coppice (coppice.delete@this.dis.org) on January 13, 2015 9:44 am wrote:
> Michael S (already5chosen.delete@this.yahoo.com) on January 13, 2015 7:53 am wrote:
> > coppice (coppice.delete@this.dis.org) on January 12, 2015 9:47 pm wrote:
> > > I forgot that the Intel chips also seemed to take considerably
> > > more power than the Denver to do the same work.
> > >
> >
> > Do you know it or do you believe it?
> > The same question goes for your above statement about relative die sizes.
>
> I said "seemed" because I have been information on the web which appears to show the Haswell taking
> considerably more power, but I'm not sure if they were being careful to ensure a fair comparison.
>

Such measurements are hard to carry even against conventional cores. Denver's code morphing layer multiplies the difficulty. The only established test that I am aware of is Spec_SPECpower_ssj2008, but Denver is not intended for server market, so it wouldn't be fair to benchmark it against Haswell (that most certainly is intended for server market) in that sort of test.

> If I can trust the various die pictures and quoted dimensions I have found, the Denver core seems a little
> smaller than the Clovertrail core. Allow for one being 28nm and the other 32nm, and they seem to work out
> about the same for equivalent geometries. How does the Haswell core size compare with Clovertrail?

I have no idea.
However, at this level of performance comparing core areas in isolation is meaningless. More so, IMHO, even comparing core+L1 areas in isolation is also meaningless, because L2 caches became integral parts of the deal.