Re: Negative marketing wont work
"For real computing comparisons you have to use the Spec benchmarks and read the footnotes carefully."
Well done Charlie! At last someone points out that if you want documented objective facts you might want to start with an advertising-independent organisation which produces results that are reasonably well documented and reasonably reproducable.
That being said, some of the SPEC benchmarks are IO intensive as well as compute intensive, which isn't what we're talking about when comparing CPU core technology as we are here.
A relatively recent arrival on the benchmarking scene is CoreMark, whose benchmark suite is aimed at the embedded market and therefore doesn't do much IO at all, so all it's really testing is the compute power (CPU core, memory subsystem, etc). The source code of the suite is freely downloadable. They have 400+ published results at the moment. Some of the published benchmarks are user-submitted , some of them are also verified by the CoreMark folks.
Extracts from three semi-randomly chosen, relatively recently submitted, results from the CoreMark website (please see http://www.coremark.org/benchmark/ for full details, this here is a gross oversimplification):
ARM Cortex A15 1700 (1700 MHz, April 2013) CoreMark/core: 7954
Intel Atom N2800 1860 (1860MHz, Dec 2012) CoreMark/core: 6143
Intel i7 3612QE 2100 (2100 MHz, Jan 2013) CoreMark/core: 20982
Maybe someone with more clue than Tom's could write a proper article based around these benchmarks and these numbers (which should, as I mentioned, be easily reproducable).