Klimax (danklima.delete@this.gmail.com) on July 10, 2013 10:03 pm wrote:
> Wilco (Wilco.Dijkstra.delete@this.ntlworld.com) on July 10, 2013 7:59 pm wrote:
> > 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
>
> Proper optimization. If a loop or similar construct can be replaced, then problem is in benchmark
> and its code and not in compiler. Same type of optimization as code elimination, because it
> will never execute or is never used. Or memcpy/memset, which are often inlined for smaller
> variable/array. (Interestingly, similar problems but the other way can be found in Geekbench
> and likely other benchmarks penalizing Atom. See later post in your own link.)
>
> Intel can't be held responsible that ARM's compilers suck at optimizations.

Totally incorrect.

Firstly, they used GCC, not ARM's compiler.

Secondly, they used specific optimization for the x86 core, and a generic optimization (and not even a very good one) for ARM.

Finally, the use of ICC is not common. It is very true that in the real world, you cannot separate the CPU from the compiler. But if you go by the real world, you also have to accept that ICC is probably not the compiler that will be used.

It's pretty obvious that the numbers being generated were way too optimistic. Sadly, the people paying for the test should really have picked up on this and got them to improve their methodology and make expectations more realistic.

The fact they did not allow ARM on an equal footing I hope is not the same old story of over promising and under delivering from Atom cores.