Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Nov 6, 2012, 07:20 AM   #776
iphoneclassic
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleMacFinder View Post
Please check what this guy posted:



The difference in performance: 8500/1700 = (around) 5 times
The difference in power consumption: around 20 times (even with low-end i5-2410M)

Result: ARM wins.
There are few fundamental omissions in the math.

1) No processor architecture is indefinitely scalable. ARM may not scale 5 times. Otherwise no chip designer ever will change the architecture.

2) Power consumption requirement growth is not linear. Requirement grows exponentially.

3) Ignored another major fact. Heat. Most chip designs are scaled back because there is no easy way to dissipate heat.
iphoneclassic is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2012, 07:21 AM   #777
Renzatic
macrumors 604
 
Renzatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: The Amazing Maze of Maize (Corn Labyrinth)
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleMacFinder View Post
Not a linear relationship: probably, ARM result would be better 3x-5x times, compared to Intel,
depend of which processors we compare. In this specific case, it was 4x.
What about Haswell, which can produce i5-i7 benchmark results, and power a (finally) decent embedded GPU on only 8w?

Your argument only works if, like dude said above, power vs. consumption is linear, and Intel doesn't improve their chip designs at all.
Renzatic is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2012, 07:22 AM   #778
slughead
macrumors 68030
 
slughead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleMacFinder View Post
No, your wrist watch is not a general-purpose computer.
Neither is a freaking iPad. With a Geekbench score worse than a freaking PowerMac G5 (2004), it is woefully inadequate for desktop/laptop use by todays standards.

By your faulty calculations ignoring the relationship between flop/watt, my wrist watch could have the best processor OF ALL!
slughead is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2012, 07:22 AM   #779
KnightWRX
macrumors Pentium
 
KnightWRX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Quebec, Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleMacFinder View Post
In case of i5-2410M, it is 212.5 GeekBench Points per Watt.
In case of ARM, it is 850 GeekBench Points per Watt - four times better.
Where did you get your A6X TDP figures to compare from exactly as no such stat has been released ?

(let me guess, your lower region).

Assuming a TDP of 17 Watts for the ULV Intel chips used in the MacBook Air (Intel Core i5-3427U) also whups your 212.5 figure by close to 2 times. So frankly, your numbers mean crap, you're cherry picking and have no definite proof of what you claim.
__________________
"What you leave behind is not what is engraved in stone monuments, but what is woven into the lives of others."
-- Pericles
KnightWRX is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2012, 07:24 AM   #780
mixel
macrumors 6502a
 
mixel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Leeds, UK
Send a message via AIM to mixel Send a message via MSN to mixel Send a message via Yahoo to mixel
Maybe eventually. I'd rather see a separate additional arm CPU to run a sort of dashboard type layer, and maybe give the option to boot one without the other. Saves power, lets you use both app stores, doesn't interfere with power stuff.

I'm imagining Adobe doing a massive facepalm if the architecture changes again. I don't see it happening at all unless apple can really make arm chips cheap enough and fast enough to run th i86 software fast enough in Rosetta style.
mixel is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2012, 07:25 AM   #781
KnightWRX
macrumors Pentium
 
KnightWRX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Quebec, Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by ad1815 View Post
Everyone is assuming either x86 or ARM. But why cannot Apple use both? There are certainly issues in using both, but that is where innovation comes in
That would be a tremendous feat and would require a way to reboot to a different kernel, restart all user space applications using completely different binaries.

That, or run the entire system in emulation and just dynamically switch the emulator, which would come with its own performance hit.
__________________
"What you leave behind is not what is engraved in stone monuments, but what is woven into the lives of others."
-- Pericles
KnightWRX is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2012, 07:26 AM   #782
Sincci
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Finland
Quote:
Originally Posted by KnightWRX View Post
Windows 8 does not have an ARM version. People really need to learn the difference between Windows 8 and Windows RT. I've seen this come up so often it's amazing how much Microsoft has managed to confuse people about this.
People should also try to understand that Microsoft doesn't sell Windows RT anywhere. They only sell licenses to companies that are making Windows RT tablets/laptops. Due to that reason there's absolutely no way that you could ever run Windows RT on your ARM-based Mac since Apple won't license Windows RT from MS (and MS most likely wouldn't even sell it since they wants Windows RT to be the only operating system on those devices).
Sincci is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2012, 07:29 AM   #783
KnightWRX
macrumors Pentium
 
