wrote:
> anon (anon.delete@this.anon.com) on June 4, 2013 1:36 pm wrote:
> > > in this segment Arm has
> > > not a future at all. This is the reason of this orrible presentation :)
> >
> > This just shows you haven't paid attention to ARM's marketing before. It has always made overblown claims,
> > even when there wasn't much reason. The rest of your post reads like fanboy speculation about silvermont.
>
> Can you give some examples of overblown claims from ARM? That shouldn't be difficult.

I've found a number of disturbing marketing practices from ARM:

1. The use of Dhrystone and other CPU-core only benchmarks
2. Prohibition on benchmarking with their compiler
3. Making performance comparisons between cores on N and N+1 process tech without mentioning that difference

Lack of footnotes on comparisons to provide supplemental detail (e.g., what process, compiler, all the subtle conditions; Intel typically has massive backup slides with those details).

But that's not surprising. Marketing tends to be optimistic at most companies. No companies are truly honest in terms of marketing.

Incidentally, pretty much every frequency number from an ARM phone or tablet vendor is rubbish. Intel is better, but still has issues.

> However Intel's claims are often misleading to the point of lying. I recently posted an example
> of how Intel typically compares Atom with ARM: use a low-clocked previous generation ARM on
> an old process to make your own core look significantly faster and more power efficient.

I found Intel's comparisons in the Silvermont presentation to be plausible, although it's hard to tell whether their competitive projections are likely to be correct. They certainly weren't comparing against ancient and uncompetitive parts.

>And
> when will Intel finally release a CPU that really shows off those amazing 22nm FinFETs?

I would expect that the ultra-mobile flavors of Haswell should be quite interesting.

David