How fast are smartphones compared to desktops?

[micrometers]

Now a typical smartphone has a 1ghz processor.

I still remember when like a 200mhz Pentium 3 copper processor was wicked fast. And actually, I do think that a 200 mhz pentium could actually run a web processor faster than your typical smartphone.

but as to the title, how do they compare?

 

[pm]

Benchmarking across architectures is always a tricky comparison and so you need to factor in a lot of inaccuracy into things because compiler options, coding methods, and other optimizations can dramatically change results on even the same architecture. In other words, you can play lots of tricks accidently or on purpose.

This thread compares the results of "nbench".
http://www.droidforums.net/forum/dr...172732-droidx-vs-pentium-4-vs-core-i7-vs.html


To summarize:
DroidX: MEMORY INDEX : 3.099 INTEGER INDEX : 3.929 FLOATING-POINT INDEX: 0.764
Core i7 2600K: MEMORY INDEX : 30.901 INTEGER INDEX : 15.978 FLOATING-POINT INDEX: 48.199

These don't look too far off from what I'd expect if nbench is single-core/single-threaded.

I could try getting "openssl speed" running tonight... not sure if I can "apt-get" openssl on my mobile.

 

[lau808]

yes i'm curious too. i joke around with my mother in law that my wife's 1ghz dual core galaxy s is faster than her 1.8ghz e series intel desktop but i actually think it might be.

 

[Arachnotronic]

No, it's not, lau808

 

[micrometers]

Benchmarking across architectures is always a tricky comparison and so you need to factor in a lot of inaccuracy into things because compiler options, coding methods, and other optimizations can dramatically change results on even the same architecture. In other words, you can play lots of tricks accidently or on purpose.

This thread compares the results of "nbench".
http://www.droidforums.net/forum/dr...172732-droidx-vs-pentium-4-vs-core-i7-vs.html


To summarize:
DroidX: MEMORY INDEX : 3.099 INTEGER INDEX : 3.929 FLOATING-POINT INDEX: 0.764
Core i7 2600K: MEMORY INDEX : 30.901 INTEGER INDEX : 15.978 FLOATING-POINT INDEX: 48.199

These don't look too far off from what I'd expect if nbench is single-core/single-threaded.

I could try getting "openssl speed" running tonight... not sure if I can "apt-get" openssl on my mobile.

The more interesting part of the link was that it included data from a pentium 90 and k6 266. Can't figure out how to read the chart though.

Actually, I find the iPhone to be surprisingly sluggish despite having a 1ghz processor and running off flash memory.

 

[Maximilian]

Phone - One legged turtle stuck in tar

Desktop - Millennium falcon

 

[notty22]

The user experience with a phone/tablet is tailored.
A User-Centered Approach To Web Design For Mobile Devices

 

[ThatsABigOne]

Not even close. ARM cpu's in phones are mean to dissipate 2-3 watts at most, whereas desktop has the cooling and flexibility to expel huge amount of heat.

 

[dguy6789]

Processing power is still orders of magnitude higher on even old desktops compared to the most advanced phones on the market. An Intel Atom processor is significantly faster than anything in any smartphone. The thinking behind building a smartphone processor is something like 95% make it as low power as possible and 5% make it fast(Not real numbers of course). It has to be in a device and powered on the entire time and last a whole day, the power usage has to be tiny. Desktop PC processors are very much performance oriented.

It is very cleverly optimized software that makes smartphones have any appearance of being powerful.

 

[ocre]

The whole Platform makes a huge impact on the user. If everything opens in a split second and the system loads in a snap it will appear very fast to the user. The ecosystem is efficient. If your atom netbook has major felays open programs, windows, and even inter browsing it gonna appear slow and sluggish. No matter what the CPU benchmarks claim, an android tablet dual core ARM blows any Atom netbook out of the water. The entire experience is much much faster and impressive.

I reality, this new generation ARM CPUs are just about to atom levels in performance but have surpassed the Atom experience by far.

 

[CU]

The more interesting part of the link was that it included data from a pentium 90 and k6 266. Can't figure out how to read the chart though.

I think P90 and K6 233 are used as the baseline. So a score of one means it equals that baseline/cpu.
So,
MEMORY INDEX : 3.099
INTEGER INDEX : 3.929
FLOATING-POINT INDEX: 0.764
Baseline (LINUX) : AMD K6/233*, 512 KB L2-cache, gcc 2.7.2.3, libc-5.4.38
means the ARM chip has 3x memory, 4x interger, and 0.75x floating power of a K6 233.
Please correct me if I am wrong.

That just shows you how different Win7 and Android are. Can you imagine running Win7 and browsing the web on a K6 233 assuming you could even install it. I did try out Android x86 on my Atom netbook and it was very fast. Although I didn't load up 10 websites at once like I do in XP on it. But that is another think that makes Smartphones seems fast. You only expect to run 1 or 2 things at once where as on a Desktop you expect to run everything under sun at the same time. Also Android and other mobile OS's don't support the same kind of multitasking a Desktop does. It more or less pauses the backgrounded app instead of leaving it running in the background.

 

[MrX8503]

I don't think this would be accurate, but it should give you an idea.

According to Geekbench...

iPhone 4S = ~620
Pentium 3 @ 1.4ghz = ~740 (+19&#37
Intel Atom D525 @ 1.80ghz = ~1750 (+182%)
My 2500k @4.5ghz = ~10,400 (+1577%)

So basically a top end smartphone today is about as fast as a low end Pentium 3 in its heyday. The next quadcores should be as fast as or faster than the Atom.

 

[alfa147x]

Since Apple is amazing my A5 CPU in my iPhone 4S kicks my i7 2600k's ass!

 

[alfa147x]

Since Apple is amazing my A5 CPU in my iPhone 4S kicks my i7 2600k's ass!

I'm just joking

 

[soccerballtux]

I don't think this would be accurate, but it should give you an idea.

According to Geekbench...

iPhone 4S = ~620
Pentium 3 @ 1.4ghz = ~740 (+19&#37
Intel Atom D525 @ 1.80ghz = ~1750 (+182%)
My 2500k @4.5ghz = ~10,400 (+1577%)

So basically a top end smartphone today is about as fast as a low end Pentium 3 in its heyday. The next quadcores should be as fast as or faster than the Atom.

Keep in mind the Iphone4S processor is running at 1Ghz.
So overclock it to 1.4ghz and it's faster than the Pentium3...

 

[Arkadrel]

Going by PM's nBench scores, compaireing his 2600k vs a DroidX....
Somewhere between 10 times to 60 times faster? or so, depending on what type of workload its doing.

 

[gevorg]

It doesn't matter how much desktops are faster. What matters the most is usability and available software/apps. Its just a matter of time until smartphone/tablet processors would be fast enough for typical desktop user tasks (not geeks though ). All you'll have to do is dock to some monitor and keyboard, wirelessly. Tablets will be first. ARM Windows 8 will make it easier.

 

[happy medium]

Keep in mind the Iphone4S processor is running at 1Ghz.
So overclock it to 1.4ghz and it's faster than the Pentium3...

Add 3 cores to that with a Tegra 3 40nm quadcore in 2 months and its as fast as a Pent 4.

1 ARM core @ 1.4 will get ~ a 900 score, x 4 for a quadcore = a 3600 score.

3600 is 2x faster than a Atom D525 @ 1.8

Add a 28nm shrink and 2.0ghz clocks to the Tegra 3 quad core in 8 months and you should be in Pent D territory with a gpu with console quality graphics on die, in a 2 watt envelope and 12 hour battery life due to the 5th core that conserves energy.

Sounds mighty impressive.:thumbsup:

 

[alyarb]

"console quality graphics " perhaps at 960x540 smartphone resolution. Anything more implies making the jump to 128-bit memory bus which SoCs have not yet made. The potential performance of an ARM core is quickly outgrowing its external interfaces and until 3D stacked RAM comes out to widen the bus there will be big constraints on practical throughput compared to the 256-bit CPUs and GPU memory systems we have today.

ultramobile OSes have shown that a great user experience for most apps can run fine on a tiny CPU/RAM system but high res games are still uncharted territory for ARM SoCs. Compare that to a $100 PCIe GPU that gets over 100GB/sec and can barely run BF3 at 720p and you start to see huge thermal and I/O barriers standing in the way of energy-conscious phone SoCs achieving the level of 3D performance of consoles.

I would call a A4 Llano or PS3 the minimum of console quality graphics and these systems get about 10 and 20 GB/sec to RAM respectively compared to 2-5 GB/sec from a 32 or 64-bit wide SoC mch.

 

[Ferzerp]

Why does it sound so impressive? We're talking 6-7 years behind, that's pretty much how the mobile space has always been compared to desktop.

You don't appear to have perspective here.

 

[happy medium]

"console quality graphics " perhaps at 960x540 smartphone resolution

I was under the impression that the hdmi out on phones will play on your TV.
At least thats what I see on Youtube videos.

New phones have mini usb ports for xbox 360 controllers/mice/keyboards and hdmi out allready.

Arm SOC chips are doubling cpu/gpu performance every 12 months also.

In 2 years with Windows 8, your phone will be your laptop for day to day use. Just hook up a keyboard, mouse/gamepad, and monitor.

 

[Ferzerp]

The current generation of consoles are 5-6 years old and pushing 720p or rarely higher and often lower and still suffer from framerate issues(they can't handle good resolution without upscaling a lower res rendered image).

Ps3 and xbox 360 are *ancient* tech in computing terms.

 

[alyarb]

Oh yeah, I didn't mean that you couldn't have a console like interface, I just meant that SoCs are still quite a ways from achieving PS3 performance in realtime rendering because of the compute and I/O limitations imposed by their ultramobile form factor despite the 7-year gap suggested by Ferzerp. Console-quality experience is possible today, but not performance. Compared to modern technology, no, consoles are not very fast, but they are still substantially faster than the fastest 28nm SoCs.

 

[happy medium]

perhaps at 960x540 smartphone resolution

The Samsung Galaxy note avalable now is running 1280x800 now with a dual core 1.4ghz cpu and the fastest mobile phone graphics avalable. It has hdmi out with a mini usb output.

Next sunner we will have a 28nm quadcore cpu @ ~ 2ghz and 2 or 3x the graphics power of todays chips.

Centainly fast enough to run windows 8 on a laptop @ 1600x900.
Imagine the battery life of a laptop running a 2 watt chip? 2 or 3 days easy.

 

[Ferzerp]

The Samsung Galaxy note avalable now is running 1280x800 now with a dual core 1.4ghz cpu and the fastest mobile phone graphics avalable. It has hdmi out with a mini usb output.

Next sunner we will have a 28nm quadcore cpu @ ~ 2ghz and 2 or 3x the graphics power of todays chips.

Centainly fast enough to run windows 8 on a laptop @ 1600x900.
Imagine the battery life of a laptop running a 2 watt chip? 2 or 3 days easy.

You're forgetting that there are many, many more parts to power than just a processor. Even if we assume the power draw of the cpu is 1/3 of the power draw of the entire system, if we remove it entirely, we've still only turned 3 hours in to 4.