bakaneko (nyan.delete@this.hyan.wan) on July 11, 2013 12:02 am wrote:
> 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.
>
> The benchmark is pointless however way you
> look at it.
>
> Android is built using gcc, and this benchmark
> doesn't compare the builds of the system
> software directly.
>
> It doesn't matter for application developers,
> because native code is only recommended for
> isolated routines called from Java code. And
> the last thing any programmer would do is
> disable NEON.
>
> And as you said, the benchmark can't even
> produce proper assembler code which allows one
> to see the speed of certain instruction mixes
> or memory access patterns. So its useless for
> writing optimized assembler, too.
>
> A lot of hot air, no meat.

Are there any Java/Dalvik benchmarks for Android?
As for Neon, it seems that conservative settings are disabling neon, because there is apparently a chip without that unit. (Wilco's link has a post about it) It appears to be similar problem as other benchmarks have on x86. (Or strange setting like precise handling of denormals)

Anyway it is trivial to write bad benchmark. (And that's before vendors get interested like with ScienceMark or AIDA...)