Welcome, Unregistered.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Reply
Old 23-Mar-2012, 17:54   #26
french toast
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Leicestershire - England
Posts: 1,634
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pjbliverpool View Post
They are Core Duo, not Core 2 Duo. There's quite a bit of IPC difference there. I'd also expect BD to have higher IPC than C2D. I haven't looked into it in detail but I'd guess somewhere between Penryn and Nehalem?
Yes they are Core duo my mistake..but that is still a 31w 65nm part clocked at 1.83ghz duel core with 2mb cache far far higher specification that the ARM chips being used to compare against it which are optimised for smartphone form factors..as opposed to laptops with the core duo.

If you look at this benchmark..you can see an AMD FX-8150 @3.6GHZ with turbo up to 3.9/4.2ghz and 8mb L2 8mb L3 8 thread.

VS.

Intel C2D E8500 @3.16GHZ with 6mb L2 cache NO L3 2 thread.

And they both get the SAME score in SYSmark 2007.... .201.
(what ever that means)
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/2

I think many are giving the IPC of bulldozer a little too much credit, for 2012 its woefull.

Last edited by french toast; 23-Mar-2012 at 18:11.
french toast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-Mar-2012, 18:57   #27
swaaye
Entirely Suboptimal
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: WI, USA
Posts: 7,316
Default

What do you mean people are giving BD too much credit? It's been panned pretty extensively. AFAIK it's only selling to fanboys, crazy overclockers and to clueless big box consumers. The server version is apparently slightly appealing though for what servers get used for.
swaaye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-Mar-2012, 19:02   #28
hoho
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Estonia
Posts: 1,218
Send a message via MSN to hoho Send a message via Skype™ to hoho
Default

Bang per buck wise they aren't too bad but that's mostly because their high-end is only competing with Intel's relatively expensive midrange (for us here, not general public) stuff.
hoho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-Mar-2012, 20:12   #29
french toast
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Leicestershire - England
Posts: 1,634
Default

I mean in the context of this thread, i really don't think a Cortex A15 will be that far behind i really don't.
Seriously Core 2 duo offers comparitive IPC to BD..and thats being more than reasonable.

The general misconception (or the right one? as its not been proven yet) is that BD class would destroy ARM's best in anything other than Battery life.

If i had put that question on these forums before BD launched i would have been laughed at...it doesn't seem all that absurd now though does it?
..Which draws me to the conclusion that in an ultrabook form factor ARM beats out AMD's best...excluding graphics of course.
..Now who would have bet on that when Llano released....
french toast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-Mar-2012, 21:59   #30
itsmydamnation
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 833
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by swaaye View Post
What do you mean people are giving BD too much credit? It's been panned pretty extensively. AFAIK it's only selling to fanboys, crazy overclockers and to clueless big box consumers. The server version is apparently slightly appealing though for what servers get used for.
for anyone who needs lots of cores its awesome, for people like me SMT doesn't cut it because what i run on a core (qemu running some vendors (cisco/juniper/etc) hardware appliance virtually) takes 100% of that cores CPU time regardless of what it is doing. Trying to use apps to limit its CPU time just breaks other stuff.

So for a couple hundred a can build a AMD box that i would need to spend a hell of a lot more money to get a similar level of "performance*" out of an intel box.

*i understand im a tiny segment of the market unlike people like rpg.314 who make broad sweeping statements and then when getting questioned on it then move the goal posts to "for my needs" /runs!!!!
itsmydamnation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-Mar-2012, 23:51   #31
swaaye
Entirely Suboptimal
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: WI, USA
Posts: 7,316
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by french toast View Post
..Which draws me to the conclusion that in an ultrabook form factor ARM beats out AMD's best...excluding graphics of course.
..Now who would have bet on that when Llano released....
Are you saying this because Llano isn't in the ultrabook form factor? Brazos could do a better ultrabook than the current ARM options. It makes more sense for Brazos to be used in small devices like that than in the Walmart specials it is used in.

I had hoped somebody would use Llano for a 13" / ultrabook design, but alas it was stuck in cheap budget books that were too big. I'm hoping Trinity gets better use.
swaaye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-Mar-2012, 06:54   #32
Tchock
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Jurong West
Posts: 843
Default

OP seems to be going round and round without actually realizing that once you transform from mobile to notebook, flexibility, legacy code and sheer performance beats the crap out of sheer BOM and perf/W.

And (un)fortunately, once you get into ultrabook territory, the display uses enough power (and the battery gets to be big enough) to make perf/w on the SOC a much lesser issue.


