3 ms·

This chart suggests there's no competition at the moment: http://cpubenchmark.net/power_performance.html http://cpubenchmark.net/power_performance.html I'm alw

by rikkus 12y ago

This chart suggests there's no competition at the moment: http://cpubenchmark.net/power_performance.html http://cpubenchmark.net/power_performance.html I'm always wary of the charts on cpubenchmark, however. To a desktop/laptop user, single core performance is usually much more important than total performance, as they're not using all the cores. Even for my use case, software development, compiling uses multiple cores but doesn't take any significant time these days anyway (C# in VS, JIT for .NET and JavaScript), so I tend to check: http://cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html http://cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html AMD A4 Micro-6400T APU: 607 Intel Core M-5Y10c @ 0.80GHz: 1,115 Almost twice the (benchmark) speed for the Core M. I'd like some real world usage reviews, but it's still looking like Intel is the best choice if you can afford it.

masklinn 12y ago
> This chart suggests there's no competition at the moment: http://cpubenchmark.net/power_performance.html http://cpubenchmark.net/power_performance.html There isn't, AMD doesn't have anything which comes even remotely close to a 3~6W TDP, which is the Core M target. Furthermore they don't have the fab technology so a 3~6W AMD part would necessarily be even slower and thermally constrained than the Core M.
higherpurpose 12y ago
It's easy for Intel to "win benchmarks". Those benchmarks last for a few minutes, which is perfect for Turbo. Do a benchmark that lasts for an hour or even 30 minutes, and then you'll see the limitations of Intel's chips with Turbo. And it's not about affordability in the case of Core-M. It's about poor performance/price ratio. You get very little for a lot of money, all to get that 5W TDP, which is also misleading because those chips needs to be put into devices that support more like 10W TDP, not 5. That's why most Core-M devices overheat. Intel overpromised on the TDP, and now OEMs get the blame for it.

by rikkus 12y ago

masklinn 12y ago

> This chart suggests there's no competition at the moment: http://cpubenchmark.net/power_performance.html http://cpubenchmark.net/power_performance.html There isn't, AMD doesn't have anything which comes even remotely close to a 3~6W TDP, which is the Core M target. Furthermore they don't have the fab technology so a 3~6W AMD part would necessarily be even slower and thermally constrained than the Core M.

higherpurpose 12y ago

It's easy for Intel to "win benchmarks". Those benchmarks last for a few minutes, which is perfect for Turbo. Do a benchmark that lasts for an hour or even 30 minutes, and then you'll see the limitations of Intel's chips with Turbo. And it's not about affordability in the case of Core-M. It's about poor performance/price ratio. You get very little for a lot of money, all to get that 5W TDP, which is also misleading because those chips needs to be put into devices that support more like 10W TDP, not 5. That's why most Core-M devices overheat. Intel overpromised on the TDP, and now OEMs get the blame for it.