David Kanter (dkanter.delete@this.realworldtech.com) on June 4, 2013 5:00 pm wrote:
> > I wouldn't expect them to sabotage Saltwell (that would be crazy), but instead show Silvermont
> > in the best possible light. For example show the best-case improvements rather than average
> > improvements over a large range of benchmarks,
>
> They showed a geo-mean and disclosed the benchmarks.

Slide 16:

~3x peak performance1 improvement or the same performance at
~5x lower power1 over the current generation Atom™ core

Based on the geometric mean of a variety of power and performance measurements across various benchmarks. Benchmarks included in this geomean are measurements on browsing benchmarks and workloads including SunSpider* and page load tests on Internet Explorer*, FireFox*, & Chrome*; Dhrystone*; EEMBC* workloads including CoreMark*; Android* workloads including CaffineMark*, AnTutu*, Linpack* and Quadrant* as well as measured estimates on SPECint* rate_base2000
& SPECfp* rate_base2000; on Silvermont preproduction systems compared to Atom processor Z2580. Individual results will vary. SPEC* CPU2000* is a retired benchmark. * Other names and brands may be claimed as the property of others.


Leading performance and performance per watt efficiency

Based on a geometric mean of the projected power and performance of SPECint* rate_base2000 on Silvermont compared to expected configurations of main ARM*-based mobile competitors using descriptions of the architectures; assumes
similar configurations. Numbers may be subject to change once verified with the actual parts. Individual results will vary. SPEC* CPU2000* is a retired benchmark; results are estimates. * Other names and brands may be claimed as the property
of others.
Software and workloads used in performance tests may have been optimized for performance only on Intel microprocessors. Performance tests, such as SYSmark and MobileMark, are measured using specific computer systems, components,
software, operations and functions. Any change to any of those factors may cause the results to vary. You should consult other information and performance tests to assist you in fully evaluating your contemplated purchases, including the
performance of that product when combined with other products. For more information go to: http://www.intel.com/performance ."

Some funny points:
- projected power and performance, some results are estimates; so we have geomean of estimates, nice
- what is an expected configuration?
- workload and binary optimization was done.

I know this is marketing, but I strongly disagree they provided meaningful information.

I'm not saying ARM is better or as good in that regard, but Intel certainly didn't provide convincing information as to what was done and how it was done.