That, and assuming that A15's going to scale really gracefully in IPC on a fixed set of workloads while using the competitor's design meant to clock high in the first place = not sure if serious or...
__________________
<rpg.314> - I have a feeling that shielding 480 from the evils of afr, embodied in that creation of satan called 5970, will be a part of epic battle between good and evil
<neliz> - The Devil doesn't wear green.
Tchock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-Mar-2012, 07:56   #33
french toast
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Leicestershire - England
Posts: 1,634
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tchock View Post
OP seems to be going round and round without actually realizing that once you transform from mobile to notebook, flexibility, legacy code and sheer performance beats the crap out of sheer BOM and perf/W.

And (un)fortunately, once you get into ultrabook territory, the display uses enough power (and the battery gets to be big enough) to make perf/w on the SOC a much lesser issue.


That, and assuming that A15's going to scale really gracefully in IPC on a fixed set of workloads while using the competitor's design meant to clock high in the first place = not sure if serious or...
You seem to be missing the point, leaving software 'legacy' code and the measurements of the screen power draw to one side for a moment.
The discussion is about the actual performance and power consumption of the said CPU's.

Of course the powerdraw is not trivial, if you have 4 bd cores that maxx out @ say 18w (for example i have no idea of the actual figures) and the A15's the same at 6w...you don't have to be a genius to work out thats a whole lot (12W) of either extra power budget for graphics..extra battery life...smaller battery..or a mixture of all three.

The Question is..''could you make a better ultrabook using Cortex A15's rather than Bulldozer?''...

Last edited by french toast; 24-Mar-2012 at 08:04.
french toast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-Mar-2012, 08:16   #34
french toast
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Leicestershire - England
Posts: 1,634
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by swaaye View Post
Are you saying this because Llano isn't in the ultrabook form factor? Brazos could do a better ultrabook than the current ARM options. It makes more sense for Brazos to be used in small devices like that than in the Walmart specials it is used in.

I had hoped somebody would use Llano for a 13" / ultrabook design, but alas it was stuck in cheap budget books that were too big. I'm hoping Trinity gets better use.
Perhaps your right, But that is for a seperate thread.
As Trinity comes in a 17w 'ultrabook' state..and Bulldozer is AMD's top line, highest performance CPU going forward, i thought it would be interesting to compare the two high end parts form AMD and ARM for that form factor, just to see how far ARM have come along peformance wise, and/or whether AMD (and therefor x86) have got some competition right where many wouldn't have thought possible a couple of years ago.
french toast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-Mar-2012, 14:31   #35
swaaye
Entirely Suboptimal
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: WI, USA
Posts: 7,316
Default

I think it makes more sense to put ARM against the x86 players in the netbook space instead. And of course Intel and AMD are trying to be involved in tablets and those tablets are not so great right now due to battery life and heat issues (fans!). The 22nm Atom will be interesting though......
swaaye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-Mar-2012, 14:56   #36
denev2004
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: China
Posts: 143
Send a message via MSN to denev2004 Send a message via Skype™ to denev2004
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by french toast View Post
Well that is a very dramatic point, BUT i have read somewhere that those type of tests are more heavilly optimised for x86..and also are done across different operating systems... so is that a fair comparison??.

For the record i expect bulldozer to win in outright performance..but obviously A15 to win by far on power consumption...the thing im trying to get to is - will ARM's best chip be a better solution for anything up to a ultrabook than AMD's and maybe Intels all things considered. (including batterylife).

I think it could be quite close, alot closer than people think...and that may mark the first time ARM can encroach into x86 Territory when all sides are using their best troops...
Although it is not really "fair", its a useful reference.
Other factors that might affect performance such has OS and Memory is not that important compared to Processor itself.
Not by saying actually iOS and Android actually use less resources than Win7 does.

But there is one thing to be considered, ARM said A15 will have significant performance improvement. And it seems it will by looking at its architecture. 3-issue shall be powerful
__________________
Well I'm not a native English speaker so there might be misuse through my words. I just hope it won't cause too much misunderstanding.
denev2004 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-Mar-2012, 19:40   #37
french toast
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Leicestershire - England
Posts: 1,634
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by swaaye View Post
I think it makes more sense to put ARM against the x86 players in the netbook space instead. And of course Intel and AMD are trying to be involved in tablets and those tablets are not so great right now due to battery life and heat issues (fans!). The 22nm Atom will be interesting though......
Yea i agree with what you are saying, maybe ill start another thread after this one for that very subject..but this thread serves a specific purpose which i outlined above.
french toast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-Mar-2012, 18:51   #38
Tahir2
Itchy
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: United Queendom
Posts: 2,873
Default

Right french toast...

