Apple A10X CPU

those scores aren't even remotely close

File: 018.gif (2MB, 580x433px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 580x433px

>>60898873
>geekbench

>geekbench

You fucking idiot.

>>60898910
>>60898913
> Implying the A10X doesn't destroy it on ANY benchmark/real world usage.

>>60898873
>>60898891
it's comparable with i3 maybe

http://www.anandtech.com/show/9766/the-apple-ipad-pro-review/5


>>60898913
>>60898910
t.droid toddler

>>60898873
> 8MB L2
holy shit

>>60898966
> 2016
> A9X
This thread is from 2017 anon

>>60899002
i know just showing how the a9x still behind core i5, nothing on 2017 iPad pro benchmark yet beside geekbench.

>>60898958
show it then

>>60899087
why should I

Why the fuck do you think it's reasonable to compare different architectures (x86 vs ARM), but you're not just comparing different architectures, you're trying to compare them ACROSS operating systems.

I mean, are you ACTUALLY fucking stupid or just pretending to not understand anything?

>>60899123
Geekbench is a multiplatform benchmark that runs tons of different CPU intensive tasks on any OS.

>>60899171
Congrats? No one disagrees with that.

But to imply each operating system will run the benchmarks in an identical fashion is fucking retarded.

Compare hardware on the SAME operating system, or shut the fuck up.

>>60899123
You appear to be severely retarded. Seek help.

>>60899199
>Compare hardware on the SAME operating system
not necessary. Some times we want to know which OS performs better on certain tasks as well.

>>60899220
You appear to have no understanding of how computing actually works, or what a benchmark is actually doing apparently.

Comparing across architectures is already retarded because they're going to handle tasks in different ways, one architecture could be optimized to handle 100+ low power tasks simultaneously but have garbage performance on single high intensity operations.


Now on TOP of these architectural differences, you're going to compare them on different operating systems which handle operation scheduling in different ways, and try to tell me it's going to be an accurate comparison?

Fuck off moron

File: image.jpg (278KB, 967x719px) Image search: [Google]

278KB, 967x719px

>no linpack benchmark
As someone who owns apple products I also think OP is a fucking retard.

This is entirely ignoring the fact that the A10X can only sustain max 2.4GHz on all cores for short durations before thermal throttling.

>>60899199
I think maybe it's time you accepted the unarguable truth. Apple had done it. They have somehow made an ARM cpu that stands toe to toe with Intel's mobile best and holds its ground. Without a fan. Without even a real heatsink. And unlike Intel who had got the performance was hard, they show no sign of slowing down. In a couple of years, the A12X will be twice as powerful as coffeelake. There is nothing Intel can do. Then they'll go into MacBooks. Then Intel is kill.

>>60899247
That's fine if you're comparing ARM to ARM, or x86 to x86.

But you can't actually think ARM to x86 is going to give you a fair comparison when you switch up the OS at the same time.

File: image.jpg (12KB, 243x349px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 243x349px

>>60899270
Shut up you fucking retard, you're making us all look like jack asses.

Go put the A10X to encode 2 hours of HEVC video in software mode and compare that to a mobile quad-core i7 doing the same.

There's a reason apple doesn't sell server ARM chips.

>>60899282
This is faulty reasoning. If I want to know the relative strengths and weaknesses of hardware/software combination A versus combination B that is a valid question. It's a higher level question but it is very valid. If I have a file I need decrypted, how fast can A do it? Now try B. I don't care what software is in play on both sides, I just want my data manipulated a certain way. Whichever one is fastest wins. If one is consistently faster then it is just plain faster. You most certainly compare disparate systems and get meaningful conclusions

>>60899254
>Intel babby can't handle the fact that his $1000 ELITE GAYMIN CPU is outone by a mobile ARM chip

>>60899371
If you ACTUALLY think that ARM CPU is anywhere close to performance of a desktop quad core x86 chip you're a fucking retard.

>>60899345
Are you retarded? I have a desktop for that. By far the workload for mobile devices is burst where you need maximum performance for a few seconds at a time. Rendering web pages, starting apps. Shit like that. You need to reevaluate your arguments

File: 1485052699212.jpg (24KB, 320x238px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 320x238px

>>60898873
Too bad it runs a baby toy virus OS.

>>60899395
Then what the fuck is the point of this thread?

Why even bother comparing it to intel?

>>60899383
But it is though. In every benchmark known, the A10X is within spitting distance of the i7.

>>60898873
Just wait for iPhone 8 and A11.... it will be 2x as fast as A10 and 3-4x as fast as Qualcomm and other Androshit CPUs.

It's ridiculous that Qualcomm, Samsung etc can't even beat a 2 year old iPhone CPU!

>>60899412
>In every benchmark known
show it?

>>60899412
...you actually think a 15w mobile CPU can beat out a 90w+ desktop CPU...?


Holy fuck you ARE retarded. Jesus Christ, do apple fanboys actually believe this?

>>60899407
There are plenty of tablets rocking Intel processors that are used for typical tablet duty. It makes perfect sense to see how the different platforms compare.

>>60899439
No man. We're obviously talking about mobile. Try to keep up

>>60898873
>intel stops trying for 5 years
>get surprised when other companies surpass them.

>>60899458
>that his $1000 ELITE GAYMIN CPU

Since there are no $1000 mobile CPUs i'd say no we weren't

But you'll probably just cite some retarded mobile Xeon or some shit like a faggot.


i'm done with this thread, you retards are either actually this fucking dumb, or shilling for apple because you have nothing better to do with your life.

