By: Kevin G (kevin.delete@this.cubitdesigns.com), June 8, 2013 2:18 pm
Room: Moderated Discussions
John (Jngu14.delete@this.gmail.com) on June 8, 2013 6:28 am wrote:
> Jason (oxkct.delete@this.7tags.com) on June 7, 2013 1:56 pm wrote:
> > I guess this explains why Samsung went with Intel over their own Exynos on the Galaxy
> > Tab. Look at how the Lenovo K800 (Atom) compared to Galaxy S4 (Exynos/SnapDragon) :
> >
> > http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20130607005475/en/Intel-Apps-Processor-Outperforms-NVIDIA-Qualcomm-Samsung
> >
> > http://mms.businesswire.com/media/20130607005475/en/371984/5/intel_chart.jpg?download=1
>
> What the heck are they testing?
>
> I can make a spreadsheet say anything I want. There are absolutely
> no details or methodology to those number. It is useless.
A bit of Google-fu points toward any relevant information being behind a paywall at ABI Research. Everywhere else seems to be parroting the same Business Wire story.
> Jason (oxkct.delete@this.7tags.com) on June 7, 2013 1:56 pm wrote:
> > I guess this explains why Samsung went with Intel over their own Exynos on the Galaxy
> > Tab. Look at how the Lenovo K800 (Atom) compared to Galaxy S4 (Exynos/SnapDragon) :
> >
> > http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20130607005475/en/Intel-Apps-Processor-Outperforms-NVIDIA-Qualcomm-Samsung
> >
> > http://mms.businesswire.com/media/20130607005475/en/371984/5/intel_chart.jpg?download=1
>
> What the heck are they testing?
>
> I can make a spreadsheet say anything I want. There are absolutely
> no details or methodology to those number. It is useless.
A bit of Google-fu points toward any relevant information being behind a paywall at ABI Research. Everywhere else seems to be parroting the same Business Wire story.