So specifically Bulldozer/Piledriver vs ARM A15 - (forget for a moment there will be multiple iterations of the A15 architecture built by various companies).

Answer:
Bulldozer/Piledriver Bulldozer/Piledriver would rip the ARM A15 a new pipeline. Totally.

Further clarification needed?
__________________
"Unless I am very mistakenů and yes, I am very much mistaken." - The Legend M Walker
Tahir2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-Mar-2012, 11:14   #39
french toast
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Leicestershire - England
Posts: 1,634
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tahir2 View Post
Right french toast...

So specifically Bulldozer/Piledriver vs ARM A15 - (forget for a moment there will be multiple iterations of the A15 architecture built by various companies).

Answer:
Bulldozer/Piledriver Bulldozer/Piledriver would rip the ARM A15 a new pipeline. Totally.

Further clarification needed?
Lol, blunt..but i like it!

Maybe, but at the same time would the bulldozer/piledriver burn you a new battery?

All things considered Tahir2..all things considered.
french toast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-Mar-2012, 16:58   #40
tunafish
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 408
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by french toast View Post
BUT i have read somewhere that those type of tests are more heavilly optimised for x86.
I would actually contest that. I think it's more that x86 has been (much) more heavily optimized for that kinds of loads. Either way, it's irrelevant -- what's relevant is that x86 + the software stack that will be available to it will be much faster at desktop type loads than ARM + the software stack it has will be.

The issue isn't that people overestimate BD ipc, it's that you vastly overestimate what ARM will get. As I said earlier, the next ARM will probably reach or exceed x86 ipc on pure scalar numbercrunching. It's just that that isn't a realistic load for a desktop/laptop pc. For tasks that the desktop user cares about, like spell-checking and grammar checking text while layouting it, what matters is rapidly traversing complex and large data structures. And ARM really really falls behind there. Even if they did awesome evolutionary improvements over their last generation, they are not going to get to half of BD ipc when running at 2.5GHz.

And I'm not an ARM hater. I actually like the arch quite a bit, and the future ARMv8 will probably be the cleanest and best mass-produced isa ever. It's just that I have programmed on a lot of arm systems, and I have programmed on a lot of x86 systems, and I think your expectations are really unreasonable.
tunafish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-Mar-2012, 20:37   #41
french toast
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Leicestershire - England
Posts: 1,634
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tunafish View Post
I would actually contest that. I think it's more that x86 has been (much) more heavily optimized for that kinds of loads. Either way, it's irrelevant -- what's relevant is that x86 + the software stack that will be available to it will be much faster at desktop type loads than ARM + the software stack it has will be.

The issue isn't that people overestimate BD ipc, it's that you vastly overestimate what ARM will get. As I said earlier, the next ARM will probably reach or exceed x86 ipc on pure scalar numbercrunching. It's just that that isn't a realistic load for a desktop/laptop pc. For tasks that the desktop user cares about, like spell-checking and grammar checking text while layouting it, what matters is rapidly traversing complex and large data structures. And ARM really really falls behind there. Even if they did awesome evolutionary improvements over their last generation, they are not going to get to half of BD ipc when running at 2.5GHz.

And I'm not an ARM hater. I actually like the arch quite a bit, and the future ARMv8 will probably be the cleanest and best mass-produced isa ever. It's just that I have programmed on a lot of arm systems, and I have programmed on a lot of x86 systems, and I think your expectations are really unreasonable.
You obviously have a great deal of experience working with both architectures and i respect that, perhaps the memory subsystems will work heavily in x86 favour..but i still standby that you could make at least a comparative A15 ultrabook to a BD one.

As i have stated, i don't expect A15 to get within 30% of BD, BUT that wont matter a jot for W8 METRO performance..in that form factor, what will matter is things like thermal budgets, power budgets, which could go towards increasing the graphics side..(ironically AMD spin v Intel) decreasing the battery size=weight...or just simply MORE batterylife full stop.

This isn't a comparison that could have been done with A9's (too weak) or IVYBRIDGE (too powerfull) but BD is low enough down the pecking order to take a stab at.and A15's will be in that ball park (ish).IMHO.

