Originally Posted by iSteelers
Actually the fx8350 out performs the i7 in certain tasks. It does suffer in single threaded performance and of course power consumption though only if the chips in question are running at full load. Also that chip is marketed to compete against the i5 in performance not a chip that costs $100+ more. With the resources at its disposal, Intel should be leading the pack in development and yet is still behind Arm in terms of efficiency. The use of cheap thermal paste in the Ivy bridge CPUs heat spreader implies a "it's good enough" attitude not one that is trying to be the innovation leader.
Yes, it's cheaper and priced against the Core i5 market but its still considered their flagship CPU. The contention was that Intel can't scale vs AMD which is a weird assertion given the TDP and IPC advantage Intel enjoys.
Bulldozer was a disappointment and Piledriver isn't that much better. Piledriver is what Bulldozer should have been. The FX line USED to be top tier in terms of price and performance...not a budget part that competes against Intel's second string.
In terms of Intel vs ARM, Intel appears to me to be driving power usage down faster than ARM is driving performance up. 10W Haswell is going to have very impressive performance-per-watt numbers. Enough so that Tom's reports:
"Intel is picking the easiest competitor to beat (Tegra 3 running under Windows RT on a Microsoft Surface), but our own preliminary estimates suggest the 32 nm Atom is going to be roughly equivalent to Qualcomm's 28 nm APQ8060A in the ATIV Tab, and more efficient than the 32 nm Exynos 5 Dual in the Chromebook Series 3 XE303C12.
Before we had actual Atom-based hardware running in our labs, it was easy to accept that ARM was more efficient than x86. The Cortex-A9 core is slower than Atom, so it should be more efficient. Then, when we started seeing the -A15's performance numbers and how much faster that architecture is, x86 appeared to be doomed. But nobody really stopped to ask whether -A15's power consumption was still as good, nor had they sat down to run the numbers. Once we started looking at battery life for a given capacity, we began to think about power use in terms of actual watts consumed during a particular task."
Anand writes something similar:
"We already know that Atom is faster than Krait, but from a power standpoint the two SoCs are extremely competitive.
If the previous article was about busting the x86 power myth, one key takeaway here is that Intel's low power SoC designs are headed in the right direction. Atom's power curve looks a lot like Qualcomm's, and I suspect a lot like Apple's. There are performance/power tradeoffs that all three make, but they're all being designed the way they should.
I'd always heard about Haswell as the solution to the ARM problem, particularly in reference to the Cortex A15. The data here, particularly on the previous page, helped me understand exactly what that meant. Under a CPU or GPU heavy workload, the Exynos 5 Dual will draw around 4W. Peak TDP however is closer to 8W. If you remember back to IDF, Intel specifically called out 8W as a potential design target for Haswell.
The really crazy part is that it's not too absurd to think about being able to get a Core based SoC into a large smartphone as early as 14nm, and definitely by 10nm (~2017) should the need arise"
If Intel isn't leading today, it's come a helluva long way and looks like it could lead in the future. Anand seems bullish on the idea.
If I can get Core i7 performance in an iPad Mini by 2016 I will welcome our new Intel mobile overlords.