GPU Workload

NVIDIA's only performance advantage on the SoC side compared to Clover Trail at this point is in its GPU. Tegra 3's GPU is faster than the high clocked PowerVR SGX 545 in Clover Trail. While we don't yet have final GPU benchmarks under Windows RT/8 that we can share numbers from, the charts below show power consumption in the same DX title running through roughly the same play path.

NVIDIA's GPU power consumption is more than double the PowerVR SGX 545's here, while its performance advantage isn't anywhere near double. I have heard that Imagination has been building the most power efficient GPUs on the market for quite a while now, this might be the first argument in favor of that heresay.

WebXPRT & TouchXPRT Wireless Web Browsing Battery Life Test
POST A COMMENT

163 Comments

View All Comments

  • teiglin - Monday, December 24, 2012 - link

    You don't have to wait for the coming years for Intel vs. ARM to replace Intel vs. AMD. The latter stopped being interesting when Bulldozer fell so short of Sandy Bridge. I was a long-time AMD fan, but they haven't released a chip I'd consider buying for myself since Deneb. Reply
  • kyuu - Tuesday, December 25, 2012 - link

    I have to disagree. I'm far more interested in what AMD is going to bring to the x86 tablet space with Hondo than what Intel's doing, ATM. Reply
  • aspartame - Monday, December 24, 2012 - link

    Intel cannot compete with ARM despite having the most advanced fabrication technology. Surely the new atom is somewhat more power efficient than the old Tegra 3, but it costs 3 times more. Reply
  • KitsuneKnight - Monday, December 24, 2012 - link

    The 'new' Atom is also just a tweaked 5 year old Atom. What will be interesting is seeing how the next generation of Atoms compare against ARM's latest and greatest. Intel has proven that they can go blow for blow with ARM SoCs, despite just a couple years ago people claiming that x86 would never even be within several watts of any ARM. Reply
  • yyrkoon - Tuesday, December 25, 2012 - link

    Technically speaking, Intel still can not approach ARM in power usage. It is all in the definition of "ARM". So, it is a matter of context.

    I think more appropriately people were saying that atom could never hope to approach ARM in the embedded market. Where they would be completely right. Unless you think an Atom based SoC could run under 100mw under full load.

    Again . . .context.
    Reply
  • KitsuneKnight - Tuesday, December 25, 2012 - link

    People were talking about the Smartphone and Tablet spaces, not the ultra-tiny processors embedded into devices like SSDs. Intel doesn't really seem to want to compete in that space with their CPUs, as there's no profit to be made and no threat to their core business (they do occasionally compete with other products, but those aren't core products).

    The 'context' most people were talking about is the context that Intel is actually shown to be competitive in (at the very least against last gen devices). We'll see if they can appropriately pull the rest of their ecosystem together to lower the power consumption of the rest of the system, along with further reducing the power consumption of Atom while upping the performance.
    Reply
  • yyrkoon - Tuesday, December 25, 2012 - link

    This discussion started years ago in the embedded space where it should have stayed. Where ARM is still truly RISC in nature

    However, no less than a year ago( and probably more like 2 years ago ), several ARM low power desktop systems were demonstrated to use only 1-2w power consumption under full load. On YouTube no less. While Intel ( with atom ) was still fumbling around above 10w.

    Having said that. "Competitive" is still a subjective term in this case.

    At some point one has to realize, <this company> has <this> advantage over <another company>. But at what cost ? Which is partly why partners of ARM still exist in this market space.
    Reply
  • jjj - Monday, December 24, 2012 - link

    Funny how you compare 2 chips running 2 different OSes and you deem the results conclusive. How low can you go? Reply
  • karasaj - Monday, December 24, 2012 - link

    Except if anything Windows RT will draw less power than Windows 8.

    Also, if you hook a resistor/volt meter etc. up to the CPU itself, the OS isn't going to do much.
    Reply
  • Reikon - Monday, December 24, 2012 - link

    Windows 8 and RT are essentially the same OS for different instruction sets with a few arbitrary feature differences unrelated to performance. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now