Your own title on the other board admits as much that, that is up to you.
Guess that's a no then, right? Would somebody else please speak up on this one, I really don't want to deal with this alone this time.
Thought I remembered someone emphasizing they could do it on their N900 and expected one things were refined down it should be possible on the Pandora. I'll concede the point on particulars although it doesn't modify the gist of the statement.
How much it changes things depends on just how much any given person can overclock.
What does Atom, particularly in netbooks, have to do with anything related to Gigahertz race era computing?
I was using it as a much more appropriate comparison against Cortex-A8 (clock for clock, ignoring SMT). The reason why I mentioned "in netbook configurations" is because Atom in netbooks has MUCH more memory bandwidth than any Cortex-A8 deployed, including Pandora's.
Other then you must wave the Intel flag at every opportunity, and hence must try to pick a fight any time you think their name may even theoretically be sullied? Hence you not only try to pick a fight over an attempt to console a Pandora customer/user but pick what borders on the absolutely best case for you to wave the Intel flag from, because waving the Intel flag is apparently all that matters to you.
This has absolutely nothing to do with supporting Intel. The only reason I mentioned Pentium 3 is because you were making a comparison against XBox. Replace the original K7 Athlon with Pentium 3 and it too destroys Cortex-A8. And you are the one making this personal. YET AGAIN. All that matters to me is having an objective technical discussion about CPUs, something I'm very interested in. Unfortunately whenever I talk to you about CPUs no one else wants to join in the discussion, although I can imagine why.
Even if you want to go there it's 2DMIPS for the A8 verse 2.5DMIPS per clock for the A9 with a scheduler of Athlon quality, and a 500MHz dual core Cortex A9 dev board beat a 1.6GHz Atom in what the entire netbook concept revolves around despite the blatant processing throughput disadvantage. Hence you're not exactly setting yourself up for success by dragging that out, particularly under the paradigm of "netbook."
DMIPS is an absolutely terrible benchmark, something that everyone in the industry admits, but companies still use it anyway as a fluff figure. Especially when comparing Cortex-A8 in configurations that are very limited by their memory hierarchy (something Dhrystone ignores). Ask Ari64 what he thinks about Cortex-A8 vs Atom, or Pentium 3 for that matter. A9 absolutely does not have a scheduler of K7 quality. I think ARM would be the first to admit this - you simply don't get this level of OoO in this power envelope. A15 is more around that level. A9 gives you fairly rudimentary OoO with a small window and no centralized reservation stations, and only a small amount of renaming. This is of course with a dual-issue pipe vs triple issue P3 or K7. Furthermore NEON/VFP is in-order,
No 500MHz dual core Cortex-A9 beat a 1.6GHz Atom in anything, why don't you check your references. The video you're referring to showed them both loading websites, with the A9 only somewhat behind - not exactly surprising, given that loading web pages is prone to all sorts of bottlenecks that have nothing to do with CPU performance. The very thought that a 500MHz Cortex-A9, even with two cores, can beat a 1.6GHz Atom, is astounding. I think clock for clock Cortex-A9, with an appropriately matched memory subsystem, will perform better than an Atom, and two cores helps (but not linear scaling, and the advantage is a bit diminished vs SMT), but it's certainly not that much better.
The XBox 1 much like it's successor used one set of shared system RAM particularly 64MB of DDR-200MHz verse the Pandora's 256MB of DDR-333, which was a serious bottleneck to system performance as the same approach is to it's modern cousin. I'd really be surprised if the latencies aren't lower on the Pandora given it's been 10 years and the state of the art was a 180nm process at that point.
OMAP's memory is 32-bit, vs XBox's 64-bit, therefore XBox has more bandwidth. They both have shared memory - Pandora's GPU uses less bandwidth since it's TBDR, but since I was only talking about CPU performance it's not relevant to the comparison (if you want to compare GPU or CPU + GPU let's keep that separate). I don't know what XBox's main RAM latency was like, but OMAP3 is known to be very poor in this regard (again, ask Ari64, or Laurent).. which isn't surprising because it has another L3 bus to go through on top of the CPU's AXI bus, and the RAM is low power which means more latency. Process doesn't help latency quite as much when we're talking about things going off the chip.
Yes the Pandora's GPU is 10 million polygons/sec verse 125 at stock frequencies but it should beat the GameCube's 12 under any meaningful overclock and unless all the talk about being able to run Doom 3, including by yourself, when people were shouting down the 3730 back in 2008 was completely without basis it's _close enough_.
I don't know the extents of the GPU capability, except that SGX530 is more versatile and probably all three of those polygon counts are divorced from reality. I also doubt I said it could run Doom 3, because I wouldn't be the least bit qualified to make that determination (I'd go with whatever darkblu has to say about it instead). What I do know is that most of what people are using Pandora for right now stresses the CPU and not the GPU, so for many people the CPU comparison will be more relevant.
.. and you did mean 3530 there, not 3730, right?
