5 ms·
I guess Apple is plucking low hanging fruits, but speedup from Apple A6 to Apple A7 (spaced almost exactly a year) is about 50% in average, which corresponds to
by sanxiyn 13y ago
I guess Apple is plucking low hanging fruits, but speedup from Apple A6 to Apple A7 (spaced almost exactly a year) is about 50% in average, which corresponds to more than 2 years of speedup in recent Intel cores. I also note that this speedup was achieved without increasing clock, which is not the case for Intel.
- CJefferson 13y agoIt is easy to get closer to your competitors when you start so far behind them.
- gatehouse 13y agoIntel released a P4 @ 3.73GHz in 2004, and the i7-4771 is "only" 3.9GHz in single core mode (i.e. turbo), so that's only a slight increase in clock in the last decade. Sooner or later mobile processors are going to hit the power wall. I haven't looked into this lately but one thing that could provide a fixed and permanent benefit to mobile processors is the more modern instruction set.
- raverbashing 13y agoExcept the P4 was a very inefficient architecture which relied on clock speeds (and the power of Marketing) rather than actual computing power Especially the first P4s, those were awful. A Tualatin P3 @ 1.2/1.3GHz would be much faster than a P4 @ 1.4 or even 1.6
- sanxiyn 13y agoWell, P4's clock was achieved with 31-stage pipeline, which was a bad idea. If you compare with what came after P4, there was more than slight increase in clock.
- zokier 13y agoWillamette and Northwood (ie the original P4s) cores had 20 stage pipeline, compared to Nehalem with 24 stages and Sandy, Ivy and Haswell having 19 stages. And those Northwood cores reached 3.4GHz, compared to 3.8GHz of the infamous Prescott with it's 31 stages. That is fairly meager clockspeed increase, and based on that I'd argue that the extreme pipeline depth was not the major contributing factor in pushing the clockspeed of P4 higher.