anon (no.delete@this.thank.you) on August 9, 2014 10:17 am wrote:
> juanrga (nospam.delete@this.juanrga.com) on August 9, 2014 6:43 am wrote:
> > Aaron Spink (aaronspink.delete@this.notearthlink.net) on August 9, 2014 3:44 am wrote:
> > > juanrga (nospam.delete@this.juanrga.com) on August 8, 2014 10:49 am wrote:
> > >
> > > > Take a modern A57 core. According to AMD the A57 Opteron is faster than jaguar based Opteron but
> > > > consumes less power. The ARM core performance is ~40% faster, and consumes roughly one half.
> > > >
> > > Faster at what? Its a bunch of market point pointing to nothingness.
> >
> > SPECint
> >
>
> Could you provide a link for this?

I can believe it. Jaguar is low-power low-frequency design with comfort zone around 1.5 GHz.
If you take Jaguar to 2GHz (as in Opterons) it is very probable that it's going to lose to A57 both in power and in performance.
That's why AMD builds overwhelming majority of their Opterons around Buldozer and Piledriver cores now and likely going to migrate to Steamroller in the near future. If I am not mistaken, out of dozens of Opteron models only 2 are based on Jaguar, i.e. even less that there are Xeon models based on Silvermont.
And their main selling point of Jaguar-based Opterons is low price rather than high performance or low power.
In fact, power-wise Jaguar-based Opterons are pretty uninteresting - 17W for quad-core GPU-less 2 GHz part. For comparison, Intel Avoton has 20 W octacore at 2.4 GHz. But the later costs (list) $171 while the former only $64.

Still, although I believe it, I'd really like to see published SPECInt numbers for ARM-based Opterons instead of internal lab estimates.