On 19/02/2014 12:51 PM, Toby Corkindale wrote:
Well, it has 16GB of storage, 2GB of RAM and a dual-core 1.7 GHz ARMv7 CPU, so it's not all that constrained.
Also, keep in mind that an ARM running at 1.7 GHz is nothing like an x86 chip running at that speed. There is the whole RISC (ARM) vs CISC (x86) situation to consider. On some tasks RISC is far superior, but because of the reduced instruction set (RIS par of RISC), it may take more cycles to do some things and therefore those tasks take longer and potentially drain the battery quicker. If you are selective where you run those tasks, then you can choose the right tool for the job, ARM not being right for such particular tasks. OTOH, an x86 chip with the latest power saving technologies gives fuller complex instruction set (CIS part of CISC) ... this can mean the that CPU handles a task extremely efficiently and therefore more quickly, allowing the CPU to fall back to a lower power setting (ala idle state) or give you more grunt when you need it -- of course, like a V8, the more grunt you use, well it doesn't come free, in the CPU world that will mean more power usage and consequently less battery life, particularly if you "gun" it all the time. At then end of the day, comparing ARM with x86 is like comparing apples with oranges. Or perhaps more so in the computing world, Motorola vs Intel. For many years Apple made use of Motorola to great benefit, but they've moved to Intel for various reasons, not least of which, Intel or x86 must have enough advantages over the Motorola offerings. Still, Motorola is not AMD either; that's where the analogy breaks down somewhat. Cheers A.