Maynard Handley (name99.delete@this.name99.org) on July 9, 2015 10:04 am wrote:

> There's a time for prognostication about who will do well in future,
> the consequences of business decisions, even cheering on your team.
> There is ALSO a time for trying to understand the algorithms that are
> present in a particular chip. This is one of those latter times.
> We still, for example, have no idea about the nature and quality of the prefetchers in either
> the A8 or Haswell/Broadwell; and if I figure out a way to shed light on that, and if that
> involves normalizing by frequency, that's how I will proceed, and I don't think that's something
> I have to apologize for. The goal is to understand the relevant chips.
>

You should also understand the divisor you are using is probably wrong. If you are
using single-core results, the processor was *probably* going much faster for the
Intel results (and maybe the Apple results as well). I did a comparison of Cinebench
results awhile back and I assumed, since it was a single threaded test, that all
processors were running at full turbo. The IPC results per processor family were
very consistent (which implies I was correct about the turbo).

The best way to compare these results is to lock down the clock speed, it would
also help if you could compare systems that were identical in all aspects
(cache size, etc) but only varied in clock speed. You could then tell if
scaling the scores by clock speed is valid or not.