Cortex A15: RIABench

The RIABench story isn't any different from the other tests, although peak power consumption is slightly lower for the Cortex A15 here. The gap between it and Atom/Krait remains quite large. The big leap in performance does come at a real cost in power consumption.

 

Task Energy - RIABench - Total Platform

 

Task Energy - RIABench - CPU Only

Task Energy - RIABench - GPU Only

RIABench - Max, Avg, Min Power

Max Power Draw - RIABench - Total Platform

Max Power Draw - RIABench - GPU Only

Max Power Draw - RIABench - CPU Only

Average Power

Average Power Draw - RIABench - Total Platform

Average Power Draw - RIABench - GPU Only

Average Power Draw - RIABench - CPU Only

Minimum Power

Min Power Draw - RIABench - Total Platform

Min Power Draw - RIABench - GPU Only

Min Power Draw - RIABench - CPU Only

Cortex A15: Kraken Cortex A15: WebXPRT 2013 - Community Preview 1
POST A COMMENT

140 Comments

View All Comments

  • powerarmour - Friday, January 04, 2013 - link

    So yes, finally confirming what anyone with half a brain knows, competitive ARM SoC's use less power. Reply
  • apinkel - Friday, January 04, 2013 - link

    I'm assuming you are kidding.

    Atom is roughly equivalent to (dual core) Krait in power draw but has better performance.

    The A15 is faster than either krait or the atom but it's power draw is too much to make it usable in a smartphone (which is I'm assuming why qualcomm had to redesign the A15 architecture for krait to make it fit into the smartphone power envelope).

    The battle I still want to see is quad core krait and atom.
    Reply
  • ImSpartacus - Friday, January 04, 2013 - link

    Let me make sure I have this straight. Did Qualcomm redesign A15 to create Krait? Reply
  • djgandy - Friday, January 04, 2013 - link

    No. Qualcomm create their own designs from scratch. They have an Instruction Set licence for ARM but they are arm "clones" Reply
  • apinkel - Friday, January 04, 2013 - link

    Sorry, yeah, I could have worded that better.

    But in any case the comment now has me wondering if I'm off base in my understanding of how Qualcomm does what it does...

    I've been under the impression that Qualcomm took the ARM design and tweaked it for their needs (instead of just licensing the instruction set and the full chip design top to bottom). Yeah/Nay?
    Reply
  • fabarati - Friday, January 04, 2013 - link

    Nay.

    They do what AMD does, they license the instruction set and create their own cpus that are compatible with the ARM ISA's (in Krait's case, the ARMv7). That's also what Apple did with their Swift cores.

    Nvidia tweaked the Cortex A9 in the Tegra 2, but it was still a Cortex A9. Ditto for Samsung, Hummingbird and the Cortex A8.
    Reply
  • designerfx - Friday, January 04, 2013 - link

    do I need to remind you that the Tegra 3 has disabled cores on the RT? Using an actual android device with Tegra 3 would show better results. Reply
  • madmilk - Friday, January 04, 2013 - link

    The disabled 5th core doesn't matter in loaded situations. During idle, screen power dominates, so it still doesn't really matter. About all you'll get is more standby time, and Atom seems to be doing fine there. Reply
  • designerfx - Friday, January 04, 2013 - link

    The core allows a lot of different significant things - so in other words, it's extremely significant, including in high load situations as well.

    That has nothing to do with the Atom. You get more than standby time.
    Reply
  • designerfx - Friday, January 04, 2013 - link

    also, during idle the screen is off, usually after whatever amount of time the settings are set for. Which is easily indicated in the idle measurements. What the heck are you even talking about? Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now