For the CPU test, three phones scored in the 5000 range for performance,
but of the three, Intel stood out with only 0.85A of average current
versus 1.38A for the Samsung Exynos Octa, and 1.79A for the Qualcomm
Similar trends were seen for most tests. If one of the
chips scored a lower current consumption it only did so with performance
that was significantly lower. If the performance was better, the
current was higher, said ABI. The only test where a competitor matched
the performance of the Intel Z2580 was for recording 1080p video.
Samsung Galaxy S4 i377 had a lower current drain than the Lenovo K900
but this was due to the use of a separate image processor provided by
Fujitsu, said ABI.
The Samsung Exynos Octa processor, which
includes the big-little approach to processing developed by ARM,
performed well without a separate image processor in both the 1080p and
3D graphics tests; outscoring all but with proportionally higher current
compared to the Z2580 from Intel, said ABI.
that support the Intel chips inside in Lenovo K900 include: the Broadcom
BCM4330 combo IC, GPS chip from CSR plc, sensors from
STMicroelectronics and the Wolfson WM5102E audio hub, which is also
found in the Samsung Galaxy S4 i9500.
I'm not arguing the relative comparison which shows less power consumption at comparable performance by a processor. I'm arguing this is only a small portion of the battery life consideration. Other considerations like camera use may matter more to users, in the final purchase decision.
Sure but we know battery life even under normal conditions exceeds 3 hrs, such as in the laptop battery test, regardless of processor.
Don't see how the argument is valid. If one drives a car with engine at redline, the MPG would not be anywhere near the advertized. Do you use laptop or cell running non-stop math and graphics?
On the other hand, the relative performance is meaningful, unless you happen to be on the losing side, that is.
If one was to run any of these benchmark repeatedly, the phones battery would die quite quickly. However, we know that is not the case. However, processor power&performance does come into play in terms of total battery life and hence is important.
Les, my irritation if any is because I believe you are arguing semantics when the details really quite simple and this discussion relates to the article. Arguing semantics is not professional.
- Task time is inversely proportional to processing speed. Note that processing speed is one of the factors listed in this article.
- Power is directly proportional to average current (again, covered in this article).
Task Energy is proportional to (power)/(processing speed).
There are no other complexities. As this article stated, processing speed for the Intel chips were on part with the ARM chips, while average (and peak) current draw was significantly less. The ONLY interpretation that can be made is that task energy will be less. Any other conclusion would be to argue semantics.
Join our online Radio Show on Friday 11th July starting at 2:00pm Eastern, when EETimes editor of all things fun and interesting, Max Maxfield, and embedded systems expert, Jack Ganssle, will debate as to just what is, and is not, and embedded system.