cortex A57 vs krait 450, which is more powerful?

[Prankmaster]

Just that, which one scores higher?

 

[poofyhairguy]

The A57. The 450 is a 32 bit chip.

 

[Trombe]

I think it's the A53 that's the successor to A7. That being said nobody will really know until sampling is available for both products.

 

[pantsaregood]

The A57. The 450 is a 32 bit chip.

Being a 32-bit chip doesn't mean it's slower.

That said, I'm not sure.

 

[Prankmaster]

Being a 32-bit chip doesn't mean it's slower.

Exactly, besides 64bit support is well, lagging like with early 64bit PC CPUs

What surprises me is that qualcomm is using a bunch of A57 and A53 cores in their latests socs instead of the krait

Then again dualcore krait socs were able to beat regular ARM quads in the past, and even heavy apps and games like GTASA don't use more than 2 cores so in that case is powerXcore rather than #-of-cores

 

[Mopetar]

Qualcomm probably doesn't have their own custom version finished yet so it's either sell the vanilla ARM cores or try to keep selling their older technology. They'll have a Krait successor eventually.

I don't know what their planned schedule is for it, and I don't even recall hearing any leaks about it, or even what it's supposed to be called. Whatever it is, I imagine that when they release it it's going to be a significant cut above the standard ARM cores.

 

[dagamer34]

This comparison makes no sense, because performance is close enough that you need to factor in battery life into the situation. And clock speeds aren't universal when a) everyone advertises turbo speeds, not nominal ones (notice how we suddenly jumped from 1.5Ghz -> 2.5Ghz in 1.5 generations) b) actual clock speeds are controlled by the CPU governor, which is dependent on the OEM of the phone.

Ultimately, it's a moot point anyway, as when Cortex A57 actually rolls out in earnest next year, Qualcomm will be using it in their Snapdragon 808/810 as it looks like the custom 64-bit ARMv8 core isn't going to see the light of day until 2016 (assuming they are actually still going down that route).

 

[Roland00Address]

Answer. There is no way for anyone to give you real information on the forums. I am going to seem like I repeat myself in the points below.

1) These chips are not on the market at the moment.
2) You can do computer simulations if you work at qualcomm. Only qualcomm can accurately do computer simulations for they are the only one who know the internals of the chip. But computer simulations are not the same as real life chips, for example AMD bulldozer supposedly looked great in simulations, able to scale to higher ghzs than the real chips.
3) Using simulations of artificial benchmarks does not necessarily mean the same as real life performance in every day tasks. There are very few good mobile benchmarks out there right now.
4) If qualcomm has working alpha/beta silicon they won't be disclosing this information on the forums. All the engineers will have NDA up the ying yang, and if they broke the NDA they will lose their job, they will get sued, and they will be non employable in the industry.
5) Alpha/Beta silicon doesn't necessary have the same performance as real life silicon. There is a reason that a chip is an alpha and not a "release candidate."
6) Thermals matters a lot in a device, often we get "reference platforms" that often outperform the real life silicon, this is because the reference platform usually allows much higher/longer maximum turbo boosts while real life devices are more concern about tdp/battery/heat/etc.
7) Final Device OEMS such as samsung, htc, lg, etc will choose different targets for the cpu governor, prioritizing maximum speed, battery life, thermals, etc.
8) Just looking at performance is a useless measure, most devices in the end will score within 20% of each other if the devices are competitive to each other. What soc will end up in the final product is determined by many factors such as price, battery life, time to market, performance, etc.