Klimax (danklima.delete@this.gmail.com) on July 11, 2013 3:00 am wrote:
> none (none.delete@this.none.com) on July 11, 2013 1:49 am wrote:
> > Klimax (danklima.delete@this.gmail.com) on July 11, 2013 12:28 am wrote:
> > [...]
> > > Are there any Java/Dalvik benchmarks for Android?
> >
> > Yes, and some are looking bad for Intel CT+.
> >
> > For instance for AndEBench Java the K900 (dual Saltwell + HT @ 2.0 GHz) gets 222 while A15 and
> > Krait based Galaxy S4 get close to 600. And if you insist on dual core, Nexus 10 (dual A15) gets
> > 379, while Samsung Galaxy Note (a device more than a year old, dual A9 @ 1.4GHz) gets 213.
> >
> > http://www.eembc.org/andebench/
> >
> > Of course that's a single point and no conclusion should be drawn on these results alone.
> >
> > > Anyway it is trivial to write bad benchmark. (And that's before
> > > vendors get interested like with ScienceMark or AIDA...)
> >
> > And that's all that matters in the end: this particular benchmark has now been proven to heavily
> > favor Intel, so it has become useless for comparing micro-architecture performance.
> >
> > I now wait for evidence that Geekbench favors ARM, and I somehow think
> > nothing as obvious as what was found with AnTuTu will be uncovered.
> >
> So far:
> http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=35246412&postcount=13
> from http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=88008447
> Similar case as absence of NEON instructions. (Conservative or unusual compiler settings...)
>
> I'll run it through Intel VTune Amplifier and will see how it does. (Note that often dataset
> from tool is in range of gigabytes of data) Only on 3930k, because I don't have currently
> Atom PC online, but denormals IIRC are handled by microcode in precise situation.

Addendum: One must not forget, that level of optimizations for various platforms may be very divergent in benchmarks and thus favoring one of them.