Some benchmarks:

http://www.androidauthority.com/exynos-5-dual-benchmarks-125134/

Granted Javascript benchmarks aren't very good as a CPU test but they are very nice scores. Quite a bit better than I expected.

Yep, pretty good.
But I think we were all expecting that.
And they choose to compare it to some pretty lame processors.

>> Quite a bit better than I expected.

> I think we were all expecting that.

Well, minator said he was not, in the posting you just replied to ;-) And I'm siding with him here in that the results of the Cortex-A15 vs. Krait and Swift are better than expected (by me).

> they choose to compare it to some pretty lame processors.

They compared it to what is relevant for this site to compare, i.e. the top-end chips used in mobile Android and iOS devices.

>They compared it to what is relevant for this site to compare, i.e. the top-end chips used in mobile Android and iOS devices.

Personally, since the first device I've seen with an A15 is the Chromebook, I would have prefered comparisons with other netbook and low end laptop CPUs.
We were fairly certain that the A15 woulld outperform Apple's offering and I've always thought the predictions for Krait were over blown.

> since the first device I've seen with an A15 is the Chromebook, I would have
> prefered comparisons with other netbook and low end laptop CPUs.

I'm sure those will come (if they're not out there somewhere already), but on other sites than androidauthority.com.

> We were fairly certain that the A15 woulld outperform Apple's offering

Yes, after it became known that the Swift core in the iPhone achieved its surprisingly high Geekbench score at 1.3 GHz instead of the 1.0 GHz that was reported before, the expectations regarding Swift's per-clock performance decreased under those of Cortex-A15.
What minator and me didn't expect though was *how much* the Cortex-A15 would outperform Swift (and Krait).

> I've always thought the predictions for Krait were over blown.

The predictions for Krait were that it would be roughly one third faster per clock than Cortex-A9, and I think that's what it has delivered for real.

Andreas_Wolf,
Quote:

You are better informed then me, I wasn't aware that the anticipated performance was that low.
If they sucessfully clock the A15 higher then 1.7 GHz or manage to double the cores without a significant speed decrease, then this core is likely to dominate for quite awhile.

> You are better informed then me, I wasn't aware that the anticipated
> performance was that low.

Yeah, I've been mentioning the anticipated Krait performance for the last 1.5 years here on MorphZone :-)

> If they sucessfully clock the A15 higher then 1.7 GHz or manage to double the cores
> without a significant speed decrease, then this core is likely to dominate for quite awhile.

Yes, absolutely. I doubt Apple will go above 1.5 GHz dual-Swift anytime soon, but 1.7 GHz quad-Krait is already there in the APQ8064 (and soon to come MPQ8064).

I was expecting it to be maybe a bit faster than Krait but nothing spectacular.

OTOH to be fair this is comparing the chromebook to phones. I expect in phones the clock will be lower.


Here are some other benchmarks:

http://liliputing.com/2012/10/benchmarking-the-249-samsung-chromebook.html

http://gigaom.com/mobile/intel-v-arm-the-chromebook-performance-battle/

It doesn't do nearly as well in these but read the reviews.

> Here are some other benchmarks:
> http://liliputing.com/2012/10/benchmarking-the-249-samsung-chromebook.html
> http://gigaom.com/mobile/intel-v-arm-the-chromebook-performance-battle/

This should be the comparisons Jim said he wanted to see. Fine.

Good stuff guys.
Thanks. Pretty much what I expected.
Good performance for ARM, but lower then even basic X86.
And I already own two Intel Atom based netbooks.

At this point, I must admit, I don't find ChromeOS that attractive as it is basically just the Chrome browser (which isn't a personal favorite of mins anyway).
And what do I do w/o wifi access?
I don't like the idea of having to pay for 3G or 4G access.

I'll take another look at the arndaleboard. But something tells me I might as well wait to see what A-eon has in store.

> what do I do w/o wifi access?