Ok lets look at the other side of the equation, power, how much do you think realistically will both use at full load...and another comparison at light load?
french toast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-Mar-2012, 21:42   #42
Tahir2
Itchy
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: United Queendom
Posts: 2,873
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by french toast View Post

EDIT 1; To clear up some confusion, this is about the CPU's them selfs, assuming both ultrabooks use W8 METRO.
Just talking about the CPU...

If you benchmarked for example AES encryption in hardware the Triniy CPU would be expected to blow circles around the A15.

Have to admit though the A15 looks hugely impressive and a massive step forward. Can't wait to see some comparisons between it and AMD/Intel solutions on tablets.
__________________
"Unless I am very mistakenů and yes, I am very much mistaken." - The Legend M Walker
Tahir2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-Mar-2012, 09:43   #43
french toast
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Leicestershire - England
Posts: 1,634
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tahir2 View Post
Just talking about the CPU...

If you benchmarked for example AES encryption in hardware the Triniy CPU would be expected to blow circles around the A15.

Have to admit though the A15 looks hugely impressive and a massive step forward. Can't wait to see some comparisons between it and AMD/Intel solutions on tablets.
Well the question is in relation to the form factor taking batterylife into consideration...

Well we will be able to benchmark them in w8 wont we?
french toast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-Mar-2012, 09:59   #44
hoho
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Estonia
Posts: 1,218
Send a message via MSN to hoho Send a message via Skype™ to hoho
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tahir2 View Post
If you benchmarked for example AES encryption in hardware the Triniy CPU would be expected to blow circles around the A15.
http://www.anomalousanomaly.com/docs...%20Results.pdf
Clock-per-clock ARM9 seems to be nearly as fast as core2 with SHA. I know I've seen benchmarks where some ARM had HW instructions for encrypthion and it blew away pertty much anything else. Though yes, later x86 CPUs also have HW instructions for it.
hoho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-Mar-2012, 12:07   #45
Gubbi
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,862
Default

Anecdotal evidence:

I have a small single threaded flash apps that manages 8fps on my Tegra 2 based phone (Cortex A9 @ 1 GHZ). The same app manages 54-56 fps on a 2.56 GHz Core 2 Duo and 75-80 fps on my 2.66 GHz i7 920. All with flash player 11.1

There is significant uncertainty related to the software stack. As an example, the Core 2 Duo only manages 38 fps under Ubuntu 11.

Adobe has made significant strides in flash performance, with flash player 9 I had 2-3 fps on the Tegra 2, 20-25 fps on the C2D and 40-45 fps on the i7 (both Windows 7). ARM performance had the largest relative jump in performance going from version 9 to 11.

Two things can be inferred from this: 1) x86 processors are very good at running unoptimized/suboptimal code, and/or 2) PC performance gets the most attention early on.

Anyway, bottom line is that Intel x86 CPUs performs 2.5 to 3.5 faster per clock compared to Cortex A9. Even if Cortex A15 improves ipc by 40-50% they will be lagging.

Cheers
__________________
I'm pink, therefore I'm spam
Gubbi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-Mar-2012, 12:36   #46
fellix
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Varna, Bulgaria
Posts: 3,029
Send a message via Skype™ to fellix
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gubbi View Post
Anyway, bottom line is that Intel x86 CPUs performs 2.5 to 3.5 faster per clock compared to Cortex A9. Even if Cortex A15 improves ipc by 40-50% they will be lagging.

Cheers
Don't forget the "good enough" factor!

But once ARM dedicates an architecture, not meant to run on tiny batteries, things could change.
__________________
Apple: China -- Brutal leadership done right.
Google: United States -- Somewhat democratic.
Microsoft: Russia -- Big and bloated.
Linux: EU -- Diverse and broke.
fellix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-Mar-2012, 12:46   #47
french toast
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Leicestershire - England
Posts: 1,634
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gubbi View Post
Anecdotal evidence:

I have a small single threaded flash apps that manages 8fps on my Tegra 2 based phone (Cortex A9 @ 1 GHZ). The same app manages 54-56 fps on a 2.56 GHz Core 2 Duo and 75-80 fps on my 2.66 GHz i7 920. All with flash player 11.1

There is significant uncertainty related to the software stack. As an example, the Core 2 Duo only manages 38 fps under Ubuntu 11.

Adobe has made significant strides in flash performance, with flash player 9 I had 2-3 fps on the Tegra 2, 20-25 fps on the C2D and 40-45 fps on the i7 (both Windows 7). ARM performance had the largest relative jump in performance going from version 9 to 11.

