

Name of OS is also confirmed





Tami Reller



Windows RT
[Image Source: TalkVietnam]



Source: Microsoft

Comments     Threshold


RE: Windows RT Isn't Going Anywhere Until...
By Etsp on 5/15/2013 1:38:53 PM , Rating: 2
Correction to your correction:
ARM = 1p/t (@1e)

That was the comparison. The x86 chip uses 4 times the power, not 4/3 times the power.

RE: Windows RT Isn't Going Anywhere Until...
By karimtemple on 5/15/2013 2:41:52 PM , Rating: 2
Good point. However: what x86 chip? Medfield doesn't even use 1.1x the power, let alone 4x.

RE: Windows RT Isn't Going Anywhere Until...
By Etsp on 5/15/2013 5:38:30 PM , Rating: 2
I was responding to 91TTZ's comment, and that's where those numbers come from. Specifically:
In other words, if an Intel chip is 3x faster than an ARM chip but uses 4x more power, they think the ARM chip must be more power efficient.

I'm not sure why that comment is rated a 4... his own example proves him wrong... the ARM chip in that configuration IS more power efficient.

By karimtemple on 5/16/2013 8:41:43 AM , Rating: 2
Well I was doing a direct comparison, but 91TTZ wasn't. He was saying if you made Hypothetical ARM Chip as powerful as Hypothetical x86 Chip, the ARM chip would use more power. It's not strictly relevant when you start talking about direct device usage comparisons, but it's still a pretty salient point. And it's a point that could contribute toward his premise if properly followed up.

