Thu, Aug 28, 2014, 9:45 PM EDT - U.S. Markets closed

Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Intel Corporation Message Board

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the posts
  • theblueredmonk theblueredmonk Dec 4, 2012 4:48 AM Flag

    Results are in for Motorola Razr i comparison.

    the RAZR M lasted seven hours and 22 minutes, while the RAZR i lasted a full eight hours and 42 minutes.

    it's clear that Intel's chip is far more frugal with power than the dual-core Snapdragon S4..."
    -----

    You do get something for that loss of an hour and a half. The RAZR M's CPU is nearly 50% faster (on geekbench) while the GPU is nearly 40% better (on GLBenchmark Egypt).

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Go to intc website and listen to CFO Stacey Smith.
      The Motorola Razr i leads in performance against the Razr M.
      These were the words from Intel CFO.
      He said that leading in performance for Intel based phone was not surprising to consumers which was built exactly the same except for processor. But Intel beating Qualcomm based Razr M was a surprise. And it will only get better for Intel in terms of performance and battery life gaps against ARM based products.

      Sentiment: Strong Buy

      • 1 Reply to paul.ottelini
      • Go to intc website and listen to CFO Stacey Smith.
        The Motorola Razr i leads in performance against the Razr M.
        These were the words from Intel CFO.
        He said that leading in performance for Intel based phone was not surprising to consumers which was built exactly the same except for processor. But Intel beating Qualcomm based Razr M was a surprise. And it will only get better for Intel in terms of performance and battery life gaps against ARM based products.
        ----

        Stacey Smith isn't lying when he says these things, but he is bending the facts somewhat. I can also show you benchmarks that show Razr i is better than the Razr M (Javascript benchmarks) but the reality is that these benchmarks are so dependent on the browser that you can't compare them to other devices in the way Intel has done.

        At the end of the day, the whole point of independent benchmark suites such as Geekbench is to get past the spin of the tech companies involved. If the Geekbench numbers are right, then Qualcomm's M has almost 50% more CPU performance than Intel's CPU (on that benchmark).

        Intel will get better, but the reality is that they are falling short on both CPU/GPU performance for their current generation.

    • Snapdragon S4 Krait is much slower on all the javascript benchmarks (i.e. browser speed) than Medfield. I didn't know someone had benched Medfield on geekbench, you have a link ? That 50% figure you are quoting is either the total score or a specific multithreaded test, it certainly isn't the single core integer performance which is what most phone users will most closely associate with speed in most of their apps. You are also implying elsewhere Clovertrail is slower than Apple's A6, again that isn't true for integer performance.

 
INTC
34.65-0.14(-0.40%)Aug 28 4:00 PMEDT

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.