juanrga (nospam.delete@this.juanrga.com) on August 16, 2014 3:15 am wrote:
> Maynard Handley (name99.delete@this.name99.org) on August 15, 2014 4:41 pm wrote:
> > David Kanter (dkanter.delete@this.realworldtech.com) on August 15, 2014 3:01 pm wrote:
> > > juanrga (nospam.delete@this.juanrga.com) on August 15, 2014 11:39 am wrote:
> > > > David Kanter (dkanter.delete@this.realworldtech.com) on August 15, 2014 9:41 am wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I also am skeptical that anyone can match Intel in performance while trailing behind by a node. To do that,
> > > > > it is necessary to offer a very different product with a
> > > > > different system architecture. E.g., target workloads
> > > > > where cache does not help and simply slap down more memory controllers and cores (hint: that's a GPU!).
> > >
> > > > The ISA advantage will be greatly reduced in the top-end
> > > > side of the performance spectrum, but will not vanish.
> > > > Keller mentioned during Core Day conference that his K12
> > > > core will have a "bigger engine" than its x86 sister
> > > > thanks to the advantages of ARMv8 over x86-64, which allows to spend more transistors on compute.
> > >
> > > I happen to know the differences between those two designs. I'm not really sure it's
> > > going to translate into a significant performance delta. My guess is maybe 10%.
> >
> > 10% is two years of Intel's current 5% improvement a year.
>
> And what if final number is more close to 20--30%?
Terminally unproven and terminally without any evidence. Just supposition on side of ARM proponents. Nothing more.