Right now, the android faithful scour the internet wielding the rectangle of stupid to find some hint of scandal…some mistake or a conspiracy perhaps – some thing…anything that would at least allow them to believe just for a second there was some kind of collusion between Apple chip wizards and Geekbench software hacks. Something that would answer or at least partially allude to some factoid…some small nugget of information that they could process in their minds to ease the rhetorical question they are all asking…
How can this be happening?
It is quite entertaining to ponder. But I’m way past that. Because it isn’t the Android OEM’s hardware engineers that are collectively losing their shit right now that matters.
It is the shamed lifer at Intel who is contemplating sepuku right about now that I would be concerned about. They might feel a little
For a decade and a half, Intel has been trying their damnedest to put desktop power in a mobile device. They have even gone so far as to rebrand microserver silicon as ‘mobile solutions for the power user’.
“First, I would like to thank smart people like you for designing cool stuff. EE’s rank very high on my list of professions I respect, and I have EET’d for some really great embedded systems engineers.
That said, the performance of the computer system is but one factor in the over-all design of a product based solution. A product that utilizes a higher frequency microprocessor isn’t going to be the fastest performing product in its class simply because of its processor clock speed. Your comment, when taken in context with the question, seems rational. As long as you don’t consider:
- Why Atom was created
- It’s age
- The extra chip it requires
I’m sure we will agree it isn’t because of the C vs R ISC architecture), while the new (or proposed for 2016) Atom cores have a decent level of integration, the data sheet seems to stop at (somewhat weak) GPU and camera sensor. Neither of these deficiencies are because it’s a CISC) Some competing RISC based SoCs contain barometers, gyroscopes, accelerometers, RF radios, Xband receivers, non vote-shared cache, more switches, smaller interconnects, a smaller physical size, better heat coefficient and thermodynamics than Atom does (almost to the point where active cooling would be required) without clock throttling.
These solutions that are designed for mobile products, didn’t need to be scaled from a microserver solution to do its best be wear a mobile hat simply because of revenue concerns. doesn’t worry about Google and Microsoft product manager relationships from which to hinge hopes for it’s market longevity.
That’s because ARM Licensed mobile SoC’s do what they were designed to do:
Power mobile technology.
Now, I understand what you have just read has nothing to do with processor architecture. Just like the RISC portion of my contribution to this question had nothing to do with the computational and process delta that each deploy. It was simply based on the flexibility and the ‘hard-point’ options you get when licensing with ARM.
You get performance where it’s needed for the mobile industry because it’s a designed-for-mobile solution.
Obviously, there are a couple of handsets that will utilize the Atom core based SoC. Why? Relationships, strategic marketing and one Tech Giant just couldn’t get their thrown together and patchwork compiler, some poor decision making, integration on expandable memory, doubled down on a philosophy of ‘security isn’t a priority unless security sells pay-per-click ads. Mix in a culture of, ‘If we can’t give them away fast enough…dog food them.’, market share strategy.
The fact is, there are not any OEM’s who can run with the performance benchmarks that other fruity flavored OEM products despite the latter having a -400Mhz ‘disadvantage’ in clock speed, outperforming the entire industry and only expending %25 of the system memory to run an identical application.If Atom makes gains in mobile it won’t be because of its superior design. It will be because 2 Tech giants decided to enter a vertical market because neither one purposefully engineered a producer intended for the targeted market in which it peddles its wares, and relies on a vertical market strategy that was created by 2 mediocre solutions expending resources to overhaul their products.Their direct competitors simply engineer a solution with the purpose of properly bridging an identified gap, instead of looking for ‘good enough’ holes in which to dump last years overstock.
So…to wrap it all up, there may or may not be a technical impediment that keeps x86 CISC based SoC from performing as well as a RISC based uProcessor in a lab, or on the spec sheet. Keep in mind that the logic isn’t the only item on the BOM.
Now, there is nothing wrong with making the decision to sell your micro-server processor design to a mobile handset OEM after you re-write the data sheet with a crayon. Nor is there anything wrong with giving away free code, free search apps, map apps and other free software and services to one person, just so you can use that free stuff to capture data points, trend app and search data and sell it to someone else.
That person will then use that data generated by the user to sell stuff right back to the same person who generated that data in the first place. There might not be anything wrong with that either.
But is there anything right about it?”
I realize it isn’t cool to quote yourself, but on this subject I give this many shits -> <- about it because hardware solutions…like software…are heavily reliant on marketing and bar- room deals. Some companies do what’s best for the company even if they have to put their prospective customer in the hole so they can make money on overstock silicon.
Others take a different path. Owning the entire process from cradle to grave support, customer financing, engineering the end-to-end solution and then bringing features and benefits that everyone can make money from and still go home feeling ok.
It seems that when Cupertino takes that road, something bad-ass rolls off the assembly line.
Just remember to take theses ‘scores’ with a grain of salt. No one buys a phone to benchmarks a phone. But if Geekbench metrics are a hint of what the iPhone 7 can do in the real world, then I’ll patiently wait for some real world tests.