By: David Kanter (dkanter.delete@this.realworldtech.com), February 4, 2015 2:21 pm
Room: Moderated Discussions
Maynard Handley (name99.delete@this.name99.org) on February 4, 2015 2:59 pm wrote:
> David Kanter (dkanter.delete@this.realworldtech.com) on February 4, 2015 11:51 am wrote:
> > Eric Bron (eric.bron.delete@this.zvisuel.privatefortest.com) on February 4, 2015 3:42 am wrote:
> > > > Go to this page:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.arm.com/products/processors/cortex-a/cortex-a72-processor.php
> > > >
> > > > and click on the performance tab. 3.5/1.9 ~= 1.84.
> > > >
> > > > And don't forget to note the title "Increase in sustained performance in smartphone power budget.
> > > >
> > > > That makes it hard to even guess how much IPC increase there is, or what top performance
> > > > is compared to unconstrained A15/A57.
> > >
> > > indeed, and thank you for the link
> > >
> > > btw reasonable people seem to dismiss insane IPC gains:
> > >
> > > http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=37140914&postcount=20
> > >
> > > https://twitter.com/TheKanter/status/562788528137187329
> > >
> >
> > At the risk of offending people from ARM...I find that ARM's marketing to be absolutely ridiculous
> > and deceptive. Comparing IP blocks at different process nodes is just bullshit designed to obfuscate
> > the value that the microarchitecture is adding. That is just as terrible as when Intel tries
> > to talk about advances in server performance by comparing against Nehalem-EP.
> >
> > While a comparison against an old core on a old process MIGHT be indicative of what users MAY experience,
> > it simply isn't even remotely apples-to-apples. Moreover, USERS DON'T BUY FROM ARM. It's just rubbish.
> >
> > At least Nvidia's marketing does proper generation to generation comparisons.
> >
> > ARM has plenty of smart architects, and frankly the marketing
> > group does a disservice to them by not talking
> > openly and honestly about the value they are adding for
> > customers. Intel will honestly tell you that improving
> > IPC by 5% is hard - and that's the truth for their design point. ARM has much lower performance cores that
> > have way more low hanging fruit, so 10-15% should be feasible. It's better to be honest than try and dress
> > up someone elses technical innovations (e.g., TSMC's FinFETs) as your own magnificence.
> >
> > Put another way, I can travel from point A to point B at roughly 120mph. Does that mean I am
> > an amazing speedy person? No, it means I have a Honda Civic and can find the highway...
> >
> > David
>
> Hmm. When I was talking about the fact that Cyclone could match Intel in IPC, I was told in
> no uncertain terms that an interest purely in IPC, decoupled from the actual frequencies that
> a chip could reach and the TOTAL overall performance, was the sign of idiotic fanboy'ism.
Yes it is.
> Just saying...
These are entirely consistent. I'm saying it's important to normalize for what matters. In your case, you were trying to argue that IPC of a 1GHz chip phone chip is comparable to a 4GHz notebook/desktop chip, which is clearly idiotic fanboyism :)
Now I'm saying that comparing the performance of two IP cores with the same design target (e.g., smart phones) on totally different process nodes is bullshit. Which it is.
David
> David Kanter (dkanter.delete@this.realworldtech.com) on February 4, 2015 11:51 am wrote:
> > Eric Bron (eric.bron.delete@this.zvisuel.privatefortest.com) on February 4, 2015 3:42 am wrote:
> > > > Go to this page:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.arm.com/products/processors/cortex-a/cortex-a72-processor.php
> > > >
> > > > and click on the performance tab. 3.5/1.9 ~= 1.84.
> > > >
> > > > And don't forget to note the title "Increase in sustained performance in smartphone power budget.
> > > >
> > > > That makes it hard to even guess how much IPC increase there is, or what top performance
> > > > is compared to unconstrained A15/A57.
