LONDON The ARMflix channel on Youtube has provided a side-by-side performance comparison of a netbook based on the Intel Atom processor and a dual-core ARM Cortex-A9 development board.
ARM set up both systems to run the same operating system, the same browser and put them on the same high-speed corporate network and checked for responsiveness to the end-user.
The Intel-based netbook seemed to beat the development board to display different websites most times, but not by very much. When it is considered that the netbook has a graphics processing unit and the development board does not, that is surprising result. Even more notable is that the Intel-based netbook is running at 1.6-GHz clock frequency the dual-core Cortex-A9 development is running at 500-MHz.
It sounds like the voice-over is provided by Eric Schorn, vice president of marketing for ARM's processor division. Whoever speaks on the video said: "Performance is certainly a key part of the end-user value proposition but it is only step one. As form factors shrink power efficiency and battery life will increasingly drive market success."
Well, first of all parallel architecture isn't less challenge at all(maybe dual core isn't that bad). Secondly, merely using a limited amount of workload to compare two processor isn't fair. Showing those two CPUs could both open certain webpages isn't equal to similar overall performance. For example you could do any multiplication on a 10 dollars calculator or on a TI-89 and get correct results in a similar time. However, it doesn't mean 10 dollar calculator is powerful as TI-89.
But this is exactly the point LeeYC...
Why go to 1.6 GHz if you can match its performance with the right architecture? That could be less of a technological challenge which in turn would be cheaper to produce.
Well, is Atom also dual core? This comparison isn't very fair and somewhat misleading. Depending on the workload, a dual core processor with 500 MHz could be close to 1GHz theoretically. Anyway this video is from ARM, what can you expect?