>>60899428
Come on man. The onus is on you. Show me a legitimate benchmark where the A10X isn't within a few percentages of a mobile i7
>I'll be waiting

>>60899266
>he A10X can only sustain max 2.4GHz on all cores for short durations before thermal throttling
[citation required]

>>60899491
Dude, common sense says we're not talking about a 7700k. Common fucking sense. I like how you are trying to move the conversation away from the real point though. Must suck to be delidded this hard by Applel.
By the way
>I actually hate Apple but are impressed by what they've done here. You should be too

You gotta admit that Apple and AMD has started digging the Intel's grave long time ago but it's became apparent just recently. Can't wait to see those kikes die out in the following years.

>>60899554
I'm impressed by what they've done with an ARM chip in iOS.

It means literally nothing compared to x86 and trying to frame it as meaningful is just flat fucking wrong.

File: image.jpg (86KB, 568x570px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 568x570px

>>60899441
No they're not. People use intel tablets to get work done and children use ipads to play angry birds and browse 9gag.

>>60899496
Go to any apple store and put something cpu intensive on an ipad pro. You'll notice dramatic performance reduction after only a few minutes.

>>60899412
>within spitting distance
>more than 30% behind
I'm not saying it isn't impressive, but lets not exaggerate.

>>60899574
>Being this hard headed
Let me break it down. You have data. Be it a document, an audio file, video, some html from the network, whatever. Typically, you want something done to this data. You want it transformed in some way. Maybe the video needs to be encoded, the html needs to be rendered, something. The end result is what is important. Whatever app you use is incidental. Just a means to the end. When comparing different platforms meaningfully, what matters is which one transforms your data into whatever form you need. That is what matters. Benchmarks tell you which platform is does it faster. As your data is all that is meaningful, it is ludicrous to insist x86 and ARM cannot be compared. They both ultimately are doing the same thing so the question is, which is faster? I hope you get this through your thick skull and see your error.

>>60898910
does anyone have the version of this where he's fumbling with a noose?

>>60899699
Also who the fuck takes geekbench seriously?

>>60899699
Have you seen the improvements from one generation of Apple's CPUs to the next? 30 percent (it's not really that much) gap will likely be closed in the next round.

>>60899722
Yea TOTALLY reasonable to compare an x86 laptop to a fucking ARM tablet.

Literally kill yourself now, you have no hope of ever finding meaningful employment in the IT field.

>>60899722
We can't compare them because ARM chips can't run x86 code in iOS. Things like full desktop adobe or sony program suites become unavailable.

It's apple's to oranges. Or in this case a children's tablet to an actual computer.

>>60899757
Then find whatever benchmark suits you. The results are pretty consistent in all of them. I find it funny too that the Intel fanboys here are reaching for the i7 when most people buy the i3 and I5. How does the A10X compare to those? I think you know.

>>60899096
Because you cant

>>60899761
Compare it to Zen APUs and then we'll talk.

>>60899780
Your entire argument is "la la la can't hear you" when I am patently explaining in detail why you are wrong and why it is very reasonable to compare ARM and x86. Your really funny in your butthurt.
>Your meming can't hide how much you know I'm right

File: IMG_1825.jpg (114KB, 1536x503px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 1536x503px

>>60899661
I don't browse 9gag, ur a fag.

>>60899832
the fact you think that you're makes me laugh, thank you for entertaining me.

It's good to know people actually are this dumb and managing to function just fine in society, it really reassures my own life choices.

>>60899844
>that you're makes
*that you're right makes

>>60898873
> comparing x86 and arm like something equally
LMAO

>>60899786
Just like they're are apps in iOS that won't run on Windows, there are Windows apps that won't run in iOS. You don't just throw your hands up. You use common sense and critical thinking. Again, what are you trying to do with your data? What applications on both platforms manipulate data in the same way? Web browsers being an obvious example. Compare those and look for the performance pattern. It's easy if you try.

>>60899834
>not using a jailbroken 4chan app
lmao yes you do

>>60899876
dude stfu and go back to 9gag

File: IMG_1826.jpg (359KB, 1536x1540px) Image search: [Google]

359KB, 1536x1540px

>>60899895
>Just use app lmao
I think we both know you are a faggot, there is no need for denial at this point.

File: 1437349445052.png (351KB, 500x320px) Image search: [Google]

351KB, 500x320px

>>60899908
I don't even know what the fuck 9 gag is. I know butt hurt when I see it though.

>>60898873
>"hyperthreading"
Just call it what it is, SMT

>>60899914
>>60899940
https://9gag.com

That's the website address in case you forgot. Please go there and never come back here.

>>60898873
>risc vs cisc
That aside, why is Apple literally the only good ARM designer?

File: IMG_1828.jpg (419KB, 1536x1550px) Image search: [Google]

419KB, 1536x1550px

>>60899975
What the fuck is this shit? You should kill yourself for ever making me clicking on that link.

>>>/r/eddit

>>60900011
None of the other companies pulled in Keller to get a nice design to coast on.

>>60898873
still cant download youtube videos

Geez OP, whatever will you gain for being this stupid. I get it that you are a faggot and tis your duty to shill hard for applel but atleast make yourself look intelligent by making reasonable arguments...I mean, look at how pathetic your reasoning sound m8....there is a reason why CPU heavy programs like emulators don't run well on iOS devices. Try to play dolphin on iPad and you'll see. Make a start by learning the difference b/w arm and x86. Hint: one is made to support low powered mobile devices with miniscule batteries while the other is made to support strong but high powered devices with batteries as big as a baby's wrist. One requires a fan the other doesn't. There is a reason why tegra X1 still cannot compete with x86 devices.

