Does this also mean Vishera was the last CPU ?..http://www.ryak.info/15.jpghttp://www.ryak.info/09ht.jpghttp://www.ryak.info/09ax.jpg
Printable View
Does this also mean Vishera was the last CPU ?..http://www.ryak.info/15.jpghttp://www.ryak.info/09ht.jpghttp://www.ryak.info/09ax.jpg
Yes, and the Pentium is crippled in both performance and features.Quote:
Originally Posted by JS987
Which was my first point, only counting uncrippled or almost uncrippled versions. We are running in circles.
Pentium is fast enough and has all important features.Quote:
Originally Posted by curaga
Pentium at 2.7 GHz has same single-threaded performance as AMD A10 at 4.2 GHz
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/c...11.5,3142.html
People here dramatically overestimate ARM CPUs. They might be power efficent but don't even come close to a shitty x86 Atom CPU. And real Desktop CPUs like Core i5 are mopping the floor with ARM CPUs in terms of raw performance.
And where sole performacne matter?Quote:
Originally Posted by blackout23
Mobile? No.
Cloud? No.
Servers? No.
Mainframes? No. (however ARM lacks even more to be here)
Notebooks? No. (Unless you need workstation on UPS :P )
Desktops? No.
Workstations? Yes.
It look like damn small market. In other there are also other factors at play, like power usage (how much power it takes), power efficiency (how much performance per 1Watt). Or like compatibility with existing software, or like uptime, error recovery, redundability, scalability, etc...
For a long time we had "Intel + Win" way. A bit of diversivity will be good for everybody.
Performance doesn't matter on Desktops, Server and Laptops? You must be living in a funny paralell universe.
Performance matters in every application which depends on single core performance, which means most of Linux applications.Quote:
Originally Posted by przemoli
ARM 9 is 4 times slower than Core i5 at same frequency.
ARM 57 will be still about 2 times slower which is too high difference.
3 GHz ARM 57 will be probably competitive only on servers (if 16 core system won't be expensive) and low end notebooks.
Servers care about I/O, RAM, higly specialized workflow (64bit only, etc.), virtualization, software compatibility, staff availability, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by blackout23
Laptops care about POWER EFFICIENCY, and POWER USAGE. (To the point where people will use less performant options for few extra hours of usage).
Desktops ok. Let's put hardcore gamers in "workstation" category, and what we get is people who use desktop for spread sheets, or programming, or listening to music or using facebook. Nothing where you care about cutting edge performanc. But only to have it enough for those tasks.
Professional photo editing, video editing, gaming? Yes ther performance is important and power usage/efficiency be damned.
Many many people use notebooks as desktops, we only have a very few desktops at work for accounts to be able to work with those HUGE spread sheets. The standard is rather notebook (currently Sandy Bridge +- dedicated graphic) with docking station. The battery life doesn't really matter, but they can unplug their computer and walk into a meeting room or travel somewhere while still using e.g. AutoCAD etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by przemoli
I agree entirely with przemoll, aside from the fact that mainframes tend to demand raw power too, much more than workstations. Anyways, people who use laptops as desktops are dumbasses, to put it bluntly. Getting such a product is just simply convenient but rarely anything beyond that. There are a small handful of situations where getting a powerful laptop is cost effective and most importantly, practical. Keep in mind that even if you exclude the screen and battery, you still pay more for a laptop than you do with a desktop yet you gt crappier hardware.Quote:
Originally Posted by disi
So going back to blackouts comment earlier, no, Atoms are not that much better than ARM and while i5 is very powerful, it has a poor value and is overkill for the average user. i7 is unnecessary even for many workstation users. The crappy thing is Windows and Intel have got people thinking people need all this performance where in the end, dual core CPUs from 10 years ago are plenty sufficient for everyday non-production tasks. Same goes for RAM but that's a convo for another day.