KnightWRX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Quebec, Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleMacFinder View Post
Not a linear relationship: probably, ARM result would be better 3x-5x times, compared to Intel,
depend of which processors we compare. In this specific case, it was 4x.
If ARM could snap its fingers and produce chips that are 4x more efficient than Intel's while providing the same performance numbers, you'd have bunch more ARM laptops on the market right now.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by mixel View Post
Maybe eventually. I'd rather see a separate additional arm CPU to run a sort of dashboard type layer, and maybe give the option to boot one without the other. Saves power, lets you use both app stores, doesn't interfere with power stuff.
Lenovo did that... 2 years ago. The Lenovo IdeaPad U1.
__________________
"What you leave behind is not what is engraved in stone monuments, but what is woven into the lives of others."
-- Pericles
KnightWRX is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2012, 07:30 AM   #784
The Wedge
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
This is all part of Steve's 10 year plan.
__________________
"I'm conducting classical music!"
The Wedge is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2012, 07:33 AM   #785
miniroll32
macrumors 6502a
 
miniroll32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by TsMkLg068426 View Post
Does Apple think that it would be so easy to just go ahead and move into new technology while old technology has nto died yet?
The 3.5" floppy disk didn't "die", but Apple released the first iMac without a drive for one.
miniroll32 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2012, 07:33 AM   #786
AppleMacFinder
macrumors 6502a
 
AppleMacFinder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by iphoneclassic View Post
There are few fundamental omissions in the math.

1) No processor architecture is indefinitely scalable. ARM may not scale 5 times. Otherwise no chip designer ever will change the architecture.

2) Power consumption requirement growth is not linear. Requirement grows exponentially.

3) Ignored another major fact. Heat. Most chip designs are scaled back because there is no easy way to dissipate heat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KnightWRX View Post
If ARM could snap its fingers and produce chips that are 4x more efficient than Intel's while providing the same performance numbers, you'd have bunch more ARM laptops on the market right now.
Since ARM CPUs have such a low power consumption, it is possible to put several of them to one machine. So, it's still valid.
AppleMacFinder is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2012, 07:35 AM   #787
KnightWRX
macrumors Pentium
 
KnightWRX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Quebec, Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wedge View Post
This is all part of Steve's 10 year plan.
We're late in the 16th year of that plan btw :

Quote:
If I were running Apple, I would milk the Macintosh for all it's worth and get busy on the next great thing. The PC wars are over. Done. Microsoft won a long time ago.

As quoted in Fortune (19 February 1996)
We're going to be celebrating the 17th anniversary of that plan in about 3 months.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleMacFinder View Post
Since ARM CPUs have such a low power consumption, it is possible to put several of them to one machine. So, it's still valid.
Parallele processing does not scale the same way. It's not valid at all. 32 CPU cores cannot replace 1 fast CPU core.

I haven't repeated myself as often as I have in this thread ever. You're either not very knowledgeable about the topic or you're just baiting for responses now. Either way, you're a big waste of everyone's time.
__________________
"What you leave behind is not what is engraved in stone monuments, but what is woven into the lives of others."
-- Pericles
KnightWRX is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2012, 07:35 AM   #788
akbarali.ch
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Mumbai (India)
Quote:
Originally Posted by linkgx1 View Post
So....is there going to be a Mac OSX RT then? I see people getting mad their current programs won't run.

----------



Isn't Windows RT the ARM version of Windows?
i wasn't 100% sure of it at the time of writing, thanks for clarifying. So in that case it doesn't matter whats under the hood, till everything runs smoothly. isn't it?
__________________
iMac 21.5" i5 2.9GHz 2012; iphone 4S 16GB white; iPad Air Space Grey 16GB Cellular; iPhone 3GS 16GB; iPhone 3GS 8GB; Time Capsule 3TB
akbarali.ch is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2012, 07:36 AM   #789
AppleMacFinder
macrumors 6502a
 
AppleMacFinder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by KnightWRX View Post
Where did you get your A6X TDP figures to compare from exactly as no such stat has been released ?
They has not been released officially.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KnightWRX View Post
Assuming a TDP of 17 Watts for the ULV Intel chips used in the MacBook Air (Intel Core i5-3427U) also whups your 212.5 figure by close to 2 times.
Now, what is the Geekbench score of this machine?
AppleMacFinder is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2012, 07:37 AM   #790
KnightWRX
macrumors Pentium
 
KnightWRX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Quebec, Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by miniroll32 View Post
The 3.5" floppy disk didn't "die", but Apple released the first iMac without a drive for one.
OS X still supports floppy disks, today, in 2012.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleMacFinder View Post
They has not been released officially.
Hence your numbers are bullocks. Good of you to finally admit it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleMacFinder View Post
Now, what is the Geekbench score of this machine?
Over 6000.
__________________
"What you leave behind is not what is engraved in stone monuments, but what is woven into the lives of others."
-- Pericles
KnightWRX is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2012, 07:38 AM   #791
AppleMacFinder
macrumors 6502a
 
AppleMacFinder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
What about Haswell, which can produce i5-i7 benchmark results, and power a (finally) decent embedded GPU on only 8w?
What about ARM v8, which would be released the same time? Especially the newer Cortex CPUs?