Two things can be inferred from this: 1) x86 processors are very good at running unoptimized/suboptimal code, and/or 2) PC performance gets the most attention early on.

Anyway, bottom line is that Intel x86 CPUs performs 2.5 to 3.5 faster per clock compared to Cortex A9. Even if Cortex A15 improves ipc by 40-50% they will be lagging.

Cheers
Im sorry although i don't doubt for a minute that some x86 will be VASTLY more powerfull than ARM..the core 2 duo comparison doesn't hold up in my opinion....Tegra 2 has no MPE and terrible bandwidth... and is generally considered to be the worst A9 implementation out there...
A15 also has a vastly superior memory subsystem to A9..(ARM weakness) and don't forget flash is gpu accelerated anyhow.

Also comparison uses the same memory, AND cache...which no doubt alongside floating point units and software optimisations helps tremendously over raw perf/ghz comparisons.

I have a Atom netbook..and it is simply abysmal at running ANYTHING...also i have a old Athlon xp @2.0ghz which is only marginally better..and struggles with anything 'HD'...integer wise BD will not be a trillion miles of Athlon XP.

If this is any indication of real world performance improvements over A9..then it could get interesting;
Omap 5 series Duel core A15 @800mhz v Tegra 3 quad @ 1.3 ghz
http://www.slashgear.com/ti-omap-5-b...ra-3-23215003/

The lower clocked A15's destroy the A9's....so i don't think using Tegra 2 is going to be a fair comparison...especially since the processors you compare them with a high TDP desktop parts.

Last edited by french toast; 30-Mar-2012 at 12:56.
french toast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-Mar-2012, 13:47   #48
Gubbi
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,862
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by french toast View Post
Im sorry although i don't doubt for a minute that some x86 will be VASTLY more powerfull than ARM..the core 2 duo comparison doesn't hold up in my opinion....Tegra 2 has no MPE and terrible bandwidth... and is generally considered to be the worst A9 implementation out there...
A15 also has a vastly superior memory subsystem to A9..(ARM weakness) and don't forget flash is gpu accelerated anyhow.
The particular flash app is simply action scripting crunching numbers, with no support for SIMD (unless Adobe's runtime does something clever), there is *zero* aid from the GPU.

And I don't buy the bandwidth thing. While my Core i7 has ten times more bandwidth than the Tegra 2, I can run 5 instances of the flash app on my PC and get a compound 300 fps, 35 times that of the Tegra 2. If performance scaled with bandwidth it would be less than half that.

And yes, Atom sucks.

Cheers
__________________
I'm pink, therefore I'm spam
Gubbi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-Mar-2012, 14:09   #49
french toast
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Leicestershire - England
Posts: 1,634
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gubbi View Post

And yes, Atom sucks.

Cheers
We agree on something then!

Still you can't get over the cache, bandwidth, and higher optimised TDP...i very much doubt perf/watt is going to be 35 times ARM somehow

And besides im not sure all those factors would scale linealy..never mind the software...lets wait till w8 metro tablets/ultrabooks...it either going to put ARM in the game and get Intel worried (as node shrinkage is getting vastly more expensive/ with diminishing returns as you go down) OR prove to everyone just how much powerfull x86 really is compared to ARM!

Im going with ARM in the short run...and Intel to win overall (sorry AMD)
french toast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-Mar-2012, 14:31   #50
Gubbi
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,862
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by french toast View Post
We agree on something then!

Still you can't get over the cache, bandwidth, and higher optimised TDP...i very much doubt perf/watt is going to be 35 times ARM somehow
Single thread performance doesn't scale linearly with power. You can't compare perf/watt between the fastest processor in the world and something designed for sub watt power envelope.

The context of this thread is Cortex A15 vs Bulldozer. A15 will be nowhere near the performance of Bulldozer at same frequency, but it will use a lot less power.

Quote:
Originally Posted by french toast View Post
And besides im not sure all those factors would scale linealy..never mind the software...lets wait till w8 metro tablets/ultrabooks...it either going to put ARM in the game and get Intel worried (as node shrinkage is getting vastly more expensive/ with diminishing returns as you go down) OR prove to everyone just how much powerfull x86 really is compared to ARM!

Im going with ARM in the short run...and Intel to win overall (sorry AMD)
Funny, I kind of like the idea of a Bobcat W8 tablet.

Cheers
__________________
I'm pink, therefore I'm spam
Gubbi is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:57.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.