none (none.delete@this.none.com) on June 5, 2013 5:26 am wrote:
> 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

Would be nice if they stated it as:

~3x peak performance of current generation Atom at the same power consumption. ~1/5th power draw of current generation Atom at the same performance.

(In fact, they don't even make such a strong claim about performance it seems.)

Then people would not be mislead like this:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/06/05/intel_silvermont_arm_killer_computex/

"Promising three times the performance at one-fifth the power of current Atoms"