How does bay trail compare to core2duo?

[msh]

Hi

I have a older macbook with a 2.0 ghz core2duo, how would a modern laptop with atom bay trail compare performance wise to that? (I know it won't run OSX but I am not that wedded to mac).

 

[jhu]

On a per core basis, not very well. Still better than previous Atom though.

 

[daxzy]

On a per core basis, not very well. Still better than previous Atom though.

What do you mean? Based on the graph you linked, the Bay-Trail (even assuming "perfect" core scaling, is within 85% IPC of a 45nm Core2 Duo. If the OP has a 65nm Core2 Duo, it'd be well within 90%, and again, assuming perfect scaling (so it Bay-Trail should be even closer).

But the Z3770 is meant for tablets, the BayTrail-D Celerons that will come with notebooks will have 7.5W TDP and come with much higher clock speeds:

http://ark.intel.com/products/codename/55844/Bay-Trail

So I think to answer the OP's question, Bay-Trail is maybe 10% worse clock to clock against a Core2. Depending on the SKU of Bay-Trail you get (2.4 Ghz QC being the highest), it can potentially be a large upgrade in terms of performance.

 

[BrightCandle]

Clock for clock according to that benchmark its within 7%. However the clock speed is obviously going to be lower than pure IPC would suggest. Most people had 2.4 Ghz Core 2 Duo's. So a 1.47Ghz chip is going to be less than half the performance in single threaded work, or well compared to a C2Q.

 

[Enigmoid]

Clock for clock according to that benchmark its within 7%. However the clock speed is obviously going to be lower than pure IPC would suggest. Most people had 2.4 Ghz Core 2 Duo's. So a 1.47Ghz chip is going to be less than half the performance in single threaded work, or well compared to a C2Q.

OP is comparing to a 2.0 ghz core 2 duo. Baytrail at 2.4 ghz will be roughly equivalent but has two additional cores.

 

[Nothingness]

So I think to answer the OP's question, Bay-Trail is maybe 10% worse clock to clock against a Core2. Depending on the SKU of Bay-Trail you get (2.4 Ghz QC being the highest), it can potentially be a large upgrade in terms of performance.

It's much worse than that. The Core 2 in the bench Jhu linked has 2 cores @1.86 GHz while the BT has 4 cores @2.4 GHz. So definitely Silvermont has a worse IPC than a Core 2 and more than 10%, rather 25-30%.

Here is how it goes against a Q6600: http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/compare/430515?baseline=432517

 

[SPBHM]

z3770 @ 2.4GHz single thread

0.40 points

E2140 (65nm Core 2 Duo based Pentium, with 1MB of l2) downclocked by 100MHz (1500MHz)

that's 500MHz slower than yours, and with 1/4 the l2 cache?

but to be honest I think it's a little unfair, because bay trail was running 32bit windows, but anyway, T7200 should be a good bit faster for 1-2c load.

 

[OBLAMA2009]

i dont care what the benchmarks are, in practice bay trail is awful, with the typical weird atom delays, id stick with the core/i stuff