Michael S (already5chosen.delete@this.yahoo.com) on August 10, 2014 4:27 am wrote:
> juanrga (nospam.delete@this.juanrga.com) on August 10, 2014 3:40 am wrote:
> > 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?
> >
> > http://www.anandtech.com/show/7724/it-begins-amd-announces-its-first-arm-based-server-soc-64bit8core-opteron-a1100
>
>
> SPECInt "estimate" is very problematic. It can mean that they reallly ran the suite on production system,
> but for whatever reason do not want to submit the result to SPEC.org. Or it could mean that they really
> estimated it and didn't measure. Obviously, in the second case the number has lower credibility.

You can expect some variability in final numbers (maybe finally the cores will be only 30% faster instead 43% faster) but the ARM core will continue being faster and efficient than the x86 core that replaces.

> Anyway, SPECint_rate2006=80 is an approximate equivalent of Intel Pentium G3220 - $64 CPU.
> That's not a very good place to be for new, unproven and relatively low volume product.
> http://www.spec.org/cpu2006/results/res2014q2/cpu2006-20140407-29307.html
>

Welcome to the world of icc-benchmarketing. Despite that, you are comparing a 50W processor to a 25W SoC. What about oranges to oranges comparison as AMD comparing 25W A-Opteron to 22W X-Opteron?