Go Back   AnandTech Forums > Hardware and Technology > CPUs and Overclocking

Forums
· Hardware and Technology
· CPUs and Overclocking
· Motherboards
· Video Cards and Graphics
· Memory and Storage
· Power Supplies
· Cases & Cooling
· SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones PCs
· Networking
· Peripherals
· General Hardware
· Highly Technical
· Computer Help
· Home Theater PCs
· Consumer Electronics
· Digital and Video Cameras
· Mobile Devices & Gadgets
· Audio/Video & Home Theater
· Software
· Software for Windows
· All Things Apple
· *nix Software
· Operating Systems
· Programming
· PC Gaming
· Console Gaming
· Distributed Computing
· Security
· Social
· Off Topic
· Politics and News
· Discussion Club
· Love and Relationships
· The Garage
· Health and Fitness
· Merchandise and Shopping
· For Sale/Trade
· Hot Deals with Free Stuff/Contests
· Black Friday 2014
· Forum Issues
· Technical Forum Issues
· Personal Forum Issues
· Suggestion Box
· Moderator Resources
· Moderator Discussions
   

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-17-2013, 02:15 AM   #76
Haserath
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 735
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenansadhu View Post
From what I read in this, I guess what NVIDIA did with Tegra 4 (and 3) is wrong?
If I'm not mistaken, the Tegra 4 will have 4 A15 cores, with a companion core which also is an A15. Since A15 will use high power anyway, even in low clock speed, does it mean Tegra 4 will not have the same low-task efficiency compared to big.LITTLE architecture?
That would be a waste if it wasn't different in some way.

I think Nvidia will use two different process types so their companion core uses less power. This way must require less scheduling complexity since it's the same core.
Haserath is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2013, 04:03 AM   #77
djgandy
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 78
Default

In order mixed with out of order, in fact two mixed CPU architectures. Good luck to compiler writers! Do you target the In-order chip or the out of order?

Compiler optimisations made a huge difference to Atom chips, although this is going the other way (from In-order to OOE)

Last edited by djgandy; 01-17-2013 at 07:24 AM.
djgandy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2013, 04:27 AM   #78
alex98
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 11
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Haserath View Post
I think Nvidia will use two different process types so their companion core uses less power.
Not this time. According to Nvidia, it's not possible with 28nm HPL so it will use the same process that the rest of the CPU but will run at lower frequency (around 700-800Mhz)
alex98 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2013, 08:24 AM   #79
LogOver
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 203
Default

Here it`s started. Qualcomm against Samsung (and big.LITTLE):

http://www.unwiredview.com/2013/01/1...blicity-stunt/
LogOver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2013, 10:27 AM   #80
krumme
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,209
Default

A15 is 1.6mm2 pcx, A7 is 0.45mm2 pcx. The A7 is hardly going to kill the die budget, if you already have 4 A15. And who cares if the A15 dont scale down. The question is, will little-big work - and if; how long time will it have to get it to work good.
krumme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2013, 10:39 AM   #81
Fjodor2001
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,497
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LogOver View Post
Here it`s started. Qualcomm against Samsung (and big.LITTLE):

http://www.unwiredview.com/2013/01/1...blicity-stunt/
Well, what's the Qualcomm representative supposed to say? That Samsung has a better product?

Instead he is primarily complaining that Samsung is presenting the Exynos 5 Octa as an 8 core CPU:

"So Samsung is apparently trying to turn a pretty big problem (the high power drain of the Cortex-A15 design) into an advantage, by screaming ‘eight-core’ at the world and hoping people will once again fall for the ‘more is always better’ fallacy."


But the number of cores is not the main purpose at all. It seems like Qualcomm it trying to downplay the main advantages of big.LITTLE.

Then he says:

"The recently announced Snapdragon 800 and 600 series are ‘just’ four-core parts, but Jacobs says they can scale both their performance and their power consumption according to what’s needed at any given time."

So the Snapdragon 800 and 600 can scale the CPU performance and power consumption - great, what other modern mobile CPU cores can't do that! But do they do it equally as good as big.LITTLE on a wide performance and power consumption range? That's the main question. Something he does not really comment on...

