ChronoReverse
Platinum Member
- Mar 4, 2004
- 2,562
- 31
- 91
Not that I particularly like Geekbench, but in a world of imperfect benchmarks, why aren't there any of those in the review? It would at least be more useful than javascript benchmarks.
If only I could get my hands on that chip outside of an iOS environment. It looks very interesting.
I really do wonder if Apple will take that step and use this chip in an "ultrabook" or something like it (or any of their future chips in the near-ish future)...they certainly seem to approach acceptable performance levels
However unlike some posters here, I sincerely doubt that this design could clock much higher- leaving slack in the design for higher clocks means worse efficiency at lower clocks. (Intel demonstrated this years ago with their excellent Pentium M line.)
Haha yes. If I could have android on a iPhone 6s I would do it in a heartbeat.
Check this post:Not sure how relevant that link is...but 3dmark physics shows linear increases with thread counts in all platforms except for Apple (because of hard coding of thread counts).
I agree but it also shows that apple chose the right way with lower freq design from a business perspective. Cheaper process - dual sourcing. Far better perf/w. And as said. It targets the market where there is still growth.While there's certainly some margin in timing paths to account for yield variation, anyone who thinks that it could be overclocked a meaningful amount if it were possible is indeed delusional. Even increasing voltage dramatically wouldn't necessarily help much given the characteristics of the process. And even if you assume that it could increase frequency by 20% versus the ~10% average on Skylake that'd still only put it at around 2.2 GHz. And how much power would it be using at that point?
Here's an interesting question - how much larger would Apple's CPU cores be if they were designed to operate at frequencies comparable to Skylake? 2x? 3x? It's not at all trivial.
Check this post:
http://www.futuremark.com/pressrele...results-from-the-apple-iphone-5s-and-ipad-air
The performance problem on iOS has nothing to do with threads.
The other link I posted clearly shows that Bullet physics is not multi-threaded. There's an experimental build that runs on windows only, but the main branch is definately not.Yes, that is why one reason why it is slow.. but 3dmark never bothered to update their application when the Air 2 came out.
The air 2 has 3 cores and the 3rd core was not getting used. That just shows how bad their support for iOS is.
So something that likes caches isn't CPU bound? Caches don't belong to CPU? Anyway I agree SPEC 2k is too old (cf a previous post I made on this very thread).Spec2000 likes great caches.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.27.5974&rep=rep1&type=pdf
So something that likes caches isn't CPU bound? Caches don't belong to CPU? Anyway I agree SPEC 2k is too old (cf a previous post I made on this very thread).
The other link I posted clearly shows that Bullet physics is not multi-threaded. There's an experimental build that runs on windows only, but the main branch is definately not.
While there's certainly some margin in timing paths to account for yield variation, anyone who thinks that it could be overclocked a meaningful amount if it were possible is indeed delusional. Even increasing voltage dramatically wouldn't necessarily help much given the characteristics of the process. And even if you assume that it could increase frequency by 20% versus the ~10% average on Skylake that'd still only put it at around 2.2 GHz. And how much power would it be using at that point?
Here's an interesting question - how much larger would Apple's CPU cores be if they were designed to operate at frequencies comparable to Skylake? 2x? 3x? It's not at all trivial.
So something that likes caches isn't CPU bound? Caches don't belong to CPU? Anyway I agree SPEC 2k is too old (cf a previous post I made on this very thread).
Yes and no. No because more benchmarks is always better. And yes because JS depends so much on the JS compiler that using it to compare different architectures is worse than using Geekbench alone.SPEC2k CPU is still better than any JavaScript benchmark.
I would be interested in:That would be great, but will never happen because there's no business case in providing such a benchmark. The amount of work associated with delivering of highly hand optimized code for each CPU family is just too much for any 3rd party. What should the benchmark test? Intel would love heavy optimized AVX2 (and AVX512) FP32/FP64 with random memory access patterns and it would annihilate anything from ARM. ARM would love general purpose code (preferable with fixed functions) with sequential memory access into cache.
So something that likes caches isn't CPU bound? Caches don't belong to CPU? Anyway I agree SPEC 2k is too old (cf a previous post I made on this very thread).
Snapdragon 805 can burst up to 2.7Ghz, if only for a few seconds. Unlike Qualcomm, Apple does't play that false marketing card. It's not a question of worse efficiency at lower clocks, the requirement is to clock high at the lowest possible voltage. It's the voltage that creates the exponential heat increase as well as battery drain. In benchmarks, Apple's A9 can sustain peak performance for the life of the battery. It gives me every indicator that under a wider cooling envelope, these things can hit sit significantly higher clocks.However unlike some posters here, I sincerely doubt that this design could clock much higher- leaving slack in the design for higher clocks means worse efficiency at lower clocks. (Intel demonstrated this years ago with their excellent Pentium M line.)
In terms of the graphics scores, if anyone tries to compare with the PC. They have to remember Windows uses FP32 and IOS/Android FP16. This has a huge performance impact.
Another detail to add here, is that the 805 goes back to 1.3Ghz after a few moments. So look at it this way, Snapdragon, doubled its clock rate with a voltage jump. So similarly, it's not unreasonable to expect that the A9 could leap forward at a higher voltage, and with a proper heatsink maintain that speed.Snapdragon 805 can burst up to 2.7Ghz
Gold rating for a phone that has worse battery life. What an epic fail. Sure it is faster and has a couple new features, but we're talking $800 dollars here. You shouldnt have to sacrifice battery life on a $800 "upgrade".
They do make it, it's called the iPhone 6s PlusI would much prefer they make then 20% fatter and heavier and add in a decent battery