3 ms·
My point was that if they had this abysmal advantage now, it means they would see it coming several years prior and would work on OS and anything else it needed
by aquadrop 8y ago
My point was that if they had this abysmal advantage now, it means they would see it coming several years prior and would work on OS and anything else it needed.
But it's not the point, main point is that I think statement that current A12 is close (to whatever reasonable %) to top desktop chips is simply not true. I didn't see any concrete evidence of it, and everyone just seem to like this idea, that's why it was talked much lately. I'm all for great advantages and all that, but I still must use common sense, 3-4W vs 150+ W - that's too much.
- pertymcpert 8y agoPeople aren't comparing 3W mobile chips to 150W desktop CPUs. They're comparing like for like in terms of perf/watt. Skylake isn't a particular SKU, it's a micoarchitecture generation, from which Intel can scale the design from low power 10W parts to power hungry server chips.
- aquadrop 8y agoArticle reference specific CPU - Xeon 8176. It has 165W TDP.
- wintercharm 8y agoSpecInt/FP is comparing Single core IPC between one A12 BIG core, and one Skylake server CPU core. Per-core power consumption on that Intel chip is 165W/28cores = 5.89W Apple is pushing similar IPC at 3W instead of 5.89W. In that context, it's not so unbelievable, and it's still really fucking impressive.
- aquadrop 8y agoYeah, I know, I wrote about it in my original comment, you didn't have to tell me that twice :) And that's my point, Apple already has very impressive thing going on, no need to smudge it with sensationalists statements.