You need synthetic benchmarks otherwise you will never be able to measure and compare performance. =) For instance, gaming benchmarks are the best and most accurate but they test out CPU, RAM & GPU together. To get individual values for those requires running synthetic tests. Whether it be computing PI or testing with Antutu or CF-Bench, etc. Though relying on just a single benchmark is never good. Better to run and compare against a couple of different ones.
I still believe modified Cortex A9. So, they would not be lying then. =)
Though could be modified Cortex A5 but I doubt that because the performance in Antutu CPU tests looks really great. Finding Antutu 3 values for Cortex A5 chip and scaling them would help prove this.
Let's forget about A31 for now and just compare to RK3066 & 8726-MX instead.
INT & FLOAT scale up linearly with CPU frequency (in Antutu) as you have also proven. RAM not 1:1 but it does benefit from higher clock speed too. ie. 100% frequency increase = 100% increase to INT, 100% increase to FLOAT & 83-90% increase, when working with dual cores, to RAM.
Notice how ATM7029 scores similar to 729 * 2.87 for INT but much higher for FLOAT (792 * 3.23). ie. Action really improved the FPU performance on their chip probably by going with vfpv4. That is why their chip appears to be Cortex A9 w/vfpv4 to me. For ATM7029: INT compares to dual A9 @ 2.27 GHz and FLOAT compares to dual A9 @ 2.56 GHz.
Code:
<br />
| 792MHz | 1320MHz || 792MHz * 1.67 || 792MHz * 2.02 || 792 * 2.87 || ATM7029<br />
(Dual A9 @ 1.6 GHz) (Dual A9 @ 2.27 GHz) quad 1.2 GHz<br />
------+---------+----------++----------------++--------------------------------------------------<br />
RAM | 1023 | 1590 || 1708 || 2066 || <br />
INT | 1258 | 2089 || 2101 || 2541 || 3610 || 3615<br />
FLOAT | 881 | 1480 || 1471 || 1780 || 2528 || 2845<br />
You have proven, in your previous post, that INT & FLOAT scale linearly per frequency & per core in Antutu tests. In that case, for INT, we can do, 2 x 2.27 = 4.54 GHz Cortex A9 and 2 x 2.56 = 5.12 GHz for FLOAT. ie. INT comes very close to 4.8 GHz A9 and FLOAT results are similar to 5.1 GHz A9.
True, that creating a more unique chip design than the standard Cortex A9 one from ARM could change performance but only to a point. ie. 5-10% CPU performance difference is possible between different Cortex A9 chips @ same clock frequency. Only so much extra performance you can squeeze out of a certain chip architecture with extra tweaks.
By the way, seeing "4.8 GHz VS 3.2 GHz" makes me cringe.
I have been working with SMP machines since 2003 so I know that is not true. ie. app first has to be multi-threaded otherwise only 1 core gets used. 2nd, even then, the app may only achieve maximum of 70-85% performance increase per additional core because of the app's code and/or OS. 2 cores does not mean 2X the performance. =) Though some OSes, like BeOS/Haiku, will get 95% efficiency (or higher).