> > >
> > > indeed, and thank you for the link
> > >
> > > btw reasonable people seem to dismiss insane IPC gains:
> > >
> > > http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=37140914&postcount=20
> > >
> > > https://twitter.com/TheKanter/status/562788528137187329
> > >
> >
> > At the risk of offending people from ARM...I find that ARM's marketing to be absolutely ridiculous
> > and deceptive. Comparing IP blocks at different process nodes is just bullshit designed to obfuscate
> > the value that the microarchitecture is adding. That is just as terrible as when Intel tries
> > to talk about advances in server performance by comparing against Nehalem-EP.
> >
> > While a comparison against an old core on a old process MIGHT be indicative of what users MAY experience,
> > it simply isn't even remotely apples-to-apples. Moreover, USERS DON'T BUY FROM ARM. It's just rubbish.
> >
> > At least Nvidia's marketing does proper generation to generation comparisons.
> >
> > ARM has plenty of smart architects, and frankly the marketing
> > group does a disservice to them by not talking
> > openly and honestly about the value they are adding for
> > customers. Intel will honestly tell you that improving
> > IPC by 5% is hard - and that's the truth for their design point. ARM has much lower performance cores that
> > have way more low hanging fruit, so 10-15% should be feasible. It's better to be honest than try and dress
> > up someone elses technical innovations (e.g., TSMC's FinFETs) as your own magnificence.
> >
> > Put another way, I can travel from point A to point B at roughly 120mph. Does that mean I am
> > an amazing speedy person? No, it means I have a Honda Civic and can find the highway...
> >
> > David
>
> Hmm. When I was talking about the fact that Cyclone could match Intel in IPC, I was told in
> no uncertain terms that an interest purely in IPC, decoupled from the actual frequencies that
> a chip could reach and the TOTAL overall performance, was the sign of idiotic fanboy'ism.
Yes it is.
> Just saying...
These are entirely consistent. I'm saying it's important to normalize for what matters. In your case, you were trying to argue that IPC of a 1GHz chip phone chip is comparable to a 4GHz notebook/desktop chip, which is clearly idiotic fanboyism :)
Now I'm saying that comparing the performance of two IP cores with the same design target (e.g., smart phones) on totally different process nodes is bullshit. Which it is.
David
Topic | Posted By | Date |
---|---|---|
ARM announces A72 | Maynard Handley | 2015/02/03 11:36 AM |
ARM announces A72 | anon | 2015/02/03 12:53 PM |
ARM announces A72 | Hugo Décharnes | 2015/02/03 01:20 PM |
ARM announces A72 | juanrga | 2015/02/03 04:15 PM |
ARM announces A72 | Wilco | 2015/02/04 12:58 AM |
ARM announces A72 | Eric Bron | 2015/02/04 01:48 AM |
ARM announces A72 | none | 2015/02/04 02:24 AM |
ARM announces A72 | Eric Bron | 2015/02/04 02:42 AM |
ARM announces A72 | Exophase | 2015/02/04 07:01 AM |
ARM announces A72 | Anon | 2015/02/04 07:35 AM |
ARM announces A72 | Exophase | 2015/02/04 07:58 AM |
ARM announces A72 | Groo | 2015/02/04 09:24 AM |
ARM Marketing, BS up to my ears | David Kanter | 2015/02/04 10:51 AM |
