1) Two sales reps. criticize their competitor. Really?
2) When they say "equivalents", say in what context. Clearly the ARM CPU which is equivalent in processing power would be just as fast. The ARM equivalent in power consumption (multi-cores?) would be much faster.
3) Intel chips may well be good & dominant in laptops/notebooks etc. where big batteries are only expected to last 2-6 hours. But I expect my truly mobile devices (phone, mp3, gps) to last at least a weekend of constant use and maybe a whole week of light use.
4) ARM have made many improvements that are not based on clock speed. I though everyone was over that marketing hype. The extra hardware & IP 'modules' for dealing with multimedia, wireless, 3D etc offer more real life performance benefits than an slight increase in clock speed.
5) The ARM core when embedded with a partner's DSP, WiFi, GPS, GPRS etc in a single piece of silicone smaller than Intel's core alone, offers the device manufacturers a significant cost saving that gets passed on to consumers.
Bottom line: They don't really compare (yet). Both are stretching their devices towards each other's dominant territory but at the moment, in the truly mobile device arena, ARM leads Intel by couple of years at least.
And ARM is eating into Intel's market at least as fast judging by the start of the NetBook revolution.
Discussion on:
Message 14 of 1
IBM Sponsored Resources
Resources from our Sponsor
- Oracle Exadata vs IBM: Netezza Compared
- Forrester TEI Report
- CIA Whitepaper
- Harnessing the Power of Advanced Analytics
- Tapping into Unleashed Business Potential with Advanced Analytics
- Unlock Analytic Performance with Revolution R for Enterprise and IBM: Netezza Data Warehouse Appliance
The best of ZDNet, delivered
ZDNet Newsletters
Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox
