Intel BTFO, A11 chip outperforms an Intel laptop CPU. A11 Ma

people always say that these scores aren't representative of actual performance but why is that?

>gookbench
Intel and AMD BTFO

>>62425011
A11 ITX mobos when?

>>62425035
Denial and damage control

Is there a reason why an ARM-based macbook would be a bad idea? Obviously it'd remove Bootcamp and make older software unusable, but does Apple even care?

>>62425035
https://www.realworldtech.com/forum/?threadid=136526&curpostid=136666


Geekbench is nothing but fap material for clueless clowns who've never seen a line of code.
Typical Apple fans.

>>62425011
>all current mac software (which is already limited) become incompatible
Literally useless outside of being an actual Facebook machine.

>>62425167
Fuck off retard, this is the most autistic and false flagging argument I've seen.

>>62425353
t. assblasted applefag

>>62425115
because the idea is to get the code out of the hands of pajeets

>>62425115
It would be a lot of work to port everything over. Qualcomm got windows 10 running on their Snapdragon (which is what the a11 really is) but they had to run everything in 32 but mode

>>62425035
Work loads begin small on cache operations, today hard part about CPU is feed data and work on massive multi thread.

These benchmark begin like ALU plus cache test.

>>62425087
t. applel shill

>>62425011
I always wondered how much rigged geekbench was. It always had weird results.

>>62425011
>6 core out performs dual core in multi-threaded tasks
wew

File: Screenshot_20170914-200533.png (259KB, 1080x1620px) Image search: [Google]

259KB, 1080x1620px

>>62425011
Wow it outperforms a undercooled dual core ULV cpu

>>62428249
>>62425035
When you think less about the scores and more about the instruction sets you then realize how much of a waste of time benching an arm cpu against a x86 cpu is.

I'd like to see you run anything professional on a arm cpu

>>62425679
>Implying that would affect apple fags facebook browsing experience

>>62425167
For what they need to do, comparatively these ARM CPUs are stronger than x86 CPUs. But Geekbech is not to be trusted, I thought that after they Geekbench 4 was release and EVERY SINGLE CPU had their score was lowered EXCEPT CPUs made by Apple people would forget that this program even exist.

>>62425115
Who cares about bootcamp and old software, the issue would be common x86 stuff from Adobe for example. So it's only viable if Apple pushes 3rd parties into ports.

>>62425035
They're microbenches that don't expose how CPUs mitigate bad behavior (cache prefetching behavior, branch prediction, etc).

>>62430201
It's not about the core. It's about the fab process and uncore. If Intel put Kaby Lake on a process optimized for very low power very low frequency and redesigned stuff like io, memory controller, etc then they'd have similar power usage.

The reason why they failed to break into mobile was because they wanted small core like vanilla ARM reference architectures rather than spend money on a redesigned large core.

>>62425011
Great, now you can browse Facebook at twice the speed that you would on a competing smartphone. Right?

>>62425011
>geekbench
into the trash it goes

>>62425035
Imagine this like if some faggot compare the 0-60 times of a farming truck.
Then when you're going to use it the fast "cool" ones can't load over 1000 lbs but the "shitty slow one" can load 2000+ lbs.

>>62425011
Apple is going to discontinue OS X and install iOS with walled garden on their Computers