juanrga (nospam.delete@this.juanrga.com) on August 9, 2014 5:26 am wrote:
> 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.

>
>
Because paper didn't start in 2013? Have you missed what was used? Sandy Bridge. Not Ivy Bridge nor Haswell.

Hell, they have Atom x450. Released in 2010.

Your point never existed, because you ignored age of used Intel's hardware and then you wonder why they have "old" ARM. Because that paper was started in 2010! You cannot use unreleased stuff you don't have access to!