Why do you think you couldn't use it?

> something tells me I might as well wait to see what A-eon has in store.

Something in a whole other price category than the ArndaleBoard, that's for sure ;-)

Andreas_Wolf,
Quote:

Because the apps are ALL web based.

Quote:

I'd like to see more numbers. Anything with Javascript is a rather dubious way to benchmark. This is more so across architectures where you're running different code.

I expect some other benchmarks will show rather closer results.

Quote:

IIRC you can cache things so it will work when it is not on-line.

OTOH a Google employee has already shown how to install Ubuntu. It doesn't appear to be locked to Chrome OS.

Quote:

No kidding. It costs less than *any* Sam board ...and you don't have to add memory.

If Ubuntu can be installed, then we have to worry about the limited local storage.
And yes, any new PPC board would probably be several times the cost of this.

But, it would not involve an ISA change.

And even so, I will probably find myself buying something ARM based eventually.

I'm not sure why. As I've mentioned, I have 1.6 and 1.8 dual core Atom based netbooks which are probably just as capable (and cost me less). And I know I could run Ubuntu on both of those as they both have hard drives.

Curiousity I guess.
And still, compared to ARM, I'd rather have a PPC (for now, and the near future).

>>> what do I do w/o wifi access?

>> Why do you think you couldn't use it?

> Because the apps are ALL web based.

I still don't get it. Why do you think you can't access the Web indirectly via Wi-Fi to your router/modem instead of directly via the ChromeBook's cellular chipset? The cheaper one of the two models doesn't even have any cellular connectivity as it is Wi-Fi-only. How is this model supposed to connect to the Web if not via Wi-Fi?

https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?forum=3&topic_id=7675&start=354

Oh, now I understand your question.
Yes, I'm nly interested in the wifi version.
And I have that set up at home and at most locations at my workplace.

But what about elsewhere?

> Oh, now I understand your question.

And I understand your original statement now and can see that I read it wrong. My bad. You were referring to the (non-)presence of a network which I misunderstood as referring to the (non-)presence of means for Wi-Fi connectivity inside the device.

> I have that set up at home and at most locations at my workplace.
> But what about elsewhere?

You'd be going to be stranded then, true, as long as you're reluctant to using cellular connectivity in such situations. To my mind, cloud-based operating systems are a bad idea from the start. I want my data *and* my applications to reside on my device. But as minator said, you can put Ubuntu on it and be done. Of course, 16 GiB storage (which would have to include the OS as well) isn't much though. So this objection of yours is very much valid.

Andreas_Wolf,
Quote:

On that I wholly agree with you.
The only place I've found cloud applications to be useful is in accounting.
A friend of my uses the online version of Quickbooks and his accountant has access to his files without a sneaker net transfer.

I wonder if there is a way to expand the Chromebook beyond its 16mb storage limitation?

Quote:

It's an SD card, you should be able to just use a bigger one.

Any idea how large and SD card it can take?
Ubuntu can be pretty big.
I'm not worried about file storage, as I can do that with a pen drive.

> Ubuntu can be pretty big.

Ubuntu (for x86, but shouldn't be much different for ARM) itself needs:

"5 GB of hard-drive space "
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Installation/SystemRequirements

This is about one third of the storage the ChromeBook comes with.

When I installed Ubuntu last (yesterday) it allowed up to 30GB to be reserved for the OS, but the figure you mention is the current actual size.
And that does leave some room for storage.
Not as much as I'd like, but other devices could be added.

Still, it compares poorly to the 120GB hard drives of my cheaper Atom based netbooks.

> the figure you mention is the current actual size.

AFAIK, the current actual size is about 2.5 GB. The 5 GB figure I mentioned includes about 2.5 GB initially unused space to be used later for downloading packages for updates etc., which is the minimum configuration apparently.

Why in the world does the OS give me an option to reserve 30GB then?
More Linux weirdness?