Comparing future Intel architecture with existing ARM architecture is not fair.
AppleMacFinder is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2012, 07:38 AM   #792
iRCL
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Why not?

- Macs aren't even using the desktop line of x86 Intel chips
- ANYTHING written adhering to Apple's coding guidance, using toolkits like Accelerate, etc, should be platform independent.
- I dare say the PPC/Intel crossover disaster had a lot more to do with vendors not wanting to support Mac than anything else. @work we port VERY LOW LEVEL (hardware interfacing) code between PPC and Intel all the time and it's not a big deal. There's a lot more support now due to all the growth, I think you would most certainly see major apps ported right away (even Office, which already will be running on ARM..)
- Plenty of people are already coding for ARM platform on iOS -- browse issues of these developers, and you will never see an issue that pops up because of the architecture. Whether you're on Intel or ARM it is basically transparent
- Windows 8 supports ARM so bootcamp is still viable (you're going to see a shift toward ARM anyway in the next 3-5 years)
- Esp. as process gets better i.e. 10nm it's getting easier to get much higher performance, even at the point we're at now there's no real need for more processing power boost even from 1.7ghz MBA unless you're doing something silly like gaming. Even then, it's very capable. ARM chips will surpass that performance in the not too distant future
- So many "PROS" talk about how they won't be able to do their job with less performance -- face facts, what is so high performance in Apple's lineup right now? (Very) old XEON chips? Laptop grade chips in iMac/MacBook/Mini? If you're a "PRO" and are still on the Mac platform and haven't already woken up and smelled the coffee, you better get on it, and switch
iRCL is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2012, 07:39 AM   #793
KnightWRX
macrumors Pentium
 
KnightWRX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Quebec, Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleMacFinder View Post
What about ARM v8, which would be released the same time? Especially the newer Cortex CPUs?

Comparing future Intel architecture with existing ARM architecture is not fair.
And not needed. Chip Design != Instruction sets. How many times will you need this repeated to you ?
__________________
"What you leave behind is not what is engraved in stone monuments, but what is woven into the lives of others."
-- Pericles
KnightWRX is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2012, 07:40 AM   #794
patent10021
macrumors 68000
 
patent10021's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by jessica. View Post
Uh Apple did once care that you could run windows on a Mac. Do you not recall that it was actually something that they marketed? It seems as though you weren't around for the PPC to Intel shift and all the hype and excitement about being able to run windows on a Mac.
I was there. Lead, follow or get out of the way.
__________________
I love the smell of 1080p in the morning.
patent10021 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2012, 07:40 AM   #795
AppleMacFinder
macrumors 6502a
 
AppleMacFinder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by KnightWRX View Post
Over 6000.
6000/17 = 352 GB P / Watts. Better than previous CPU in 1.5x times,
but still worse than ARM in 2.27x times.
AppleMacFinder is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2012, 07:40 AM   #796
KnightWRX
macrumors Pentium
 
KnightWRX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Quebec, Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by iRCL View Post
Why not?

- Windows 8 supports ARM so bootcamp is still viable
Windows 8 does not support ARM.
__________________
"What you leave behind is not what is engraved in stone monuments, but what is woven into the lives of others."
-- Pericles
KnightWRX is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2012, 07:40 AM   #797
slughead
macrumors 68030
 
slughead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by KnightWRX View Post
Parallele processing does not scale the same way. It's not valid at all. 32 CPU cores cannot replace 1 fast CPU core.

I haven't repeated myself as often as I have in this thread ever. You're either not very knowledgeable about the topic or you're just baiting for responses now. Either way, you're a big waste of everyone's time.
Quoted for truth. Keep up the good work; don't let the uninformed fanboys win!
slughead is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2012, 07:41 AM   #798
KnightWRX
macrumors Pentium
 
KnightWRX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Quebec, Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleMacFinder View Post
6000/17 = 352 GB P / Watts. Better than previous CPU in 1.5x times,
but still worse than ARM in 2.27x times.
TDP numbers for ARM ? You don't have them. Stop spouting nonsense.
__________________
"What you leave behind is not what is engraved in stone monuments, but what is woven into the lives of others."
-- Pericles
KnightWRX is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2012, 07:42 AM   #799
AppleMacFinder
macrumors 6502a
 
AppleMacFinder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by KnightWRX View Post
And not needed. Chip Design != Instruction sets. How many times will you need this repeated to you ?
Chips of Haswell architecture are not released to public,
so if we talk about them, we should also talk about newer ARM offers.
AppleMacFinder is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2012, 07:42 AM   #800
skadd
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
This would be a bad call. Don't do it Apple!
skadd is offline   1 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:59 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC