Originally Posted by
kl0012
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,
Code:
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
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks