Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Performance per clock of ARM cpu?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
November 21, 2011 12:41:10 PM

They are becoming more powerful with quad cores beginning to emerge in the market. But should intel and amd be worried on the mid-range to high-end range of their CPU lineups?


Does a quad-core based ARM like Cortex A-15 @2ghz come close to a core2duo @2ghz or core i3 @1.6ghz?

I think this is hard to know because you can't run 3dMark on arm yet but what is your guess?
a c 102 à CPUs
November 21, 2011 1:02:25 PM

You can't compare the IPC of arm to x86 as its a different set of instructions. When Windows 8 comes out there may be some benchmarks you can compare for now there is only Linux. This article has some comparisons http://vanshardware.com/2010/08/mirror-the-coming-war-a... and it looks like arm performance is still miles away from being close to x86 performance and only good for ultra low power.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 21, 2011 2:31:30 PM

Different instruction sets running on different hardware with different OS's, so its REALLY hard to make any sort of comparison. Windows 8 can give us an idea, but even then, we don't know if the OS or the CPU would be at fault if theres a significant difference...
m
0
l
November 21, 2011 3:09:19 PM

The above members already explained the situation, but I'll give you the lowdown on real world expectations. Comparing ARM to x86 cpu's, my overclocked touchpad's web browsing capability cannot hold a candle to my ancient 2400xp Athlon, BUT I can tell you that flash works a little bit better on the TP than the Athlon since flash is a much more dominant web format today than when the Athlon came out due to chip optimizations. When it comes to general web browsing, where it takes the TP a minimum of 10 secs to load a page(simple sites like Google load quickly), the Athlon did it in less than 2 secs. ARM cpu's IMO are not ready for prime time, but it has a bright future. I respect their power sipping demands but the performance is still lacking.
m
0
l
!