>>60900016
It's your home, stop lying. Now stay there and never come back here please.

>>60899366
Nice selection faggot. ITT OP is comparing A10x to Intel i series CPUs. There is no mention of operating systems. So if we choose IOS as our OS of benchmark and then compare the performance of a laptop running iOS with i7 and iOS with A10x, I bet i7 wins.
Similiarly, if windows is chosen as our reference OS, i7 still wins over A10x. Comparing the combination of iOS/A10x with win10/i5-i7 is downright retarded and doesnt prove that A10x is better than i5-i7. If according to your stupid analogy, the decryption rate is faster in iOS/A10x than win10/i5, there is a high possibility that windows is a crappy OS(No shit!) as compared to iOS.

>>60900235
>She still doesn't get it.
You can lead a horse to water but you can't lead a horticulture. Enjoy your memes lad

>>60899786
7zip and encoders are cross compiled between architectures. You can gauge performance using more programs like that. That's what Geekbench does.

>>60900529
The guy's either an idiot or on the (((payroll))). Either way you're wasting your time. I just hope no impressionable new people get sucked into his brand of 'tism

>>60900529
No you can't you retarded mongoloid. ARM chips make up their abhorrent floating point math performance by having hardware AES encryption which boosts their geekbench scores.

>>60900649
So it's faster. Got it.

>>60900649
Intel chips have had AES acceleration for years.

>>60899439
65 watt CPUs are already beating 140 watt CPUs, the bingbus is nearing it's last destination.

File: ryzen.png (272KB, 1730x1732px) Image search: [Google]

272KB, 1730x1732px

>>60898873
Here's a R5 1400 for comparison (3.9GHz)

>>60898891
>4782 vs 3982
Sure, not within 90%, but more than well within a factor of 2.

But can it run crysis?

>>60898873
>I wonder if those ARM chips can into "hyperthreading", anyone has info on this?
They don't have SMT, no.

>>60899282
The OS isn't going to matter much anyway in purely CPU-bound workloads. Maybe if the multithreaded tests actually used the system libraries' mutex implementations, but I can't even imagine Geekbench being that stupid.

>>60900989
Then I assume Intel is finished when Apple implement that, the IPC improvement and multi-core scaling would be massive.

File: 1454855869802.png (165KB, 777x656px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 777x656px

>>60900501
I was not that guy you were arguing with. Your entire argument/analogy was retarded m8 ,as I pointed out in my reply. Maybe the previous anon just plain figured out that it was best not to argue with a block of wood, so he quit. Maybe I should do the same.
>You can lead a horse to water but you can't lead a horticulture. Enjoy your memes lad
Now you again make some retarded analogy(or metaphor, I cant tell because it all sounds like the rambling of a dumb nigger) which is almost unintelligible given the context.
See pic related

>>60899266
>This is entirely ignoring the fact that the A10X can only sustain max 2.4GHz on all cores for short durations before thermal throttling.
This is equally true for the passively cooled Intel CPUs being compared with, though. The ability of the processor to stay cool and not throttle is part of the test. I know it depends on factors that are external to the CPU core itself, but just think of it as "system performance".

>>60900947
>Sure, not within 90%
but IPC is superior on the A10X since it's clocked at 2.4GHz vs 3.8GHz on the i7

>>60901097
Apply has always (and quite reasonably so) focused on primarily single-threaded workloads, so I wouldn't hold my breath for that.

>>60901127
Doesn't really help much if that higher IPC is what causes the chip to clock lower due to requiring more complex wiring and/or outputting more heat, though.

x86 is still performing great on mobile tho, however...
> Snapshit
lmao, no wonder those chips lag everything with it in.

>>60900235
Why do you think the operating system would have an influence at all? Does Geekbench call OS routines to decrypt files?

>>60898891
> A10X
> 15W
> 3-core/3-thread on multithread performance scoring 9275

> i7 4770HQ
> 45W firehouse
> 4-core/8-thread scoring 14941 on multithreaded

With some simple math and even a pessimistic scaling idea, we could say that a quad-core A10X would score around 11.000 - 12.000, thats only 24% slower than the i7, but at 1/3 of the TDP.

Apple won.

call me once the chip can do cinebench/aida64

>>60901357
t. pajeet

>>60901459
i preffer to call myself a linusfag.

File: 1492099524928.webm (3MB, 426x240px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 426x240px

>>60898873
>artificial benchmarks

>>60901274
Whoever is talking about geekbench? This guy was talking(not even talking but just giving a hypothetical scenario) about decryption. As for geekbench itself, yeah well, it is not reliable.

Secondly, read all these
>>60899123
>>60899254
>>60899439
>>60899786
There's a good reason why you could simulate an iOS and an android environment on an x86 chipset but not simulate windows apps on iOS or android devices.This is the most retard friendly way I can explain my thoughts.
OK now gotta go, this thread is full of summer fags.

>>60898873
The huge problem of geekbench is that it does small workloads that fit into cache memory, one part of the processors is access to main memory, performance with larger loads or the one of multiple workloads in ARM fall.

The multiplication of matrix, is of 512x512 in simple floating point.

File: 1489765109000.png (38KB, 907x460px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 907x460px

>>60901978

>>60902008
>2013

>>60901575

>using a pajeet YouTube appslap video as evidence of anything

The Goygle Indians are getting desperate.

>>60902032
So geekbench has always been shit, lmao.

>>60901575
Repeat this throughout the day and I assure you the iOS will reload far less apps if any at all.

>>60898958
It doesn't.
It has been tested. Geekbench is completely worthless at cross architecture benchmarking.

