5 ms·

It might make more sense to compare to a current-gen laptop, not a Desktop machine from five years ago: http://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/compare/3036382?base

It might make more sense to compare to a current-gen laptop, not a Desktop machine from five years ago: http://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/compare/3036382?baseline=3041332 http://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/compare/3036382?baseline... (archive: http://archive.is/EVcuE http://archive.is/EVcuE)

asendra 9y ago
I think this is a better comparison, as both have same TDP and fanless. (That Intel is a Kaby Lake Y Core i5 1.2Ghz/3.2Ghz Boost cpu) Edit for perspective: Thats the same cpu in the just upgraded MacBooks. http://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/compare/3036382?baseline=2922710 http://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/compare/3036382?baseline...
- m_mueller 9y ago
  That's... incredible.
- zrm 9y ago
  Both of those are comparing a 3-core iPad with a 2-core Intel CPU. And parity at the same TDP is unsurprising. The trouble is that the i5-7Y57 is quite slow by desktop standards and there is currently no ARM equivalent to 4+ core 45+ watt Intel processors at any TDP.
  - asendra 9y ago
    Unsurprising? So it is an easy thing to do to at least equal Intel with their vast experience after only a few years, when no one else is able to do it? By the way if you have a problem with the number of cores just compare the single core score. I don't see a problem though, it they can cram one more core in same tdp then it's fair. The jury is still out wether Apple could compete with Intel at those higher TDPs (15w-28w-45w)
    - zrm 9y ago
      > By the way if you have a problem with the number of cores just compare the single core score. Then the Intel processor comes out ahead despite the iPad having a higher clock speed. > I don't see a problem though, it they can cram one more core in same tdp then it's fair. The quad core i5-7442EQ will destroy the dual core i5-7267U at anything threaded even though it has a lower TDP. Having more cores is an asymmetric advantage in threaded benchmarks.
      - asendra 9y ago
        Ignore the stated frequency in the geekbench page as its almost always wrong. That intel cpu is pegged at 3.2Ghz for the duration of the bench vs (supposedly) 2.36Ghz on the iPad.
    - spronkey 9y ago
      Well, Intel kinda paved the way for most of the performance improvement ideas in these CPUs already. The fruit is hanging further and further up the tree. It's unlikely that the A series would be able to compete with the Intel CPUs at significantly higher TDPs from the get go - especially when you start considering interconnections between cores etc. They might be able to get close to lower TDP desktop i5s, but then just look at the difficulty Ryzen is having at doing just that...
    - Lagged2Death 9y ago
      So it is an easy thing to do to at least equal Intel with their vast experience after only a few years... ARM will be 27 years old this year.
      - mastax 9y ago
        They're talking specifically about Apple's SoCs which have only been produced for a few years (2011?).
        eropple 9y ago
        Sure. Which are based on twenty years of bootstrapping, at minimum, and the forward, technical trailblazing of Intel et al. Catching up is easier than pushing the envelope. It's impressive, but it's not earth-shattering.
cptskippy 9y ago
Performance is no longer the driving force compelling a lot of people to upgrade their machines. Smaller form-factors, longer battery life, wireless connectivity, portability, and weight are the primary motivators for a lot of people. Just look at the Macbook Air, when it came out I knew dozens of people who dumped their 17inch Macbook Pros for it because it was good enough for their needs from a performance perspective and kicked the shit out of the MBP in every other measure.
- jorvi 9y ago
  I... what? The first Air was underpowered, throttled quickly, didn't even have a backlit keyboard, had a worse screen and was much more expensive than the base MBP. It slightly outmatched the MBP physically and in battery life, but it did not 'kick the shit out of the MBP by every other measure'.
  - FussyZeus 9y ago
    If you're using the metrics that person has outlined (battery life, portability, small form factor, etc.) then the Air would destroy the 17" MBP. Those things are tanks. Not saying I agree, I'll take power over some tiny thing any day. Just pointing out you're reply is targeting all of the wrong things.
  - Synaesthesia 9y ago
    He probably means the 2010 or 2011 airs, which is when they "got good"
- douche 9y ago
  A modern 17" Macbook Pro might be the one thing that would convince me to go over to the dark side. My girlfriend has a 5-6 year old one, and the build quality can't be beat - unfortunately it's reaching the point where it is barely usable, because it doesn't have the performance specs to keep up nowadays. I don't like these tiny little laptops everybody is building these days. I want a full keyboard and enough screen real-estate to actually do something without needing reading glasses.

asendra 9y ago

I think this is a better comparison, as both have same TDP and fanless. (That Intel is a Kaby Lake Y Core i5 1.2Ghz/3.2Ghz Boost cpu) Edit for perspective: Thats the same cpu in the just upgraded MacBooks. http://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/compare/3036382?baseline=2922710 http://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/compare/3036382?baseline...

m_mueller 9y ago
That's... incredible.
zrm 9y ago
Both of those are comparing a 3-core iPad with a 2-core Intel CPU. And parity at the same TDP is unsurprising. The trouble is that the i5-7Y57 is quite slow by desktop standards and there is currently no ARM equivalent to 4+ core 45+ watt Intel processors at any TDP.
- asendra 9y ago
  Unsurprising? So it is an easy thing to do to at least equal Intel with their vast experience after only a few years, when no one else is able to do it? By the way if you have a problem with the number of cores just compare the single core score. I don't see a problem though, it they can cram one more core in same tdp then it's fair. The jury is still out wether Apple could compete with Intel at those higher TDPs (15w-28w-45w)
  - zrm 9y ago
    > By the way if you have a problem with the number of cores just compare the single core score. Then the Intel processor comes out ahead despite the iPad having a higher clock speed. > I don't see a problem though, it they can cram one more core in same tdp then it's fair. The quad core i5-7442EQ will destroy the dual core i5-7267U at anything threaded even though it has a lower TDP. Having more cores is an asymmetric advantage in threaded benchmarks.
    - asendra 9y ago
      Ignore the stated frequency in the geekbench page as its almost always wrong. That intel cpu is pegged at 3.2Ghz for the duration of the bench vs (supposedly) 2.36Ghz on the iPad.
  - spronkey 9y ago
    Well, Intel kinda paved the way for most of the performance improvement ideas in these CPUs already. The fruit is hanging further and further up the tree. It's unlikely that the A series would be able to compete with the Intel CPUs at significantly higher TDPs from the get go - especially when you start considering interconnections between cores etc. They might be able to get close to lower TDP desktop i5s, but then just look at the difficulty Ryzen is having at doing just that...
  - Lagged2Death 9y ago
    So it is an easy thing to do to at least equal Intel with their vast experience after only a few years... ARM will be 27 years old this year.
    - mastax 9y ago
      They're talking specifically about Apple's SoCs which have only been produced for a few years (2011?).
      - eropple 9y ago
        Sure. Which are based on twenty years of bootstrapping, at minimum, and the forward, technical trailblazing of Intel et al. Catching up is easier than pushing the envelope. It's impressive, but it's not earth-shattering.

cptskippy 9y ago

Performance is no longer the driving force compelling a lot of people to upgrade their machines. Smaller form-factors, longer battery life, wireless connectivity, portability, and weight are the primary motivators for a lot of people. Just look at the Macbook Air, when it came out I knew dozens of people who dumped their 17inch Macbook Pros for it because it was good enough for their needs from a performance perspective and kicked the shit out of the MBP in every other measure.

jorvi 9y ago
I... what? The first Air was underpowered, throttled quickly, didn't even have a backlit keyboard, had a worse screen and was much more expensive than the base MBP. It slightly outmatched the MBP physically and in battery life, but it did not 'kick the shit out of the MBP by every other measure'.
- FussyZeus 9y ago
  If you're using the metrics that person has outlined (battery life, portability, small form factor, etc.) then the Air would destroy the 17" MBP. Those things are tanks. Not saying I agree, I'll take power over some tiny thing any day. Just pointing out you're reply is targeting all of the wrong things.
- Synaesthesia 9y ago
  He probably means the 2010 or 2011 airs, which is when they "got good"
douche 9y ago
A modern 17" Macbook Pro might be the one thing that would convince me to go over to the dark side. My girlfriend has a 5-6 year old one, and the build quality can't be beat - unfortunately it's reaching the point where it is barely usable, because it doesn't have the performance specs to keep up nowadays. I don't like these tiny little laptops everybody is building these days. I want a full keyboard and enough screen real-estate to actually do something without needing reading glasses.