Article: AMD's Jaguar Microarchitecture
By: Linus Torvalds (torvalds.delete@this.linux-foundation.org), April 9, 2014 1:44 pm
Room: Moderated Discussions
Linus Torvalds (torvalds.delete@this.linux-foundation.org) on April 2, 2014 2:25 pm wrote:
>
> On the CPU side, I'd like to see benchmarks comparing the two. Jaguar probably wins, but
> not likely by a huge amount - they are both dual-issue OoO, and judging by past efforts I
> suspect Atom has a faster L2 cache to somewhat make up for smaller instruction queues.
So AnandTech has a Jaguar review up with benchmark data. It has a comparison between a quad-core Jaguar (at 25W) against a dual-core Silvermont (at 10W), and they come in pretty much head-to-head in single-thread benchmarks. Jaguar wins some, Silvermont wins others.
Looks like core-for-core, they're pretty much comparable. And the GPU in the Jaguar SoC is better. So no huge surprises. AMD is competing on price and GPU, while Intel can obviously to some degree coast on brand recognition, and owns the high end.
Sounds like the 90s all over again.
Linus
>
> On the CPU side, I'd like to see benchmarks comparing the two. Jaguar probably wins, but
> not likely by a huge amount - they are both dual-issue OoO, and judging by past efforts I
> suspect Atom has a faster L2 cache to somewhat make up for smaller instruction queues.
So AnandTech has a Jaguar review up with benchmark data. It has a comparison between a quad-core Jaguar (at 25W) against a dual-core Silvermont (at 10W), and they come in pretty much head-to-head in single-thread benchmarks. Jaguar wins some, Silvermont wins others.
Looks like core-for-core, they're pretty much comparable. And the GPU in the Jaguar SoC is better. So no huge surprises. AMD is competing on price and GPU, while Intel can obviously to some degree coast on brand recognition, and owns the high end.
Sounds like the 90s all over again.
Linus