>>60902261
High end Android devices would win every time if you benchmark like that.

>>60902495
Source?

>>60901575
now show me an actual app racing loop, let's see how lagdroid manages RAM.

>>60902008
The crypto part is actually different in GB4, crypto is weighed a lot less in the score because of hardware acceleration.

But it is still shit and worthless.

>>60902530
http://www.pcworld.com/article/3006268/tablets/tested-why-the-ipad-pro-really-isnt-as-fast-a-laptop.html

>>60901837
>Whoever is talking about geekbench?
Well, if we're not talking in the context of OP anymore, then just choose any decryption benchmark that doesn't use OS routines to get a fair comparison.

>>60902008
>hardware assisted crypto is somehow bad for benchmarking
Why though? That gives realistic numbers for crypto performance.

>>60902555
Neat

>>60902668
For an overall performance metric it is bad to show because only specific forms of crypto are accelerated, so it skews overall integer performance.

It would be like comparing two CPUs in video decoding performance, one having h.264 hardware decoding and one not, testing performance in a variety of formats. If not scaled the CPU with h.264 hardware decoding may rank higher than the other, even if in all the other formats it is beaten in software decoding.

>>60902008
>>60901978
Note true in Geekbench 4. Test memory consumption is at 256MB.

>>60903770
You sound like a huge faggot, ha ha ha, what a loser.

I would like to remind you that all your opinions are wrong.

>>60898873
reminder.
apple has been tweaking keller's design ever since.

>>60903770
>memory consumption
Adding nice graphics and smooth things on App, but core computations is very small AKA benchmark.

>>60898873
Do people actually believe ARM can compete with x86? You guys are more retarded than I thought.

If they were doing the same workload in the same architecture, I hardly see that A10X outperforming a Sandy Bridge Celeron.

>>60901100
Dude, at this point I have to assume you are a fucking moron. You aren't making any arguments just bald assertions. I have laid out exactly why you can make comparisons between these platforms and rather than rebut me, you just go on saying I'm wrong. Think about the implication of what you are saying. You basically claim that if the software is different, you can't make any comparison. If that were true, how could you compare browsers to each other? You'd have to say, well Chrome and Opera are different so they can't be compared at all. That is patently false.
>le meme picture.
Dude, you are barely on the bottom first 2 rungs of that pyramid. Ironic.
And the reason your girlfriend stopped posting is she probably figured out she was wrong. Some people aren't quite as stupid as you obviously.

>>60905948
>>>60898873 (OP)
>If they were doing the same workload in the same architecture, I hardly see that A10X outperforming a Sandy Bridge Celeron.
This sentence does not make a lick of sense.
>Behold the tortured logic of the ignorant

This is akin to comparing a two stroke engine which makes a lot of power for its displacement and design considering, and a 4 stroke engine which is more efficient and arguably more powerful by design.

ARM processors are fixed function which is why they do so well with applications that are built for them.
X86 processors are far more capable of doing a wider variety of work with an arguably higher level of efficiency.

>>60899270
There is a distinct difference in mobile as in ARM and mobile as in ULP CPUs in laptops.
Mobile doesn't signify equal product in this case.

>>60899426
>Androshit CPUs
>Qualcomm and ARM CPUs are ~ the same architecture with small changes made by Apple for their A series processors
>Operating System confusing with hardware

Come on, man. Next you'll talk about computers coming with "The Google".

>>60907757
>>>60899270 (You)
>There is a distinct difference in mobile as in ARM and mobile as in ULP CPUs in laptops.
Um, yeah, that's just a catch-all term. It's not meant to be a rigorous taxonomic designation. The processors being different is why you do controlled comparisons to see which is faster, etc. Literally the point of this thread. Like others here, your 'tism ensures you miss the forest for the trees.

>>60899495
The one who makes the claim is the one who must defend their claim with supporting facts and evidence.
If you are stating the A10X is ~90% of a mobile i7 then it is in your best interest to provide corroborating evidence.

>>60899554
They are trying to compare it to an i7-7700HQ, though, which is a quad with ht for 8 virtual cores.

File: Capture.png (63KB, 944x929px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 944x929px

>>60899554

>>60907905
Come on man. Normally you'd have a point but there are benchmarks all over the internet corroberating what I'm saying. Anandtech, just one example, has reported extensively on this as well as other respected review sites and they all agree. Find something credible that says the A10X is not competitive with Intel's mobile Core offerings and I'll happily look at it. The ball really is in your court in this case.
The hilarious thing is I don't even like Apple. I'm writing this on my Nexus 9. But I'm not going to kid myself. The A10X is the shit. It delivers Core performance in a lower power envelope which is something Qualcomm, Samsung, et al can only dream of. To deny that is to deny reality starting you in the face.

>>60907978
What's that supposed to mean? It's faster but not that much faster considering the breakneck progress Apple had made recently. One or two more iteration and Intel is toast. Furthermore, you pick one of the most high performance Core chips to compare? Most people will but a 7200U. The A10X goes in every iPad pro from now on. Maybe try being intellectually honest and compare mainstream processors people will actually buy.

>>60899722
>Benchmarks tell you which platform is does it faster
That's exactly where you're failing in your argument.
It doesn't.
That's like saying how fast a car goes around the Nurburgring ring is indicative of how good of a daily driver it is.

>>60899792
OP made the comparison.
You cannot run full applications on iPads. They are mobile apps. If you can complete a task on them and prefer the reduced functionality then so be it, it suits your needs better, but it is still limited as ARM processors tend to be. x86 is more widely capable and the software tends to show it.

