Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 43

Thread: ARM Cortex-A15 vs. NVIDIA Tegra 3 vs. Intel x86

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    38

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnc View Post
    Those are GPU benchmarks of the PowerVR chip.
    So? That doesn't change the fact that the A6(x), which incorporates a PowerVR GPU, is faster than the competing ARM SoCs at GPU performance. And the CPU benchmarks aren't exactly bad either, it either beats the competing SoCs or is close. The combination of this is why I would say the A6(x) is the fastest SoC today.
    Last edited by nej_simon; 11-29-2012 at 06:55 PM.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Rio de Janeiro
    Posts
    203

    Default

    Here you go: http://www.anandtech.com/show/6440/g...xus-4-review/3
    A6 s able to best exynos 5 in a few, but not many benchmarks. Obviouly well never have a very comparable data because thise chips will never run the same OS.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    68

    Default

    The GPU benchmarks aren't very relevant, because a manufacturer could "easily" decide to put a powervr instead of a mali on his soc and have equal or slightly superior benchs in the GPU category.
    Thus A6 is still faster in graphics than the E5, but the A15 is way faster than the A9.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Barcelona
    Posts
    74

    Default

    Ouya should have used a A15 chip instead of Tegra 3.
    Oh well, by the time it comes out its performance won't be that stellar.

  5. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Figueiredo View Post
    Here you go: http://www.anandtech.com/show/6440/g...xus-4-review/3
    A6 s able to best exynos 5 in a few, but not many benchmarks. Obviouly well never have a very comparable data because thise chips will never run the same OS.
    The A6 CPU core is simply weaker than A15, and Anand says it too at the beginning of the article I believe. Combine that with the fact that A15 is running at 1.7 Ghz, while A6 is at 1.3 Ghz in iPhone 5, and probably 1.5 Ghz in iPad (unless they kept it the same), and there's no way A6's CPU can beat A15. As someone else has said here, it should have around the same performance as Qualcomm's Krait, although perhaps slightly more efficient (something Anand says).

    Why aren't you seeing this reflected in Nexus 10 benchmarks? Because they are done with Chrome for Android, which in terms of performance is not competitive with the mobile Safari right now, and that's all Google's fault for leaving it behind desktop Chrome a 5 full 5 versions.

    The exact same Exynos 5 scores under 700 ms in Chrome OS/Chrome 23, and about double in both V8 and Octane browser tests, compared to iPhone 5.

    http://www.androidauthority.com/exyn...hmarks-125134/

    Again, the A6 CPU is not even close in terms of performance with A15/Exynos 5. The GPU is indeed about 50% faster in games, so I agree that. But what do you use more in devices? The CPU or the GPU? Obviously the CPU, for all apps. So by that account, Exynos 5 is the better chip. You can actually run full OS's on it as you can see.

  6. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bachinchi View Post
    Ouya should have used a A15 chip instead of Tegra 3.
    Oh well, by the time it comes out its performance won't be that stellar.
    I agree, they should've waited for Tegra 4.

  7. #27

    Default

    The A6 CPU core is simply weaker than A15, and Anand says it too at the beginning of the article I believe. Combine that with the fact that A15 is running at 1.7 Ghz, while A6 is at 1.3 Ghz in iPhone 5, and probably 1.5 Ghz in iPad (unless they kept it the same), and there's no way A6's CPU can beat A15. As someone else has said here, it should have around the same performance as Qualcomm's Krait, although perhaps slightly more efficient (something Anand says).

    Why aren't you seeing this reflected in Nexus 10 benchmarks? Because they are done with Chrome for Android, which in terms of performance is not competitive with the mobile Safari right now, and that's all Google's fault for leaving it behind desktop Chrome a 5 full 5 versions.

    The exact same Exynos 5 scores under 700 ms in Chrome OS/Chrome 23, and about double in both V8 and Octane browser tests, compared to iPhone 5.

    http://www.androidauthority.com/exyn...hmarks-125134/

    Again, the A6 CPU is not even close in terms of performance with A15/Exynos 5. The GPU is indeed about 50% faster in games, so I agree that. But what do you use more in devices? The CPU or the GPU? Obviously the CPU, for all apps. So by that account, Exynos 5 is the better chip. You can actually run full OS's on it as you can see.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    2

    Default

    While the test would be more fair if we had a Quad Core Cortex A15, Since the Intel would have had 4 thread to use. Sadly we dont have such option on the market at the moment.

    I wonder if the x86 test were using 64bit, i.e giving additional advantage to x86 or are they done in 32bit too? If it was x64 i would be VERY impressed.

  9. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ksec View Post
    I wonder if the x86 test were using 64bit, i.e giving additional advantage to x86 or are they done in 32bit too? If it was x64 i would be VERY impressed.
    It's all mentioned in the PTS tables..... All the 64-bit capable x86 hardware was using x86_64 images.

  10. #30

    Default

    I used phoronix-test-suit to compare your benchmarks with mine

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •