no, this is not the 1st of april ... x86 beats ARM at power efficency in Tablets

[kl0012]

Nice propoganda but what about the performance? Who cares if your battery last 100 hours but if you have to wait 10 hours before a page is loaded? Or things go shocky or slow?
Performance per watt is what defines tables imo. Not just Energy Efficiency

Also these remarks:
- different process node (probably intel 22nm compared to 28 or 32nm ARM cores which are based on generic proces nodes)
- if above, who says it is architecture related? It probably has nothing to do with x86... but all to do with a very good Intel manafuctaring process... to which arm has no access to.

Here are some performance numbers (vs. Tegra 3):

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6385/m...face-review/10

[BoredByLife]

Here are some performance numbers (vs. Tegra 3):

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6385/m...face-review/10

Well, thats pretty bad is it... And + the huge size of the bloated win8 OS for tablets...
I'd prefer ARM for the moment. Especially since Tegra3 isnt the best chip...

[kl0012]

Well, thats pretty bad is it... And + the huge size of the bloated win8 OS for tablets...

Hm... How is that bad? 30-50% faster then Tegra3 and runs fully functional Windows8 (not pathetic Windows RT) while comparable in battery life and you call it bad? Then what's good?

I'd prefer ARM for the moment. Especially since Tegra3 isnt the best chip...

Tegra3 is one of the best. Quad core exynos is better, but as far as I know there are no WinRT devices using this chip. Another option is dual-core Krait which is slower then Tegra3 in multithreaded workloads.

[Hans de Vries]

Hm... How is that bad? 30-50% faster then Tegra3 and runs fully functional Windows8 (not pathetic Windows RT) while comparable in battery life and you call it bad? Then what's good?

Tegra3 is one of the best. Quad core exynos is better, but as far as I know there are no WinRT devices using this chip. Another option is dual-core Krait which is slower then Tegra3 in multithreaded workloads.

These benchmarks tell you exactly nothing at all about ARM performance versus Atom performance.
They may tell you that the Chrome browser is much faster as Windows 8 plus IE 10 in javascript
except for an intriguing SunSpider result,

KRAKEN (lower is better) single threaded javascript (jit compiler), 

 9733    Chrome     1.70GHz Cortex A15
14229    Chrome     1.66GHz Atom (N570)
33855    MS IE10    1.80GHz Atom (Z2760)
49595    MS IE10    1.30GHz Cortex A9

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6385/m...face-review/10
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6422/s...s-cortex-a15/6

The new Intel multimedia benchmark used by AnandTech: TouchXPRT 2013 is another brainchild
of dr Who's boss Shervin Kheradpir, General Manager of Intel's Performance Benchmarking and Analysis
Group and founding President of Bapco (via HDXPRT/Principled Technologies)

http://www.hdxprt.com/blog/2012/10/2...the-fast-lane/ AnandTech was the first to use the test
http://intel-mydreampc-1829796403.us...Whitepaper.pdf

The 1.3GHz Quad core A9 Tegra 3 comes out worse as the 1.8GHz Dual core Atom. Well for bandwidth limited
multimedia benchmarks that's not that hard to do considering the 32bit bus on the Tegra 3 versus the 64bit
bus on the Z2760, Apple uses 128 bit buses and Samsung's Exynos 5450 will have a 128 bit bus as well I guess.
Most of the other new SOC's use 64 bit buses.

Hans

[kl0012]

These benchmarks tell you exactly nothing at all about ARM performance versus Atom performance.
They may tell you that the Chrome browser is much faster as Windows 8 plus IE 10 in javascript
except for an intriguing SunSpider result,

KRAKEN (lower is better) single threaded javascript (jit compiler), 

 9733    Chrome     1.70GHz Cortex A15
14229    Chrome     1.66GHz Atom (N570)
33855    MS IE10    1.80GHz Atom (Z2760)
49595    MS IE10    1.30GHz Cortex A9

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6385/m...face-review/10
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6422/s...s-cortex-a15/6

It's really doesn't matter in this case since WinRT is mostly limited to IE (MS didn't open Win API to third party, so no Google V8 javascript engine is expected in the near future). Someone was worried about how fast Atom can load web pages in Win8 - so it's pretty much fast (faster than tegra3 in IE and a lot faster when using desktop chrome)

The new Intel multimedia benchmark used by AnandTech: TouchXPRT 2013 is another brainchild
of dr Who's boss Shervin Kheradpir, General Manager of Intel's Performance Benchmarking and Analysis
Group and founding President of Bapco (via HDXPRT/Principled Technologies)

http://www.hdxprt.com/blog/2012/10/2...the-fast-lane/ AnandTech was the first to use the test
http://intel-mydreampc-1829796403.us...Whitepaper.pdf

You mean the benchmark is crippled?

