Clarity is always appreciated haha. Apple's statement was definitely generic, and they definitely also did some "launch-speak" where they made some statements without backing it up. However, as I mentioned in the other thread about this, I didn't expect a consistent 4X all across the board. What apple did undoubtedly was run some controlled benchmark test, with the variables they set, saw that they achieved 4X GPU performance on one of those benchmarks and ran with "we have 4X the graphics performance". It would be impossible to duplicate the exact same test, under the exact same conditions, and they don't really have to. They can prove, and the tests above also prove that A5X can offer 4X the graphic performance. This is the only GPU test that was run:
Originally Posted by dgstorm
The other tests are all CPU tests. 404,614,112 X 4 = 1,618,456,448. So it's not 4 times as fast, it's more than four times! And yes, it is speed and not just textels rendered. It's textels per second that they measured which is a "speed" benchmark. And again, it is the only
graphics test that they ran, and A5X does indeed perform 4X better vs Tegra3 in GPU.
Phil Shiller definitely made a vague statement with no backup, but
what he said wasn't a lie.
The second part of your post about dual core not necessarily outperforming quad core is also something I tend to disagree with. Maybe when quad core chips first came out vs an overclocked dual core chip, it wouldn't have been a gimme. But today's chips, I can't imagine any company with a quad core chip that is in danger of being defeated by dual core and being ok with that. It just shouldn't happen...I still stand by that if Nvidia didn't
beat Apple on CPU performance, they might as well go back to the drawing board haha.Apple made no claims about CPU performance, they'd be foolish to do so haha, because Tegra3 absolutely will outperform it. However, graphics performance A5X is the winner by far more then 4X (based on the test run by LaptopMag
). That's pretty damn impressive haha