i386 version in future ?

[Ralf Mardorf]

On Wed, 28 Sep 2016 13:31:21 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
>On Wed, 28 Sep 2016 19:00:22 +0800, Erich Dollansky wrote:
>>just take the last generation of plain 32-Bit-Atoms. They are really
>>low power much less power hungry than e.g. an i7 of the same epoch.
>>But it still is likely that the Atoms consume more energy to fulfil a
>>specific task.  
>
>This is a ridiculous comparison.
>
>>With other words, it is a complex problem with no clear answer.  
>
>It's neither complex, nor is there an unclear answer.
>
>"The performance of a single-core Atom is about half that of a Pentium
>M of the same clock rate. For example, the Atom N270 (1.60 GHz) found
>in many netbooks such as the Eee PC can deliver around 3300 MIPS and
>2.1 GFLOPS in standard benchmarks,[34] compared to 7400 MIPS and 3.9
>GFLOPS for the similarly clocked (1.73 GHz) Pentium M 740." -
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Atom#Performance
>
>http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/processors/core/core-i7-processor.html
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core#Core_i7_3

Sorry, wrong link, same epoch is
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core#Core_i7_2
what I mentioned still remains true ;).

>"Core i7 Sandy-Bridge, 3,4 GHz, 4 Kerne	102,5 GFLOPS" -
>https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating_Point_Operations_Per_Second#Rechenleistung_von_Computersystemen
>The German "102,5 GFLOPS" are English "102.5 GFLOPS"
>
>If you compare 32 bit Atoms, then better compare them with 64 bit Atoms
>and not with completely unrelated CPUs, that are way beyond the Atom's
>processing power.
>
>Regards,
>Ralf