The 1.3GHz Quad core A9 Tegra 3 comes out worse as the 1.8GHz Dual core Atom. Well for bandwidth limited
multimedia benchmarks that's not that hard to do considering the 32bit bus on the Tegra 3 versus the 64bit
bus on the Z2760, Apple uses 128 bit buses and Samsung's Exynos 5450 will have a 128 bit bus as well I guess.
Most of the other new SOC's use 64 bit buses.

Hans

Doesn't matter either. The only cpus currently supported by WinRT are tegra3, krait and something old from TI.

[Drwho?]

as Usual, Hans forget to say that the benchmark is open source, and he failed to find anything wrong with it ... (This is call FUD technic)

And then, well, Hans, please disclose your interest into this please? like, who is employing you etc ...



...

At least, I am open on my agenda, and don't hide who is my employer.

[Hans de Vries]

Someone was worried about how fast Atom can load web pages in Win8 - so it's pretty much fast (faster than tegra3 in IE and a lot faster when using desktop chrome)

The ARM Chromebook is twice as fast in Browsermark as this Clovertrail based system.

217,031 Chrome, dual core 1.7GHz A15 Exynos
101,644 MS IE10, dual core 1,8GHz Atom, Clovertrail

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6422/s...s-cortex-a15/6
http://hothardware.com/Reviews/Intel...review/?page=3

They simply don't intent to compete against the $250 Chromebook considering
the $800 which is asked here for a (20% slower) version using a 1.5GHz Clovertrail.
Or a similar Clovertrail system from Dell for $829...

So from <$300 Atom based netbooks we are now going to $800 Atom based systems
We'll see how this all ends...

Hans

[Drwho?]

The ARM Chromebook is twice as fast in Browsermark as this Clovertrail based system.

217,031 Chrome, dual core 1.7GHz A15 Exynos
101,644 MS IE10, dual core 1,8GHz Atom, Clovertrail

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6422/s...s-cortex-a15/6
http://hothardware.com/Reviews/Intel...review/?page=3

They simply don't intent to compete against the $250 Chromebook considering
the $800 which is asked here for a (20% slower) version using a 1.5GHz Clovertrail.
Or a similar Clovertrail system from Dell for $829...

So from <$300 Atom based netbooks we are now going to $800 Atom based systems
We'll see how this all ends...

Hans

your post are always so misleading , it is not even funny, you had to choose the most expensive Clovrtrail, and compare it with a system that have half the RAM and few other details, same song as acehardware 10 years ago. then, look at the battery life of the chrome book, and the one of clovertrail, it is almost double in the favor of clovertrail ...

then, comparing 2 totally different software stack (Android vs. Windows 8), and get to a definitive answer ... you are funny ...

you ll never change, what ever it takes to impose your opinion, even making honest people look like they are doing fishy things. you simply forget to say that everything is open source or part of consortium, like the Sysmark stuff you posted before, forgetting to say that AMD voted for 80% of the decision in sysmark. Since then, AMD changed their position on Sysmark, you should go and ask them , and let me know. Let me know if they decline agreeing with 80% of the decision there, or saying it is not a good benchmark, I would be VERY interested if they do so.

and yes, the little green men were in Roswell ... lol

With all due respect, you may want to join those consortiums , instead of always pretending that we are controlling every thing, like you did in the past, and see what is really happening.
(and you really think guys like AMD, NV and others join those benchmarks consortiums, and let us control every thing? they are smarter than this)

I have my hands clean, come and see, instead of repeating the same BS again and again for ages ...

[Manicdan]

So from <$300 Atom based netbooks we are now going to $800 Atom based systems
We'll see how this all ends...

Hans

couldnt have said it better. the netbook market was about having cheap hardware that used little power and got oodles of battery life. slim down the frame a little and it becomes 3x the price. wtf people.

[kl0012]

The ARM Chromebook is twice as fast in Browsermark as this Clovertrail based system.

217,031 Chrome, dual core 1.7GHz A15 Exynos
101,644 MS IE10, dual core 1,8GHz Atom, Clovertrail

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6422/s...s-cortex-a15/6
http://hothardware.com/Reviews/Intel...review/?page=3

They simply don't intent to compete against the $250 Chromebook considering
the $800 which is asked here for a (20% slower) version using a 1.5GHz Clovertrail.
Or a similar Clovertrail system from Dell for $829...

So from <$300 Atom based netbooks we are now going to $800 Atom based systems
We'll see how this all ends...

Hans

Why would one compare netbook price to tablet price (espetially when tablet has different (princely) OS and includes additional features such as Wacom digitizer, much better screen and better battery life)? The proper comparison would be Windows RT tablet prices vs. Windows 8 (Clovertrail) prices. And it seems they are not that different:
MS Surface RT (Tegra3) - $499
Asus VivoTab Smart (Clovertrail) - $499