>>60899832
In which way have you given concrete evidence beyond a single sample for your argument?
I understand you're comparing particular use cases in a vacuum between the two architectures and operating systems but the OP was about direct horsepower comparison between the best Apple has to offer and the best mobile Intel CPU available.
ARM processors are fairly fixed function, they have greater limitations than x86 processors. This is why full applications such as after effects, photoshop, AutoCAD, 3DSMax, Blender and other such programs are made for x86 platforms. In becoming competitive in that way, an ARM processor will lose its advantage of low TDP and ultra portability.

>>60900011
They modified an existing design, then built software specifically for it. I would say that's likely the magic.
Samsung is doing similar with their M1 chips but they keep giving us Qualcomm chips instead. :/

>>60901356
Nobody wins. It is a never ending work load, the goal posts are continuously moving and a "winner" today is only a winner as long as they can maintain that status. There are plenty of other driver and motivated people who wish to usurp the status quo.
Also, they don't make a quad core A10X, so your hypothetical is just that.

>>60908117
>That's like saying how fast a car goes around the Nurburgring ring is indicative of how good of a daily driver it is.
Which is why you do run more than one benchmark. For your car, you also check how many cupholders it has, how many golf bags fit in the trunk, etc. Benchmarks on computers work the same way and many different benchmarks have been run between the A10X and comparable Core processors and the trend is the A10X is very close which is what I've been saying.
>>60908148
>>60908172
Desktop applications have traditionally been written for x86 because that has been by far the dominant PC architecture for decades. The install base has been in the 100's of millions and there also happens to be peripheral support like mouse/keyboard/wacom/external monitors that are necessary for these programs to be used professionally. Now that ARM processors are being taken more seriously as their performance improves by leaps and bounds, it remains to be seen whether they will filter into the desktop niche.
In a nutshell, there are many reasons for ARM being used primarily in mobile but the current performance vis a vis A10X and Core isn't one of them.

>>60908148
>it is still limited as ARM processors tend to be.
Because what is Windows RT and what is basically every destop GNU / Linux distribution having an ARM port right?

>>60908117
>That's like saying how fast a car goes around the Nurburgring ring is indicative of how good of a daily driver it is.
But if a 2l/100km smart car almost had the same lap time as a 10l/100km BMW, it's worth talking about it. You complaining about architecture and OS is like saying "but I can't fit my 3 children and my groceries inside the smart car"
Software can be rewritten if. ARM chips outperform x86 in sense of computing powers in a few years, one might switch to ARM. Apple has done it before when they ditched PPC.

>>60908398
>Apple has done it before when they ditched PPC.
And 68k.

>>60907877
They are not equivalent work loads and the things that are happen so fast that there's no reason to compare as there is no experienced difference to a human.

>>60907997
http://www.pcworld.com/article/3006268/tablets/tested-why-the-ipad-pro-really-isnt-as-fast-a-laptop.html?page=3

You have provided no links and you expect me to do the leg work, which implies you have no corroborating evidence.
Until you can prove otherwise, people will likely disregard your contribution to the conversation.

>>60908032
The OP used a high end i7 mobile to compare against. This is only fitting.
The application use is not the same, so there are no real direct comparisons to make. The ARM applications are drastically reduced in functionality, especially considering RAM and thermal constraints.
This is comparing a fixed route trolly with a mini van.
There are limitations on one.

File: really__really_hiroshimoot.jpg (78KB, 467x663px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 467x663px

>>60908676
There is set of capabilities an iPad has. There is a set of capabilities a Windows tablet has. Between these two sets, there are intersections. From this third set, you do comparisons to see which is faster. When you do your tests, you look at the overwhelming trend. In this case, the trend is the iPad is slightly slower than Intel's mobile silicon. I don't know how to put it any plainer than that.
>>60908686
That article is from 2015. Apple just released a new iPad Pro in 2017 with a new faster chip which is what we are all discussing. Try to keep up.

>>60908298
Software may be written to give greater functionality but the SoC is still bound by thermal and power regulations which then regulate its total potential output. Not to mention the physical limitations involved with designing SoCs considering you have to fit everything onto a single die AND it has to meet thermal and power envelopes.

It isn't that ARM processors aren't impressive, but the argument that a single benchmark giving a single result is indicative of anything is too small a sample size to be indicative of the narrative being correct in relation to reality.

Nobody as of yet has provided any other information on performance except one person who shared this http://www.pcworld.com/article/3006268/tablets/tested-why-the-ipad-pro-really-isnt-as-fast-a-laptop.html?page=3

And that, of course, paints a very different picture.

>>60908329
Windows RT and ARM linux distros are limited in functionality both with program compatibility and performance.
That is why they got rid of RT and removed ARM processors from the Surface line up.

>>60908398
But you don't have a smart car that gets 2l/100km around the nurburgring. You DO have super cars that do well on the track but are not good daily drivers.
To follow along with the point, though, is that an ARM processor is limited and often fixed function compared to an x86 architecture which is more complex and able to take on a wider array of work loads. Software can only be rewritten to the degree that the hardware is capable and that is where this limitation will occur.

>>60899412
>But it is though. In every benchmark known, the A10X is within spitting distance of the i7.

Genuinely an retard? I can't even this post.

>>60908765
Moving goalposts faggit. What are ARM processors limited in after ther became heavily superscalar, multicore, 64bit (more registers) and gained more multimedia extensions? Are you talking about ARM processors or just the status quo?
>ARM linux distros are limited in functionality both with program compatibility
citation needed
>That is why they got rid of RT and removed ARM processors from the Surface line up.
Yes and that's why they announced Windows 10 for ARM... oh wait

>>60908714
>The ARM applications are drastically reduced in functionality
I understand this argument. However, I'll reiterate my argument from yesterday, I have data that I want something done to. I don't really care about what "app" or "program" I am using only that my data is worked on and the results are fit. There are many applications on the iPad that take data in and spit out the same result as some appliction on Windows. That's where you do the benchmarking. That's why your argument that the two are not comparable is malarkey. It's all about the data, stupid.
But that is a tangent to the central point of is the A10X close to the speed of the i7 and if it is, how close. That's what we're trying to get at here. And it has been established by benchmark after benchmark using the same workloads that, yes, the A10X is exactly that performant. That's the whole point.
>>60908765
Neither windowsRT nor Linux ARM products used anything even remotely close to the A10X. Your comparison is flawed.
>>60908794
>Can't even
Then you're fucking stupid.

>>60908736
It is indicative of the test which is mentioned and relevant to the OP and the overall theme to this thread.
Releasing a faster processor means little when the benchmark returns results that are skewed in the favor of the A series processor fundamentally.

The intersections between iPad and x86 machine are going to be skewed anyways since the software on the iPad is designed specifically for the iPad it is running on whereas the Windows software will be designed for a generic processor layout. Not to mention that the apple software will, again, be limited in functionality which does enter the equation even on similar work loads. Web browsing is different between these devices due to how capable the browser is and the features it loads. They are fundamentally different.

What you're talking about, and all you're talking about, is the end user experience to which I have responded that the experience will vary very little and in no meaningful way to the average consumer.

>>60908817
I thought about it but interestingly Javascript benchmarks may be more indicative of relative performance across platforms for iOS and OSX as both use Safari.

I wouldn't mind seeing the results of a Javascript benchmark on an iPad Pro and a Macbook to see what sort of results you get.

>>60908817
>The intersections between iPad and x86 machine are going to be skewed anyways since the software on the iPad is designed specifically for the iPad
But you're presumptions are wrong though. The benchmarks test many different things and the good ones don't rely heavily on code that is specifically designed to run well on one platform. If you are so sure that what I'm saying is wrong, then show me the outlier benchmark that skews heavily in favor for the Core chip vs. the Apple one running some code that isn't optimized for either platform. You are acting like the Intel chip would win by some huge amount automatically. I posit that is not the case. I've looked myself and I can't find anything reliable contradicting this.

>>60908806
ARM processors are less complex and therefore less capable of as many functions and, once added, those functions will reduce the end users experience of performance. I am not sure, it may be status quo or it may be specific to a particular set of ARM processors. I am still doing research on it.

ARM linux distros still require applications to be written for compatibility of an ARMs instruction sets. This means that someone needs to build that into the application and, if so inclined, include compatibility with the desktop variants of said application. Often times mobile apps are limited due to either hardware limitations, OS limitations or a lack of requirement for those compatibility.

Windows 10 for ARM is not the same. It also is reduced in functionality and performance and requires ARM specific software to run. Microsoft will likely do this through emulation which is going to work only because it will be an extra layer of software which is designed to translate x86 code into ARM code but it will greatly reduce performance since that in itself will take clock cycles.
Will it be a meaningful drop? Potentially.
But they dropped it initially, like in my statement earlier, because of low performance and no compatibility for 3rd party apps for ARM in Windows.

>>60908816
My argument isn't flawed as it is the ARM architecture itself that is limiting, not the performance of the respective chip.

>>60908855
I would imagine that it might be skewed by access to Metal. It is hard to have a completely objective test across such differing platforms.
That being said, running a custom browser with a custom HTML5 app in it might be a good environment which removes variables that would prove inaccurate to the end result.

Then why isn't Apple using these chips in their laptops? Or at least putting MacOS on their tablets.
Wanna know why? Because they aren't really that powerful, and can't run X86 programs properly. Even if it could face it with a task like running a game and this CPU would absolutely shit its self.

File: that-s-not-right-that-s-not-even-wrong-wolfgang-pauli-53-1-0166.jpg (43KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 850x400px

>>60908898
There is so much wrong with this that I'm not even going to bother breaking it out. Basically, everything you have said is incorrect. And your last paragraph doesn't even make sense.
>>60908907
>>60908947
Because every single app for the Mac right now is compiled for x86. In order to make the same jump they did from power pc would require ARM chips to be so much more powerful, they could translate x86 code to ARM on the fly with little performance penalty. Nobody with a clue expects this right now. But since Microsoft is about to do just this with Qualcomm, I would expect Apple to follow suit if they think it's a good idea. Furthermore, MS doing exactly this blows a hole straight through your theory.
>you're not even wrong. Pic related

>>60908971
I basically said that...

>>60908971
There is so much wrong with this that I'm not even going to bother breaking it out. Basically, everything you have said is incorrect. And your last paragraph doesn't even make sense.

How so? They have stated they are going to run an emulation layer to have x86 code (only 32-bit, by the way) run on ARM platforms. This will require work and therefore reduce overall performance. Kind of like running in a VM.

>>60909032
>There is so much wrong with this that I'm not even going to bother breaking it out. Basically, everything you have said is incorrect. And your last paragraph doesn't even make sense.
It's "not even wrong" because of the presumptions built in. You are basically begging the question over and over.
>ARM processors are less complex and therefore less capable of as many functions
What functions does the A10X lack?
>ARM linux distros still require applications to be written for compatibility of an ARMs instruction sets.
They have to be written for compatibility for the x86 instruction set. What's your point?
> Often times mobile apps are limited due to either hardware limitations
Complete non sequitor in context of the paragraph where you started by talking about Linux programs running on ARM.
>Windows 10 for ARM is not the same. It also is reduced in functionality and performance and requires ARM specific software to run.
We are discussing the A10X, not the Snapdragon 835 or the Tegra chip the Windows RT tablets ran on rendering the rest of your paragraph irrelevant to the discussion.

