none (none.delete@this.none.com) on July 10, 2013 11:46 am wrote:
> none (none.delete@this.none.com) on June 9, 2013 3:11 pm wrote:
> > tarlinian (tarlinian.delete@this.gmail.com) on June 9, 2013 2:00 pm wrote:
> > > Kevin G (kevin.delete@this.cubitdesigns.com) on June 8, 2013 2:18 pm wrote:
> > > > 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) :
> > >
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > If anyone's interested, the ABI post acting as advertising for this work can
> > > be found here. It has some interesting comment I'm not really sure why they
> > > talk about current draw instead of power...it's a rather odd story.
> >
> > And I bet most of their benchmarks are from AnTuTu which seems to be the only CPU benchmark favoring Intel.
>
> It seems that indeed AnTuTu has a heavy bias towards Intel and that Abi Research used it:
>
> http://www.eetimes.com/author.asp?section_id=36&itc=eetimes_sitedefault&doc_id=1318857

And Exophase figured out how Intel cheated AnTuTu.

Wilco