I'm not saying big.LITTLE is definitely better, but some benchmarks would be interesting.

Last edited by Fjodor2001; 01-17-2013 at 10:41 AM.
Fjodor2001 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2013, 10:49 AM   #82
Idontcare
Administrator
Elite Member
 
Idontcare's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: 台北市
Posts: 20,462
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LogOver View Post
Here it`s started. Qualcomm against Samsung (and big.LITTLE):

http://www.unwiredview.com/2013/01/1...blicity-stunt/
LOL, the parallels between Qualcomm/Samsung versus Intel/AMD just make my brain hurt

AMD will sell you 8-cores as well, but just don't expect them to function as if it were an 8-core product, expect it to function more like a gimped "6.4 core" product

Just goes to show that the shenanigans marketing will go to in order to separate a wallet from a consumer are universal because no matter the market or product at the end of the day the consumer is human and the same sales tactics are bound to work for all the same psychological reasons

I'm waiting for Detroit to start selling V8 engines that technically have 8 cylinders but you can only use 6 of them I have it on good authority the marketing departments are preparing to call this new technology "thanks:SUCKERS"
Idontcare is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2013, 12:48 PM   #83
Fjodor2001
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,497
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Idontcare View Post
LOL, the parallels between Qualcomm/Samsung versus Intel/AMD just make my brain hurt

AMD will sell you 8-cores as well, but just don't expect them to function as if it were an 8-core product, expect it to function more like a gimped "6.4 core" product
Well, I agree that the marketing departments in both the Samsung vs Qualcomm camps are in full hype vs revert-hype mode.

But to be fair, I think it depends on how Samsung intends to market this. If they market Exynos 5 Octa as mainly a solution to keep good perf/watt across a wide performance range, then I think it's fair (assuming big.LITTLE will work as intended). In that case the AMD 8 core comparison is not so valid, since it has no such power saving benefits at all with its design.

Anyway, the guy in the audience screaming "OCTA.... YES!!!" @ 15:13 & 17:07 seems to believe the hype :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDJ67df0p6A

Last edited by Fjodor2001; 01-17-2013 at 01:03 PM.
Fjodor2001 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2013, 01:13 PM   #84
GillyBillyDilly
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 59
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fjodor2001 View Post
"The recently announced Snapdragon 800 and 600 series are ‘just’ four-core parts, but Jacobs says they can scale both their performance and their power consumption according to what’s needed at any given time."
Qualcomm are the real men. And they will win long term, if they don't get forced to adapt the big little concept for marketing purposes. In my discussion with Exophase in this thread I knew he was telling the truth but just not the whole truth.
Good luck Qualcomm. May power performance be with you.
GillyBillyDilly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2013, 01:25 PM   #85
MisterMac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 759
Default

He doesn't seem the slightest bit worried Intel\x86 big cores going into mobile.

Is that ignorance or confidence... or showmanship?
MisterMac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2013, 01:38 PM   #86
Fjodor2001
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,497
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GillyBillyDilly View Post
Qualcomm are the real men. And they will win long term
Because...?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GillyBillyDilly View Post
In my discussion with Exophase in this thread I knew he was telling the truth but just not the whole truth.
What part of the truth do you mean he did not tell?
Fjodor2001 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2013, 01:44 PM   #87
alex98
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 11
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GillyBillyDilly View Post
Qualcomm are the real men. And they will win long term, if they don't get forced to adapt the big little concept for marketing purposes. In my discussion with Exophase in this thread I knew he was telling the truth but just not the whole truth.
Good luck Qualcomm. May power performance be with you.
Every CPU can scale both their performance and their power consumption according to what’s needed at any given time. They don't always run at their highest clock frequency.
alex98 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2013, 01:46 PM   #88
Fjodor2001
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,497
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterMac View Post
He doesn't seem the slightest bit worried Intel\x86 big cores going into mobile.

Is that ignorance or confidence... or showmanship?
Yes, interesting. Also this:

"Furthermore, Jacobs doesn’t believe Intel has an advantage in production technology compared to Qualcomm."

Last time I checked Qualcomm did not even have any fabs of their own. And in 2012 they had serious problems even delivering the amount of chips they needed due to capacity limitations at TSMC. Furthermore, Intel is at 22 nm vs TSMC at 28 nm. Sum this up and I don't see how Qualcomm seriously can say that Intel has no production technology advantage.
Fjodor2001 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2013, 02:15 PM   #89
Idontcare
Administrator
Elite Member
 
Idontcare's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: 台北市
Posts: 20,462
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fjodor2001 View Post
Yes, interesting. Also this:

"Furthermore, Jacobs doesn’t believe Intel has an advantage in production technology compared to Qualcomm."

Last time I checked Qualcomm did not even have any fabs of their own. And in 2012 they had serious problems even delivering the amount of chips they needed due to capacity limitations at TSMC. Furthermore, Intel is at 22 nm vs TSMC at 28 nm. Sum this up and I don't see how Qualcomm seriously can say that Intel has no production technology advantage.
Pay me $10m a year to be Qualcomm CEO and I will stand up and lie through my teeth as well, all in the name of playing the marketing game that is public perception.

What possible purpose could be served in Jacobs making such a public statement in drawing the comparison to Intel? It is purely for show as an attempt to manipulate mindshare in hopes of it having a trickle-down effect into bolstering demand for the stock as well as boosting confidence in their supply chain that sticking with team Qualcomm going forward (and avoiding Intel) is not tantamount to shooting yourself in the foot.

The guy is a salesman doing what he is paid to do, spread FUD about his competitors in a gambit to raise the perceived value of his employer.
Idontcare is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2013, 02:15 PM   #90
ShintaiDK
Lifer
 
ShintaiDK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 11,006
Default

Yep, thats just PR BS. But who would admit otherwise and give Intel a free card on the matter?
__________________
Anandtech forums=Xtremesystems forums
ShintaiDK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2013, 02:51 PM   #91
Exophase
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,263
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GillyBillyDilly View Post
Qualcomm are the real men. And they will win long term, if they don't get forced to adapt the big little concept for marketing purposes. In my discussion with Exophase in this thread I knew he was telling the truth but just not the whole truth.
Good luck Qualcomm. May power performance be with you.
What truth do you think I'm withholding from you?
Exophase is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2013, 02:54 PM   #92
Idontcare
Administrator
Elite Member
 
Idontcare's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: 台北市
Posts: 20,462
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exophase View Post
What truth do you think I'm withholding from you?
That you are an alien sent here to spy on us

Ah crap, you're gonna have to liquidate me now, aren't you
Idontcare is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2013, 03:06 PM   #93
GillyBillyDilly
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 59
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fjodor2001 View Post
Because...?

What part of the truth do you mean he did not tell?
1 - because they are not going with the wind and are doing real engineering work.

2 - Scientists come in two categories. Those who say it can't be done because of this and that ( and they speak the partial truth ) and those who say it can be done if this and that ( they speak the whole truth ). The second category are the game changers in this world.
GillyBillyDilly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2013, 03:14 PM   #94
GillyBillyDilly
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 59
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exophase View Post
What truth do you think I'm withholding from you?
I am not saying that you were withholding any truth. By no means. You were kind and informative in your posts. But realising that in terms of technical knowledge you had the overhand, you didn't bother yourself enough to consider somewhat more deeply my point and try to find a solution for it. It was kind of "what do you know, you noob".
GillyBillyDilly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2013, 03:19 PM   #95
GillyBillyDilly
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 59
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Idontcare View Post
That you are an alien sent here to spy on us

Ah crap, you're gonna have to liquidate me now, aren't you
I sense some - vibes.
hope I am wrong.
if not,
sorry
GillyBillyDilly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2013, 04:01 PM   #96
IntelUser2000
Elite Member
 
IntelUser2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,509
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fjodor2001 View Post
Furthermore, Intel is at 22 nm vs TSMC at 28 nm. Sum this up and I don't see how Qualcomm seriously can say that Intel has no production technology advantage.
Right now, he's right. Their direct competition are Atom, which are based on 32nm.

I know node designations aren't directly comparable. So let me give you guys my 2 cents.

Transistor-

Performance: I would give Intel an edge with their 32nm process, because that's what they are best at, and have been working for years. Add to the fact its HKMG versus Bulk
Power use: Apples to Apples, HKMG is probably better, but TSMC offers slower transistors that use less power. I assume Intel has bit of edge at idle, with both being par on load
Density: TSMC has better density, probably even at same node designations. That's because they are used to making chips that need high density and low power

So its Intel 32nm with basically their first real effort into a SoC process, versus TSMC 28nm, which is a honed through years of fabricating dense GPUs and small SoCs.

The transistor characteristics I described above reflects the actual products compared in RAZR i vs RAZR M. The Atom clocks higher due to faster transistors, power tests show Atom is lower at idle. In constant, mixed idle/load use, Qualcomm probably has battery life advantage, because it clocks lower.

This is just like in GPUs, where Intel iGPUs clock extremely high while featuring lower number of shaders, versus TSMC fabbed parts that feature relatively lower frequencies with higher number of shaders. What's common is that its likely process differences that contribute to the radical difference between Intel and competitors approach, whether in mobile SoCs or GPUs.
__________________
Core i7 2600K + Turbo Boost | Intel DH67BL/GMA HD 3000 IGP | Corsair XMS3 2x2GB DDR3-1600 @ 1333 9-9-9-24 |
Intel X25-M G1 80GB + Seagate 160GB 7200RPM | OCZ Modstream 450W | Samsung Syncmaster 931c | Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit | Microsoft Sidewinder Mouse | Viliv S5-Atom Z520 WinXP UMPC

Last edited by IntelUser2000; 01-17-2013 at 04:06 PM.
IntelUser2000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2013, 04:20 PM   #97
Fjodor2001
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,497
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GillyBillyDilly View Post
1 - because they are not going with the wind and are doing real engineering work.
Care to be a bit more concrete?

What do you mean that Qualcomm is doing "real engineering work", where as Samsung and ARM are not? Be specific please.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GillyBillyDilly View Post
2 - Scientists come in two categories. Those who say it can't be done because of this and that ( and they speak the partial truth ) and those who say it can be done if this and that ( they speak the whole truth ). The second category are the game changers in this world.
You wrote:
"Exophase in this thread I knew he was telling the truth but just not the whole truth."

Then you wrote:
"I am not saying that you were withholding any truth."

=> Does not compute.

Again - care to be a bit more concrete? What information are you saying has been withheld from you. Right now you are just coming up with vague accusations, and even more vague explanations. It doesn't look very good.

So please be specific.
Fjodor2001 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2013, 04:22 PM   #98
Idontcare
Administrator
Elite Member
 
Idontcare's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: 台北市
Posts: 20,462
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GillyBillyDilly View Post
I sense some - vibes.
hope I am wrong.
if not,
sorry
My post about aliens and liquidations was purely in jest, if that wasn't self-evident then I will say it outright here and now.

Your post, however, I have no idea what I am suppose to take from that Call me clueless and you'd be spot on Can you throw me a hint or two?
Idontcare is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2013, 04:32 PM   #99
GillyBillyDilly
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 59
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Idontcare View Post
My post about aliens and liquidations was purely in jest, if that wasn't self-evident then I will say it outright here and now.

Your post, however, I have no idea what I am suppose to take from that Call me clueless and you'd be spot on Can you throw me a hint or two?
Then take the second sentence in my post and we are done.
GillyBillyDilly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2013, 04:51 PM   #100
GillyBillyDilly
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 59
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fjodor2001 View Post


You wrote: "Exophase in this thread I knew he was telling the truth but just not the whole truth." Then you wrote: "I am not saying that you were withholding any truth." => Does not compute.
Care to be a bit more concrete?

1 - If you have been following this thread, you'd know my stand on the big little and power scaling approaches.


2 - Does compute: When someone asks you how are you? you typically answer Fine. Thanks. You are not withholding any truth. But when you start talking or thinking about your problems you realise that you aren't quite as fine as you thought. What I meant was something in these lines.

Last edited by GillyBillyDilly; 01-17-2013 at 05:00 PM.
GillyBillyDilly is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:28 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.