levi
Still fresh, damnit!
From that page, the A53 is rated as 2.3DMIPS/MHz/core, while the A15 is rated as at least 3.5DMIPS/MHz/core. The A8 in our Pandoras is rated as 2.0DMIPS/MHz/core. At the same clock speeds therefore the A53-based iMX8 M will run only 15% faster than the OMAP3 on single core workloads. The OMAP5's A15 by comparison will run at least 75% faster.Oh, thanks for the info. Based on the DMIPS speed I expect the i.MX8 M to be a little faster than the OMAP5:
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_ARM_cores)
I didn't think the A53 would be that bad... but thanks for clarifying
Theoretically, if something were written to be perfectly parallelisable, the OMAP5 gives you at least 7DMIPS/MHz, while the i.MX8 gives you 9.2DMIPS/MHz. So it theoretically could run slightly faster by using all four cores at once, so maybe building big projects with make -j [threads] will be quicker, but most things will be slightly slower. And things that only run on a single core would be 34% slower.
Or at least all that would be true if those DMIPS/MHz/core figures were at all accurate and valid for things other than the DMIPS benchmark, which they rarely are in my experience. But hopefully if they're all off by the same percentages, those comparisons are still valid. And it ignores the fact the iMX-8 will let you work with 64-bit numbers in each instruction, rather than being limited to 32-bits at a time - but anyone working with 64-bit numbers a lot should probably be making use of NEON instructions anyway, which are 64-bit wide on both processors.