This is why you "aren't even wrong". It's like you meant this comment to be attached to some completely different discussion about ARM chips that's tangentially related to what we're talking about. Again, the A10X. Even on visible inspection, one can obviously see the A10X is significantly larger than Qualcomm's chip as Apple has added many things to it not normally present on ARM.

>>60901967
Willing to accept
>36-37, 46-47, 48-49, 71-72
Aaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnd
Rollin'

>>60901967
REROLL

>>60908859
Even just now doing my own run on my i7-7700HQ and looking up A10X results online, I am finding little information since the tests run show "Maxed out!" on the mobile side. Whatever that means.

>>60898873
geekbench=rng

>>60909169
If geekbench results are "random" then show me something else that conflicts with its overall conclusion that the A10 is very close to the performance of the 7700HQ. You won't because you can't because it is.

>>60909114
>What functions does the A10X lack?
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/14794460/how-does-the-arm-architecture-differ-from-x86
There are fundamental architectural differences.

>They have to be written for compatibility for the x86 instruction set. What's your point?
So they are not always complete and the same application. It is not a good comparison to make between them in that case since they both technically have the same result but are doing it in different incomparable ways. They are, for all intents and purposes, different programs. I get you'll say that you can measure the overall end user experience, but that was never part of the argument to begin with.

>Complete non sequitor in context of the paragraph where you started by talking about Linux programs running on ARM.
Sequitur*
This is to do with the difference in architecture between ARM and x86. The software will often reflect a reduced functionality vs an x86 counterpart.

>We are discussing the A10X, not the Snapdragon 835 or the Tegra chip the Windows RT tablets ran on rendering the rest of your paragraph irrelevant to the discussion.
It was merely a real world example of when an OS was taken from an x86 common install base and adapted to an ARM common install base.
It failed.

The A10X is modified by Apple but it is still based on an ARM design, hence why they pay licensing fees. They have not changed the fundamental aspect of the RISC architecture and so it still suffers from the same constraints vs an x86 architecture.

>>60909207
>https://stackoverflow.com/questions/14794460/how-does-the-arm-architecture-differ-from-x86
I'm fully aware that ARM is RISC based while Intel used to be CISC. Are you aware that Core chips are actually RISC with a compatibility layer built in over the top? Nothing in any of those SO answers claims that ARM is in some way deficient vs x86. Actually, it claims the opposite. To wit:
>Although the x86 has some very powerful instructions, the arm can still beat it in a fight (if both have same clock speed). This is partly because the arm has a good set of registers, where as the x86 spends 1/2 of its time moving data in and out of its limited set of registers (this is less true of x86-64, is it has more registers). And partly because the Arm's simplicity leaves room for a bigger cache, and has all instructions conditional (making cache misses fewer). And arm's move multiple instruction (the only non RISC instruction), allows it to move data quickly.

There's no point in responding to the rest of your argument as it is predicated on the false premise that ARM being RISC are somehow inferior to Intel CISC (but really RISC also) based chips which it isn't.

I'm getting tired of clicking on cars and bridges and cars and road signs though so you're welcome to get the last word. I'll just agree to disagree. Hopefully ARM ends up in desktops and breaks the x86 monopoly. We could use the competition.

>>60908898
>less capable of as many functions and, once added, those functions will reduce the end users experience of performance
Your wording makes it look like excerpt from commercial presentation of x86.
ARM processors have:
- FPU
- parallel instructions
- virtualization
- 64 bit version
- video and audio codecs
- support for unreasonable amounts of RAM
Basically everything what is widely used in x86 software. What they do not have:
- AES extension
- microcode based optimization (which does not exactly matter given the OP-pic information)
- some cutting edge shit from AVX
- hyperthreading
>ARM linux distros still require applications to be written for compatibility of an ARMs instruction sets.
>It also is reduced in functionality and performance and requires ARM specific software to run.
>Microsoft will likely do this through emulation
Portable software, faggot, do you speak it? It's 2017 already.
>Often times mobile apps are limited due to either hardware limitations, OS limitations or a lack of requirement for those compatibility.
Android on Xeon won't be less limited. You are talking about existing software, not CPU technology.
>>60909207
>There are fundamental architectural differences.
"Differences" is not equal to "lacking functions" faggit.
>suffers from the same constraints vs an x86 architecture
you do not say

>>60909317
I tend to agree. Captchas are some actual bullshit.
I'm all for efficiency and mobil chipsets are where they innovation will come in, I'm just saying that the A10X isn't some powerful x86 replacement wherein you can do exactly compatible work loads as on an x86 platform. Part of that is software but part of it is hardware also.
The initial claim that the A10X is comparable is unfounded and, somewhat to my detriment, there is an information gap which Google searches fail to fill for other comparisons and workloads.

You have a good night, this was surprisingly fun. I haven't cared about arguing a point in quite a while.

>>60909389
>wherein you can do exactly compatible work loads as on an x86 platform.
Folding@home? Prime95?

>>60906841
Wait.....so I can compare chrome on a smartphone with chrome on PC? Seriously m8, just how retarded can you be? And that is just one instance of stupidity in your recent comment. There are 2-3 more which I'm too jaded to respond to. Summerfags have drained my energy.
I cannot. Go. On. If I stay in this thread any longer, I'll drop to the same level of retardedness as you.

