Cortex A15: WebXPRT 2013 - Community Preview 1

Obviously since we don't have an Android version of TouchXPRT we can't run that, but we can use PT's WebXPRT test on all of the platforms here. Exynos 5250 manages the best score we've seen thus far (246), although since we are using different browsers it's entirely possible that its performance is still being held back a bit. The performance advantage over Atom is around 9%, however the power expended to get here is significant.

 

Task Energy - WebXPRT 2013 CP1 - Total Platform

 

Once again, peak CPU power usage is in a completely different league. Here we see spikes nearing 4W for the dual core Cortex A15 SoC, compared to < 1.5W for Intel and Qualcomm.

Task Energy - WebXPRT 2013 CP1 - CPU Only

Task Energy - WebXPRT 2013 CP1 - GPU Only

WebXPRT 2013 CP1 - Max, Avg, Min Power

Max Power Draw - WebXPRT 2013 CP1 - Total Platform

Max Power Draw - WebXPRT 2013 CP1 - GPU Only

Max Power Draw - WebXPRT 2013 CP1 - CPU Only

Average Power Draw

Average Power Draw - WebXPRT 2013 CP1 - Total Platform

Average Power Draw - WebXPRT 2013 CP1 - GPU Only

Average Power Draw - WebXPRT 2013 CP1 - CPU Only

Minimum Power Draw

Min Power Draw - WebXPRT 2013 CP1 - Total Platform

Min Power Draw - WebXPRT 2013 CP1 - GPU Only

Min Power Draw - WebXPRT 2013 CP1 - CPU Only

Cortex A15: RIABench Cortex A15: GPU Power Consumption
Comments Locked

140 Comments

View All Comments

  • gryer7421 - Friday, January 4, 2013 - link

    aaaand then looses where it matters, the rest of the platform. one more process shrink and both will be on even terms in cpu power usage and then as a whole platform will start punching arm in the face.
  • Wolfpup - Friday, January 4, 2013 - link

    Huh? Did you read the article? Atom built on 32nm is competitive with ARM built on 28nm. Not only that, but it's looking like Haswell will realistically be able to compete here too, and we've got the second gen Atom coming up this year too...but TODAY'S Atom at an older process is competitive with ARM...what you're claiming is exactly the opposite of what the article says.
  • JumpingJack - Friday, January 4, 2013 - link

    I don't think we are looking at the same data, overall Atom appears to uses the same or less power than Krait and offers better performance in general.
  • Homeles - Friday, January 4, 2013 - link

    "Anyone with half a brain" would read the article before making such an idiotic statement.
  • Rezurecta - Saturday, January 5, 2013 - link

    wow. Way to belittle Anand's hard work...

    Great article! One of the many reasons I love this site. :)
  • Death666Angel - Friday, January 4, 2013 - link

    The Star Wars theme to play in my head! Thanks for that! :D
  • Death666Angel - Friday, January 4, 2013 - link

    "I wonder what an 8W Haswell would look like in a similar situation."
    Me too. However, considering that they 17W ULV parts only reach those numbers by throttling as well, I don't expect a lot.
  • carancho - Friday, January 4, 2013 - link

    Amazing work. Congratulations! A couple of presentation suggestions:

    Next time please smooth some of the most important charts. The volatility makes it hard to see where the averages are. Take this chart: http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/SoC/Intel/CTvK... it could really benefit to have another copy with some additional smoothing.

    Also, in power charts like this http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/SoC/Intel/CTvK... it would be helpful to have as a summary followup chart the power calculation done and presented as bar charts; otherwise we have to resort to calculate the differences in the areas below the lines with our eyes, and they can be deceiving.
  • carancho - Friday, January 4, 2013 - link

    I hadn't reached the A15 part yet when writing this. Ignore the 2nd comment.
  • amorlock - Friday, January 4, 2013 - link

    I'm frankly amazed and impressed that Intel can get Haswell down to 8W but it's hard to imagine it in a mid range mobile device because of the likely unit cost. The reason Atom has stagnated until recently is because Intel doesn't want to create a chip that cuts into it's very profitable mainstream CPU market.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now