juanrga (nospam.delete@this.juanrga.com) on August 8, 2014 4:36 pm wrote:
> Klimax (danklima.delete@this.gmail.com) on August 8, 2014 1:12 pm wrote:
> > juanrga (nospam.delete@this.juanrga.com) on August 8, 2014 12:09 pm wrote:
> > > Megol (golem960.delete@this.gmail.com) on August 8, 2014 11:23 am wrote:
> > > > juanrga (nospam.delete@this.juanrga.com) on August 8, 2014 10:49 am wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > They compared older hardware. Migrating from SB-i7 to HW-i7 introduces little benefits
> > > > > in performance (except when using new AVX2 extensions to x86) but in ARM each gen is
> > > > > not a mere 5-10% faster than former gen but much more. Their choice favored x86.
> > > >
> > > > 5-10% is a huge difference given that it results from slight
> > > > polishing. I have to say this point is nonsense.
> > >
> > > My point has been ignored.
> > You'd first have to have point in the first place!
> >
> > You may not ever ignore base when comparing percentages. Which you just did.
> > 5-10% when base is high is completely different then 50% from low base.
> >
> > 10% vs. 50% is in context of x86 versus ARM meaningless
> > number, because ARM isn't even close to Sandy Bridge.
> >
> > Your point is nonsensical and is completely wrong.
> >
> > For some reason you have ignored evolution of Atom... because it demolishes entire thesis and your point.
>
> I notice that my point continue being ignored.
>
You have no point. There is nothing to be ignored.