>>60908907
>the ARM architecture itself that is limiting
What are you even talking about? There's nothing intrinsically limiting about ARM as an ISA. If anything, the ISA is less limiting than x86.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (42KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 1280x720px

>>60909811
You're so stupid you can't even construct a good straw man.

File: ss.png (49KB, 677x542px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 677x542px

>>60909389
>The initial claim that the A10X is comparable is unfounded and, somewhat to my detriment, there is an information gap which Google searches fail to fill for other comparisons and workloads.
You might find Anandtech's SPEC2006 run relevant.

>>60910103
>estimated scores
Why are they estimated?

File: 1496721373145.jpg (41KB, 396x382px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 396x382px

>>60898873
>all that power wasted on angry birds and facebook
What a shame.

>>60910229
>Finally, of SPECint2006’s 12 sub-benchmarks, our current harness is only able to run 10 of them on the iPad Pro at this time, as 473.astar and 483.xalancbmk are failing on the iPad. So the following is not a complete run of SPECint2006, and for the purposes of SPEC CPU are officially classified as performance estimates.

>>60910378
This is where I laugh?

>>60910103
The compilers and options may be noteworthy, too:
>The following compiler flags were used.
>Apple ARMv8: XCode 7 (LLVM), -Ofast
>Intel x86: Intel C++ Compiler 16, -xCORE-AVX2 -ipo -mdynamic-no-pic -O3 -no-prec-div -fp-model fast=2 -m32 -opt-prefetch -ansi-alias -stdlib=libstdc++
So the Core M processors probably benefit from the better compiler, too.

>>60910470
Not sure. What's funny about it?

>>60898910

Then if your idiocity can recommend a benchmark that can be used in both OS's, please do so!

Idiot!

>>60910494
SPEC CPU is arguably a better benchmark, at least.

>>60899199

Retard, doesn't understand how computers work...

>>60899345
> There's a reason apple doesn't sell server ARM chips.

Retard, Apple doesn't sell chips in any way!

>geekbench

>>60908816
>Then you're fucking stupid

Nah m8 you're the idiot in this thread. Brainlett confirmed brsindamaged.

File: 1487591419836.png (79KB, 170x168px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 170x168px

>>60902555
> Apple shitposter OP gets raped publicly on tech board

Thought /g/ is SFW.

>>60910481
The iPad Pro is failing to run benchmarks that run on an x86 processor fine.

>>60910954
Hardly due to any fault of the processor itself,though. It would be interesting to know why though, for sure, but probably due to lack of RAM.

>>60910617
What is your point? That the A10X is in some way not within spitting distance of a Core M?

>>60911132
>Core M

Nah m83 everyone knows a10x is at least 7700k tier.

*Shekel me sire*

>>60901133
Mac's were better and long before at multitasking than windows ever was

>>60911205
While I was thinking primarily of Applel iDevices rather than Macs, multitasking and single-threaded CPUs are not mutually exclusive, you know. Even with multiple runnable threads, one CPU with high single threaded performance usually outperforms two CPUs each with half the former's single-threaded performance.

Either way, my real point was simply that since Apple focuses primarily on single-threaded performance in their mobile devices, I wouldn't be holding my breath for SMT in their SoCs.

File: lol-31.jpg (19KB, 550x343px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 550x343px

>>60911205
>>60911249
Also,
>multitasking on mac os classic

>>60909874
>If anything, the ISA is less limiting than x86
You should kys for this line alone.

Until there is an extensive native app library or a VERY impressive x86 emulation, no it simply isn't less limiting than x86.

In a perfect world maybe, but not in 2017.

>>60911304
>an extensive native app library
What are you talking about? How does the size of the software ecosystem reflect how good the ISA is?

>>60902530
>t. delusioanal pajeet

>>60911337
No one is going to buy an ISA that is dead on arrival.

Unless you're writing your software from scratch and you already employ ARM developers, it would be extremely cost prohibitive for anyone right now to move from x86 to ARM.

>>60911764
>No one is going to buy an ISA that is dead on arrival.
I'm not arguing market factors, only the intrinsic qualities of the ISAs.

ARM is hardly dead on arrival, though. You may have noticed it's pretty alive.

>>60911775
Yea in the mobile space and super niche other segments.

Anything that needs actual computational power and flexibility is on x86. (Or Power ISA)

>>60910954
Yeah because ARM is not Turing complete processor right?

>>60911902
Are you the kind of retard who would have thought that x86 was dead on arrival and totally irrelevant in the 80s because real men use VAX or ESA/370?

>>60910475
LLVM4's code is already faster than GCC in specific tasks.

>>60911987
You're acting like we're on the cusp of ARM dominance when we're many years away from that if it ever occurs.

>>60912056
Those specific tasks are probably pretty specific. Either way, the Intel tests were compiled with ICC, not GCC, which is widely regarded as holding the edge.

>>60912061
Not at all, I'm acting as if ARM is finally catching up and able to compete is some market segments.

>>60912061
>>60912078
More importantly, all I said that you responded to saying I should kill myself was that ARM is, if anything, the less restrictive ISA compared to x86. I never pretended current ARM implementations are beating the shit out of x86.

It shall be interesting to see the K12 when it comes out, though. Jim Keller was caught on record praising the inherent efficiencies of ARM compared to x86.

>>60912070
True nough.

>2 different benchmarks on different architectures anddifferent OSes are directly comparable because they're named the same
>thinking that thermal design power(tdp)=power consumption
Consider suicide, OP.