LONDON – Intel's Z2580 application processor, which was codenamed as CloverTrail prior to launch, outperformed competitors' processors in a benchmarking exercise, according to Allied Business Intelligence Inc., which trades as ABI Research.
ABI Research concluded that Intel Corp. (Santa Clara, Calif.) has succeeded in reducing significantly the power consumption of its smartphone application processor and it now rivals and is often lower than equivalents based on the ARM architecture licensed from ARM Holdings plc (Cambridge, England).
Since high-end smartphones require this level of performance ABI said it considers Intel is "well positioned for strong growth over the next few years."
The benchmarks were done by comparing the performance of the Lenovo K900 smartphone, powered by Intel's Z2580 application processor and supporting XMM6360 chipset, with a series of Samsung smartphones that are based on ARM-based application processors from Nvidia, Qualcomm and Samsung.
"The benchmarks were impressive but the real surprise was the current consumption recorded during the benchmarks; the new processor not only outperformed the competition in performance but it did so with up to half the current drain," said Jim Mielke, vice president of engineering at ABI research, in a statement.
"Intel did significant work to bring the current drain down on their well-recognized high-performance processors but the competitors did not help themselves. The ARM architecture used by nearly all of Intel's competitors is well known for its low power performance but in bringing the processing power up closer to PC levels, the current drain has taken a significant hit," Mielke added. He continued: "Combining the high-end modems – the XMM6360 is used in both the Lenovo K900 and the Samsung Galaxy S4 i9500 – with their application processors for high- to mid-tier solutions and single-chip EDGE chips for low-cost phones makes Intel a rare full portfolio provider."
Details of the results are included in the table below.
Click on image to enlarge.
Comparison of mobile phone performance. Source: ABI Research
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.