4 ms·
Do you have any numbers re "little to no sense in practice"? What I've heard suggests that the tradeoffs behind high performance ARM lead to significantly wors
by CHY872 12y ago
Do you have any numbers re "little to no sense in practice"?
What I've heard suggests that the tradeoffs behind high performance ARM lead to significantly worse power efficiency to the benefit of peak performance; which means that a core like the A53 ends being a very attractive proposition for power saving.
Certainly I don't know why ARM would recommend their big.LITTLE architecture (or at least why people would use it) unless it did.
Furthermore, Amdahl's law means that even in theory it should be advantageous for performance to include a few extra low power cores to boost peak performance (above adding a larger high power core).
- DannyBee 12y ago"Certainly I don't know why ARM would recommend their big.LITTLE architecture (or at least why people would use it) unless it did. " Because they want to compete with others who keep upping the core numbers. "Furthermore, Amdahl's law means that even in theory it should be advantageous for performance to include a few extra low power cores to boost peak performance (above adding a larger high power core)." Again, in practice, exactly zero of the chips that have done this and been put in phones (nvidia's, etc) have actually saved power by doing so. Or did things get miraculously better when nobody was looking?