Klimax (danklima.delete@this.gmail.com) on August 9, 2014 2:51 am wrote:
> Klimax (danklima.delete@this.gmail.com) on August 9, 2014 2:36 am wrote:
> > iz (i.delete@this.z.x) on August 9, 2014 2:05 am wrote:
> > > Klimax (danklima.delete@this.gmail.com) on August 9, 2014 1:31 am wrote:
> > > > 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.
> > > >
> > >
> > > If you read what he actually said carefully, it's clear that his point is that comparing
> > > old Intel hardware with old ARM hardware favours Intel, because ARM improved more than
> > > Intel did in the same time frame, so their old hardware is relatively worse. His point
> > > is that if they did the same comparison with new hardware ARM would do better.
> > >
> > > I think this point is only valid if the hardware was old when they started doing the tests, but if they
> > > used the current stuff of the time and it took a while to
> > > do all tests, write the paper and get it published,
> > > then I think it's a bogus point because it's still a valid comparison for that time. Demanding that all
> > > researches use brand new hardware for all their tests would favour Intel even more...
> > >
> > Ok. (To me he seemed to cross multiple approaches in discussion beside the paper)
> >
> > But I am pretty sure that paper in question did use best in
> > that time. I'll dig out that old discussion we had here.
> >
>
> Cortex A9 and Sandy Bridge appear to be of similar age.(2010 and 2011)Paper got released 2013.
>
> I don't think his point was valid anyway.(BayTrail)
>
> Original thread:
> http://www.realworldtech.com/forum/?threadid=131745&curpostid=131745

From same thread:

2. Why use ancient A8, and, worse, a Beagle board? For a 2013 paper you'd expect at least 2012 hardware.