ComplexEntity
Junior Member
- Oct 18, 2013
- 14
- 0
- 0
The link that you give me is old and explains why the A7 SoC fell short, I don't see how it helps in proving my remark right or wrong.
A7 and A8x is the same architecture, A8x has a tiny IPC advantage as well as higher clock rate. That's enough to represent the 20% difference seen between the two.
But where's the extra-core? Do you need to tell me that a whole extra core makes absolutely no difference in performance while all the heavily multi-threaded tests show the exact opposite?
It's easy to pick and choose benchmarks to show a point. Typically the ones that do not account for as central things as extra cores are the ones of the worse to do just that (because they're easy not to be taken seriously).
Like I said any benchmark that shows less than 40% difference between CPUs of the same architecture yet different core count is suspect at best; in most cases it means that it's not a multi-threaded test.
As Futuremark pointed out, the limitation on A7 was due to its memory structure and OoO execution (under section How fast is the A7 chip? It depends.). Since A7/A8/A9 are from the the same uArch design, Apple may improved the shortfall on their design, but more or less the limitation will still be there. The same can also be said on Intel chips as well.
You are free to investigate the Bullet Engine. It is an open-sourced project and wildly been used in commercial applications. Just because one's distaste on certain test results (be it Physics, or GeekBench, etc) do not invalidate results or even dispute the credibility of the tests until proven something is at fault. As I stand my point, Intel chips are just more general-purposed than Ax series.
Last edited: