4 ms·
Does anybody else here feel puzzled by statements like "Up to 40% better performance"? I read it as: The performance for some tasks is 40% better, but for othe
by TekMol 3y ago
Does anybody else here feel puzzled by statements like "Up to 40% better performance"?
I read it as: The performance for some tasks is 40% better, but for other tasks might be 90% worse.
So is that a good thing or a bad thing? Why didn't the author give me the average performance instead?
- MikusR 3y agoOther articles don't use the 40% better performance line
- eviks 3y agoBecause there is no average workflow to get to a single meaningful number And the -90% is very unexpected from the context, so that's a possible, but not a proper reading
- cubefox 3y agoThe "up to" number is mostly a marketing term. It allows for cherry picking: Choose the most impressive gains at some obscure task. It doesn't say anything about the average performance increase. Only a well-known benchmark is interesting.
- dagmx 3y agoMore than cherry picking, it leaves room for liability. You don’t want to say 40% faster and have the tech crowds harping on you because a single benchmark performs at 25% faster. Especially when it comes to silicon lottery, thermal designs etc causing variances “Up to” is a get out of jail free card on liability and pretty much every product will use that unless they’re specifically talking about a singular case.
- hackandthink 3y agoInstructions per clock is more telling. 15% more IPC looks very impressive. "Arm is claiming that, based on its pre-silicon simulation numbers, the Cortex-X4 will deliver a 15% IPC uplift at iso-frequency and iso-bandwidth versus the Cortex-X3 used in last year's flagship Android SoCs" (link above) https://www.anandtech.com/print/18871/arm-unveils-armv92-mobile-architecture-cortex-x4-a720-and-a520-64bit-exclusive https://www.anandtech.com/print/18871/arm-unveils-armv92-mob...