Hacker News Reader

Comment by sz4kerto | Hacker News Reader

"Apple A9X SoC offers 64 bit desktop-class computing enabling a handheld tablet to go toe-to-toe with a state-of-the-art laptop CPU from Intel"

Yes and no. Most of the innovation in top-end x86 CPUs goes towards multicore and multi-socket scalability. My desktop is almost 10x faster than an A9X -- and nobody manufactures an ARM SoC that has 100 W thermal envelope but delivers the same speed as a Xeon v3.

Intel manufactures different state-of-the-art laptop CPUs. Apple SoCs can compete with the ultra-low voltage Intels, but not with high-end i7 HQ/MQ series.

View on HN

nobody manufactures an ARM SoC that has 100 W thermal envelope but delivers the same speed as a Xeon v3

Look at Cavium ThunderX: 48 ARMv8 cores, very high performance, 95W.

The key question is which workloads will actually benefit from many low single-thread performance cores. While there are some where such a node coupled with a GPU compute cluster will probably be the useful but it seems like a vast majority of server deployments just want good single-thread perf with 2 or more hardware threads.

Don't necessarily assume that all ARM cores will have low single-thread performance. Especially with 64 bit server-class ARM SoCs, the performance can be rather good.

there arn't a lot of workloads a laptop is going to care about that utilize 4 cores, let alone 48. Each indivual core is going to be 1/10th the preformance or less of an intel one.

It would feel dreadfully slow by comparison.

You won't be running a Cavium part in your laptop, ever. They specialize in parts for enterprise servers and telecoms.

However, my phone has 6 x 64 bit ARMv8 cores.

I think you're talking about the Snapdragon 808 which your phone has. That's a big.LITTLE CPU which means that it's meant to use the 4 little cores almost all of the time and use the big cores only when high performance is really required. What I mean to say is that the 4+2/4+4/4+4+4 configurations aren't meant to parallelize across all cores but rather to minimize power consumption.

> Intel manufactures different state-of-the-art laptop CPUs. Apple SoCs can compete with the ultra-low voltage Intels, but not with high-end i7 HQ/MQ series.

I think his point was that a $15 Apple chip crushes a $150 Intel Core M. Core M chips have extremely little bang/buck value, as do the new "Celerons" and "Pentiums" that are dressed up $110+ Atom chips.

That $15 vs $150 comparison is stupid - where I can buy a A9 for $15?

The A9 is a great jump forward by Apple - and I'm impressed by my iPhone 6s - but I'm yet to see the "crushing" benchmark, except for those that are skewed by SHA results.

Not to mention people buying the x86 chip were buying performance and x86 compatibility. Proper comparisons for cheap or energy-efficient x86 would be best made against VIA's CPU's. Maybe also the Loongson with x86 emulation since they can give you speed in MIPS mode and x86 compatibility where needed. Don't know their price, though.

It's funny that the Celerons you call expensive make up for almost all the processors in cheap laptops such as Chromebooks which sell around the $200 price point[1]. Heck I bought one of those Kangaroo portable desktop things[2] last week for $100 which has a dual core Atom.

Now maybe Core M was an especially gimped CPU but it might be a part of Apple's strategy to push users from entry level Macbooks to the iPad Pro. But all of these other devices with Celerons / Atoms are really capable and people use them for actual work instead of using an iPhone/iPad despite what the benchmarks say.

[1] http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00MMLV7VQ [2] http://www.engadget.com/2015/10/26/infocus-kangaroo-pc/

Reply on news.ycombinator.com