Intel: ARM Chips Are Propellers, We Build Jet Engines
Click here to post a comment for Intel: ARM Chips Are Propellers, We Build Jet Engines on our message forum
IcE
I find this really humorous considering Intel's dealings with OEM suppliers back in the day. I'm sure we all remember. Just really amusing to see them cry foul. With that said, they really do have much better technology than ARM, and I expect them to start grabbing marketshare by the truckload at some point in the future.
Neo Cyrus
It takes a thief to know how a thief thinks.
Markgpl
And they still offer deals to sellers, i live in south america and if they are that aggressive in a small country in a tiny store, i dont want to know how they go on bigger markets.
Chillin
Once the new generation of Atom chips are released, expect Atom to replace ARM chips in most high end tablets and smartphones.
Chillin
That's not the one I'm referring to; I'm talking about the "Silvermont" Atom architecture due out in Q3 2013.
It's going to be OoO, 22nm, quad core, USB3, 64-bit and Intel HD graphics.
http://media.bestofmicro.com/I/M/350590/original/5.png
nicugoalkeper
If they manage to get the same power consumption like the rivels Intel will kick all away.
Andrew LB
You mean how Intel got railroaded by an overzealous media and legal system for including in their distribution contracts with OEM suppliers things that every single manufacturer does? It's common practice and perfectly legal to provide incentives such as kick-backs and deeper discounts in exchange for moving additional product. Heck, even setting up exclusivity agreements with a few select companies is legal as well.
What Intel did wrong was being successful and the the market leader because they make the best targets for extortion, frivilous lawsuits, and greedy competitors who act like the helpless victim of big, bad, and evil Intel so they can drum up sympathy for their lawsuit and taint any grand jury prospects. The facts are that Intel has spent the last 10 years treating AMD with kid-gloves because any move they make will be labeled as monopolistic.
And FYI... Intel was never found guilty of any wrongdoing. The case was settled in a arbitration and the money paid to AMD was nothing more than grease to stop the wheel from sqeaking, and go away.
schmidtbag
Intel's attitude in situations like this make me want to not buy their products. First of all, cortex a15 outperforms even low end i3s in MOST tests, on linux anyway. Linux has had ARM support for years so it performs great. It wouldnt surprise me if Windows is too heavy for ARM. That being said, intel is once again being overconfident and ignorant. Back in the Athlon 64 days, they felt clock speed was everything. Today, they think total processing power is more important than battery life. I dont know anyone who does anything that chronically maxes out their phone or tablet cpu.
Chillin
In what alternative universe are you living in that an A15 performs even in the same benchmark graph as an i3? It barely is able to compete with a Core Due from 7 years ago! It's barely superior to a single core atom!
And for your info, a current single core 32 nm Atom provides competitive to better battery life and better performance than a quad core A9 (Tegra-3).
Let me put this better into perspective:
AMD X2 3800+ (year:2005) : 14.5k DMIPS
Samsung Exynos 5250 (dual core A15): 14k DMIPS
schmidtbag
If you actually read my post, I said on linux. I guess I shouldve been more explicit saying Cortex a15 outperforms atom in most tests, and once in a while can pass i3. Overall i3 is more powerful, but also a lot more power hungry.
Also, Tegra 3 is of the most power hungry ARM systems.
Chillin
The bottom line here is that once the new Silvermont architecture is released, the biggest thing holding back the Atom SOC will be the cost of the SOC. If Intel decides to make it competitive to the costs from a Tegra 4, etc; then it will see the greatest growth.
IPlayNaked
Where the hell did you find an A15 beating an i3.
scoter man1
I also see this happening eventually. It just makes so much sense.
tsunami231
Nothing new about Intel cpus have there better percore performance, not much new about alot of things not using the multi core poorly either.
Honestly I think there to many CPU with to many different architectures. We need one unified/architectures cpu maybe then multi core programing will be done right. maybe one day it will happen but i wont hold my breath.
schmidtbag
phoronix.com. I don't remember which article it was but obviously i3 is better overall. It isn't THAT surprising for A15 to beat i3 in a test or 2, 1 CPU architecture can't be good at everything. For example, there's reasons why PPC is still used in really demanding environments, and PPC is RISC.
To those who feel the A15 is incapable of beating out Atom, remember that in the end it's usually up to OS optimizations. For example Bulldozer is fully capable of beating out i7 but it often does worse than i5 due to improper implementation/optimization.
Chillin
Bulldozer is only capable of beating out an i7 in VERY specific applications, but for a general use CPU it falls way behind an i7.
And yes, I can't imagine any scenario where an A15 (transistor count estimated at 26 million and between 2w-8w) can beat out a 504 million transistor and ~25w-40w CPU. The performance difference between the two is like you telling me that a Volkswagen Beetle beat out a Ferrari in a race.
schmidtbag
Again, OS optimizations make all the difference. For another example, look at a game console like Xbox 360. All of it's hardware was considered mediocre even when it was first released, and for a while it could outperform computers worth 3x as much. Bulldozer is a good architecture, but nothing is designed for it so it's comparatively a really crappy piece of hardware.
I think you bringing up the Beetle vs Ferrari point is interesting, because it supports my point. I'll do you one even better - a Smart Car (smaller and less aerodynamic than a beetle) vs a Ferrari:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5S1NAMnYKM
While it likely has a modified engine, my point still stands - optimizations make all the difference. And as I said before, a single CPU architecture can't possibly be good at everything, hence the reason why Bulldozer managed to beat i7 in a couple of tests even though it isn't optimized for anything.
Darkest
I think that video better proved Chillin's point than your own. The Smart Car won the race in a very specific scenario, it was heavily modified to drag race. Put it on a proper racing track and it'd be demolished.
schmidtbag
How exactly does that prove his point more than mine? What you said is speculation; what I showed is proof. I too would bet that the Ferrari would likely win in a proper track, but that doesn't change my point because it's about optimizing for your purposes. Nobody in their right mind is going to use ARM for a dedicated F@H server or a corporate mainframe, just as nobody is going to use a Smart Car for a full-length race. ARM isn't designed for number crunching and that's one of the reasons I made my first post - Intel is acting like people care about that on their phones. What I hear more complaints about is how they don't have enough battery life or their phone overheats. What I don't hear about is people complaining that their phone is too slow.
Anyways, here's one of the articles (kind of an old one) of ARM vs a few Atom models and the i3:
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=samsung_exynos5_dual&num=3
In this particular article, it doesn't beat i3 in anything, although it does come close. I think where I thought the A15 would beat i3 is if a quad-core model were used rather than a dual core. So, I'll admit I was wrong and mistaken about that A15 model beating i3 in any one of those tests. But, I'm sure that if it the A15 were a quad core it'd probably stand on top in at least 1 test.
Darkest
Speculation? It isn't speculation at all. That car will not beat that Ferrari on a proper track, that is an absolute fact. Nobody in there right mind would take a corner with any sort of speed in one of those things. Not to mention it was no longer comparable to the origional car as it was heavily modified. It'd be the equivalent of overclocking the ARM chip by several hundred percent. It was a bad example, period.
