Michael S (already5chosen.delete@this.yahoo.com) on August 18, 2018 12:49 pm wrote:
> AM (myname4rwt.delete@this.jee-male.com) on August 18, 2018 12:39 pm wrote:
> > Michael S (already5chosen.delete@this.yahoo.com) on August 18, 2018 11:20 am wrote:
> > > AM (myname4rwt.delete@this.jee-male.com) on August 17, 2018 2:45 pm wrote:
> > > > Michael S (already5chosen.delete@this.yahoo.com) on August 17, 2018 3:13 am wrote:
> > > > > Gabriele Svelto (gabriele.svelto.delete@this.gmail.com) on August 17, 2018 1:00 am wrote:
> > > > > > ... so it's misleading by definition. That being said it's a shame because it seems to me
> > > > > > that A76 has merits and ARM shouldn't have to massage the numbers to make it look good.
> > > > >
> > > > > I beleive it when I see it.
> > > > > This particular design team promised power efficient cores in the past. But until now never delivered.
> > > > > It is true that 76 is not a yet another descendent of 15, but I still want measuremnts.
> > > >
> > > > I thought you didn't follow ARM tech,
> > >
> > > Strange thought. In today's world one can't expect to find many people that
> > > are interested in CPUs and don't follow ARM. at least at shallow level.
> > >
> > > > but in case you do, and there's some actual knowledge behind
> > > > your skepticism, how about you be more specific as to what ARM's claims wrt A76 make you skeptical
> > > > and, thus, what are your well-educated predictions (in figures please: ARM's projections you don't
> > > > believe vs what you consider likely). Naturally for the case when A76 is unconstrained by factors
> > > > like end product manufacturer's artificial limit imposed
> > > > on a product's top clock rate or lower-than-expected
> > > > mem lat/bw or piss-poor dvfs config (as was the notorious case of Exynos 9810).
> > > >
> > > > I'm also curious about the "promised but never delivered power-efficient cores"
> > > > bit. Are you referring to your own measurements or published figures?
> > >
> > > I don't believe that A76 will have better perf/watt at
> > > the same performance than A75 when both manufactured
> > > on the same process and A75 not pushed behind its natural frequency limits. Same for A76 vs A73.
> > > Of course, you can say that "natural frequency limits" are vague words. Yes, they are. But not too much.
> >
> > This is not what ARM promised. At all.
> >
> > What they promised was 40% higher perf in the same power envelope as A75. And that for A76 on 7nm vs A75
> > on 10nm.
>
> Considering that the difference between 7nm and 10nm is
> less than 40% it does imply improved uArch efficiency.
>
> > And 35% perf gain (corr. to 3 GHz A76 vs 2.8 GHz A75), thus promising roughly 1.25x IPC gain.
> >
> > And as I said, I'm also curious about the "promised but never delivered power-efficient cores" bit --
> > are you referring to your own measurements or published data? I'm fairly interested, please elaborate.
>
> It's public knowledge that A15 power efficiency was poor and A57 not much better if at all better.
> A72 - just a little better than A57.
> A9/A14/A73/A75 line had much better efficiency at comparable performance.
> A7/A53/A55 had dramatically better efficiency. Not at comparable performance.
>

I'm not sure what your point here is.

Firstly what does "poor power efficiency" mean? The worst ARM power efficiency is better than anything Intel has to offer.

Secondly you seem upset that ARM's PERFORMANCE cores prioritize performance over efficiency, and that their EFFICIENCY cores prioritize efficiency over performance!
ARM has a theory of how to reconcile the different desires of performance and efficiency. You may have some reason to dislike that theory; you may believe it doesn't deliver; but if so you have to explain your distaste, you can't simply complain while ignoring the very foundations of how ARM structures their line.