ARM Marketing, BS up to my ears | Maynard Handley | 2015/02/04 01:59 PM |
ARM Marketing, BS up to my ears | David Kanter | 2015/02/04 02:21 PM |
ARM Marketing, BS up to my ears | Groo | 2015/02/04 02:30 PM |
ARM announces A72 | juanrga | 2015/02/04 04:23 AM |
ARM announces A72 | Wilco | 2015/02/04 03:01 PM |
ARM announces A72 | juanrga | 2015/02/04 04:06 PM |
ARM announces A72 | Anon | 2015/02/04 01:28 AM |
ARM announces A72 | juanrga | 2015/02/04 04:31 AM |
ARM announces A72 | Aaron Spink | 2015/02/04 06:49 AM |
ARM announces A72 | Ronald Maas | 2015/02/03 07:23 PM |
ARM announces A72 | Seni | 2015/02/04 12:19 AM |
ARM announces A72 | Maynard Handley | 2015/02/04 10:42 AM |
ARM announces A72 | Seni | 2015/02/04 12:33 PM |
ARM announces A72 | dmcq | 2015/02/04 12:57 PM |
ARM announces A72 | Ronald Maas | 2015/02/04 06:42 PM |
ARM announces A72 | anon | 2015/02/04 05:19 AM |
ARM announces A72 | Exophase | 2015/02/04 07:31 AM |
ARM announces A72 | David Kanter | 2015/02/04 10:25 AM |
ARM announces A72 | Exophase | 2015/02/04 01:33 PM |
ARM announces A72 | anon | 2015/02/04 10:27 PM |
ARM announces A72 (fixed format) | anon | 2015/02/04 10:29 PM |
ARM announces A72 | Exophase | 2015/02/04 11:11 PM |
ARM announces A72 | anon | 2015/02/05 12:02 AM |
ARM announces A72 | anon | 2015/02/04 05:57 PM |
ARM announces A72 | Wilco | 2015/02/03 01:39 PM |
ARM announces A72 | Maynard Handley | 2015/02/03 02:13 PM |
ARM announces A72 | anon | 2015/02/03 02:29 PM |
ARM announces A72 | Wilco | 2015/02/03 02:44 PM |
ARM announces A72 | David Kanter | 2015/02/04 09:56 AM |
ARM announces A72 | Peter Greenhalgh | 2015/02/04 10:56 AM |
ARM announces A72 | Aaron Spink | 2015/02/04 11:59 AM |
ARM announces A72 | Alberto | 2015/02/07 10:22 AM |
ARM announces A72 | Exophase | 2015/02/07 10:47 AM |
ARM announces A72 | Alberto | 2015/02/07 12:44 PM |
ARM announces A72 | Exophase | 2015/02/07 02:35 PM |
ARM announces A72 | Alberto | 2015/02/08 01:09 AM |
ARM announces A72 | Exophase | 2015/02/08 11:05 AM |
ARM announces A72 | David Kanter | 2015/02/08 12:39 AM |
ARM announces A72 | dmcq | 2015/02/08 04:14 AM |
ARM announces A72 | Michael S | 2015/02/08 04:38 AM |
ARM announces A72 | Gabriele Svelto | 2015/02/10 05:11 AM |
ARM announces A72 | Jouni Osmala | 2015/02/10 11:24 AM |
slit vs unified | Michael S | 2015/02/10 01:57 PM |
slit vs unified | dmcq | 2015/02/11 05:44 AM |
ARM announces A72 | Doug S | 2015/02/08 09:00 AM |
ARM announces A72 | Exophase | 2015/02/08 10:57 AM |
ARM announces A72 | dmcq | 2015/02/04 01:10 PM |
ARM announces A72 | David Kanter | 2015/02/04 02:28 PM |
ARM announces A72 | Wilco | 2015/02/04 01:59 PM |
ARM announces A72 | Aaron Spink | 2015/02/04 09:31 PM |
Intel 32nm vs 14 nm | Michael S | 2015/02/05 01:03 AM |
Intel 32nm vs 14 nm | Wilco | 2015/02/05 02:27 AM |
Intel 32nm vs 14 nm | David Kanter | 2015/02/05 09:05 AM |
Intel 32nm vs 14 nm | carop | 2015/02/05 11:12 AM |
Normalize to drawn or effective width? | David Kanter | 2015/02/05 11:45 AM |
Normalize to drawn or effective width? | carop | 2015/02/05 02:40 PM |
Normalize to drawn or effective width? | David Kanter | 2015/02/06 12:44 PM |