3 ms·

On (2), what does "similar specs" mean to you? I can think of several interpretations like performance/watt or performance/dollar. It is not my understanding t

On (2), what does "similar specs" mean to you? I can think of several interpretations like performance/watt or performance/dollar. It is not my understanding that Intel hardware generally beats ARM in these categories. I suppose that Intel would win in a competition of "maximum single-thread perf regardless of power or cost". But that does not sounds like something that is intended by "simlar specs". On (1), I would point out that saving power is beneficial to everyone and will likely only become more important in the future. (3) is a bummer but is something that we can possibly solve with technologies like the Linux Device Tree. Certainly, it is not impossible to build an open platform on ARM if the manufacturer cooperates. To what extent they will do so, remains to be seen I think.

hansvm 6y ago
> On (2), what does "similar specs" mean to you? I can think of several interpretations like performance/watt or performance/dollar. It is not my understanding that Intel hardware generally beats ARM in these categories. Not the person you replied to, but this could have a couple interpretations where Intel wins. Here's one option: If you take two CPUs with similar core counts, clock speed, and transister counts then which one will have higher throughput, lower latency, ... for typical operations? This is open to interpretation of course (e.g. if you didn't need floating point throughput then AMD bulldozer architectures were competitive when released), but it's not unreasonable to evaluate CPUs based on your personal workloads.
R0b0t1 6y ago
Just for a relatable example on most ARM processors that would compare to a low-end x86_64 machine, I notice python programs running far slower with similar memory and core count. It might be memory issues, x86 machines have very wide memory busses. But I am still left a little confused, and practically it still has impact.
varbhat 6y ago
2) I can see x64 hardware on bit costlier machines. And,i can see arm64 on cheaper machines. On general computing devices, as price increases ,you get to see less arm64 hardwares. I had low cost laptop with AMD processor. It compiled faster and handled load better than Rasp. Pi. of comparable hardware(similar specs not exact specs). Rasp. Pi was ofc cheaper than AMD laptop.(about 0.4x of AMD laptop). I don't think AMD laptop consumed lot of power than arm64 Rasp. Pi. arm64 being lower in cost consuming lower energy ,you can feel that arm64 is better than x64 in perf/dollar or perf/watt but reality is that there is no comparable hardware of both architecture in respective product range and difference is not that apparent when it comes to arm64. Also my AMD laptop compiled,cross compiled,handled large load much better than arm64 hardware of comparable specs. 1) Yes, power saving is desirable feature. I can't see arm64 workstations around. So,if you need performant hardwares,i think that x64/ppc64 becomes inevitable. 3) Definitely a bummer , still unresolved. Let's see how it goes. x64 has benefit in this point.

hansvm 6y ago

> On (2), what does "similar specs" mean to you? I can think of several interpretations like performance/watt or performance/dollar. It is not my understanding that Intel hardware generally beats ARM in these categories. Not the person you replied to, but this could have a couple interpretations where Intel wins. Here's one option: If you take two CPUs with similar core counts, clock speed, and transister counts then which one will have higher throughput, lower latency, ... for typical operations? This is open to interpretation of course (e.g. if you didn't need floating point throughput then AMD bulldozer architectures were competitive when released), but it's not unreasonable to evaluate CPUs based on your personal workloads.

R0b0t1 6y ago

Just for a relatable example on most ARM processors that would compare to a low-end x86_64 machine, I notice python programs running far slower with similar memory and core count. It might be memory issues, x86 machines have very wide memory busses. But I am still left a little confused, and practically it still has impact.

varbhat 6y ago

2) I can see x64 hardware on bit costlier machines. And,i can see arm64 on cheaper machines. On general computing devices, as price increases ,you get to see less arm64 hardwares. I had low cost laptop with AMD processor. It compiled faster and handled load better than Rasp. Pi. of comparable hardware(similar specs not exact specs). Rasp. Pi was ofc cheaper than AMD laptop.(about 0.4x of AMD laptop). I don't think AMD laptop consumed lot of power than arm64 Rasp. Pi. arm64 being lower in cost consuming lower energy ,you can feel that arm64 is better than x64 in perf/dollar or perf/watt but reality is that there is no comparable hardware of both architecture in respective product range and difference is not that apparent when it comes to arm64. Also my AMD laptop compiled,cross compiled,handled large load much better than arm64 hardware of comparable specs. 1) Yes, power saving is desirable feature. I can't see arm64 workstations around. So,if you need performant hardwares,i think that x64/ppc64 becomes inevitable. 3) Definitely a bummer , still unresolved. Let's see how it goes. x64 has benefit in this point.