Calxeda ECX-1000 Benchmarks vs. Intel Atom, TI OMAP4
Phoronix: Calxeda ECX-1000 Benchmarks vs. Intel Atom, TI OMAP4
Last week I began delivering benchmarks of the low-power yet massively scalable Calxeda EnergyCore ECX-1000 ARM Server and followed the initial tests with some ARM compiler benchmarks and other benchmarks from this 5-Watt Linux Server. In this article is what many Phoronix readers have been waiting for: comparing Calxeda's quad-core Cortex-A9 ARMv7 performance against a dual-core Texas Instruments OMAP4460 PandaBoard ES and then an Intel Atom processor.
The Calxeda chips exist to be WEB SERVERS
Some web benchmarks, maybe a database benchmark or two, and OpenSSL benchmarks would have been much much more informative in this review. These Calxeda boxes are really designed to be cheap web servers, so all the scientific computing stuff is pretty useless. I'm not overly impressed at what these quad-core CPUs are doing compared to a 2.5 year old consumer grade Atom either. Centerton will be more powerful and much more power efficient, so these ARM chips are not going to take over the world any time soon.
Good results, but can you test the power load?
Thanks for testing these processors. A very useful set of results.
Can you please buy a power meter and measure the amount of power consumed at the wall socket?
If that Calxeda box has a ton of cores in it, can you pull out the cards until there is a single CPU to make it fair against the atom (i.e. one socket vs 1 socket)?
My take on this is that the Atom still rules the day.
1) Lets assume that the atom draws 50 watts at the socket (like my 525 setup here does), and the Calxeda setup draws like 5 (which it wont). That savings of 45 watts turns out to be about 40 UK pounds per year on an expensive tarrif. I wouldn't care about that because:
2) I don't have any pain working with different toolchains. The toolset I use on my desktop works on the Atom. Just switching CC=arm-linux-gcc in my makefiles is headache.
3) I know that the core-i7 is more efficient than the atom, and I'll just buy those instead.
ARM64 will be the great deal
I thought it was ARM64 to be tested, there are some hardware prototypes out there.
But not all is computational power, energy budget, and good scalation and price are needed too.
How much improves the server with 2/4/8 etc processors or even better the rack with full boxes and How much does cost the hardware, and a new category how much space does it occupy.
Future minisized supercomputers ARM64 for SOHO and college departments from Caixeda and others like x-gene are saying that the space needed will be 90% less and the power budget will be more than half cut.
Also some X86 hardware emulation and mixed architecture promises are on the steak