Captain_Tom said:
Intel has already proven with Medfield that x86 can scale down to the same power requirements as ARM, with better performance thanks to intels fabrication prowess.
And with binary translation... Can also run ARM based apps too.
However outside of a few select tablets/phones like the Samsung Galaxy Tab 3 10.1, Intel has had little success.
As for 64bit specifically, it's not really needed, sure Phones are not far away from pushing past the 4Gb of Ram barrier, but 32bit can extend pass that limit, the extra transisters spent on 64bit could have been spent on better cores.
Where the real advantage of having 64bit ARM cores is mostly in the server space, which is a *massive* and lucrative market, one that Intel will try to continue to control by throwing it's latest Atom cores at.
I can't wait for AMD to finally ditch the slow and power hungry FX based processors, Intel's quad-cores are faster than AMD's Octo-cores.
|
Define "Quad-core." Now that games and apps are utilizing 8 cores fully this really isn't true. The FX-6300 is just a hair below the weaker i5's, and the FX-8350 is in between an i5 and i7. Yeah, the i7 beats the FX-83xx, but it does so by using hyper threading so I wouldn't necessarily call it just a "Quad-core."
This come from someone who has owned/used an i5, i7, and 8320.
|
It is true, even in heavily multi-threaded tasks, Intel's quad-core processors, literally continue to wipe the floor with AMD's octo-cores.
I can limit applications to 4 threads on my Core i7 3930K and even in instances such as encoding which is VERY CPU heavy and can make use of as many threads as you can throw at it... It still wipes the floor with my Phenom 2 x6, old AMD FX 8120, AMD FX 8320 with all cores utilised on the AMD processors.
The irony of it is, Haswell would be faster than my Sandy Bridge-E in cases where up-to 4 threads are being used, by probably 20% or more.
The other take away is, lightly threaded applications (They exist and continue to be released) will always be favored massively on a Core iX than an AMD processor.
http://anandtech.com/bench/product/698?vs=287
Captain_Tom said:
bonzobanana said:
If AMD were to leave the x86 marketplace it would be a disaster for consumers with Intel gradually increasing their margins. Their R&D budget would shrink and they could dictate the rate of improvement without the pressure of a major competitor capable of stealing the market from them.
At the bottom end of the market AMD to some excellent APU's that combine good processing power and a reasonable gaming gpu that makes entry level gaming computers possible. Consumers have a lot to be thankful for to AMD.
|
I wish IBM would just jump in and stomp Intel. They currently have an 8-core cpu and through hyperthreading each core can read 12 lines of code each for a total of 96 threads! Oh and it runs above 4 GHz...
|
Intel's cores are easily better than IBM's, remember, clockspeed became irrellevant years ago for comparing CPU performance.
If IBM truly did have a powerhouse of a CPU, then they would be controlling a much much much larger share of the lucrative server pie, which values absolute performance over power in many scenario's.
Also, Intel has 8 and 16 core Xeon's.
