>> "Technical consulting firm BDTI pointed out that the compiled code for the Intel processor was not executing all instructions that were intended for the RAM test. This artificially improved the results for the Lenovo K900 smartphone and the Intel Atom processors. The problem appears to arise from the ICC compiler introduced around version 2.9.4 of the AnTuTu benchmark and used just for the Intel processors. Code for all other processors uses a different compiler, called the GCC."
I know, I read that part. But while you might have missed the subtlety, this would evoke a "well, no shit" kind of statement from anyone who knows how this stuff works.
In other words, compilers are *supposed to* reduce unnecessary instructions, because that's how they improve performance. Fewer instructions means faster executing code. Now, if they had implied that ICC was eliminating *functionality* rather than instructions, that would be a different story, and potentially imply something more sinister.
But the reason I responded incredulously to this article is that they seem to be as naive about how compilers work as you and Andy are. There's a long history in compute benchmarks of using more efficient compilers to generate faster performance, and it was always most beneficial for companies to provide their own compilers to generate more efficient code - and the technical world had accepted that for a long time as a legitimate way of selling a full software/hardware solution.
This is especially true in the Android space, where so much of the code is runtime. All it needs is for the runtime code to have these optimizations, and many use cases will get the same benefit.
Speaking more specifically on the complaint from the author that the memory test most strikingly rose the AnTuTu scores above competitive results - that's more of an observation than an issue on Intel's part. AnTuTu amalgamates several synthetic subtests - not too different from many of the Android benchmarks - but in cases like memory bandwidth, they are not going to reflect real world performance in the first place. They are specific system tests that are easy to raise using things like compiler optimizations.
By the way, I'll point out something that many here already have - which is that Intel hasn't been specifically advocating AnTuTu results on Clovertrail - and if they did, maybe you can fault them from taking an outlier, and disingenuously giving their product credit for something that won't show up outside of that corner case.
But instead, even the author hasn't faulted Intel as much as he's faulted certain "bloggers" for making too much of a big deal out of early Clovertrail+ benchmarks like AnTuTu, rather than waiting for the full picture - and I agree with him on that point, too. In fact, you can probably dig up a few posts of mine where I responded to some of Ashraf's articles, and cautioned him that the AnTuTu score seemed a bit "too good to be true", relative to my own expectations for the product.
Many of the more senior technical experts on this thread predicted a year ago that quad core A15 products from ARM SOC vendors would significantly outperform dual core Saltwell core (currently what is inside the Clovertrail+ CPU) by significant margins. But we also pointed out that overall power efficiency might be compromised by ARM SOC vendors putting four of these A15 cores on an SOC, and trying to stick it in a phone. Both predictions have come to pass.
So at this point, no one who participated in last year's technical analysis should be surprised by the overall results, and seeing the difference in AnTuTu with different compilers helps to explain why it is an outlier. But to put blame on Intel and call this a scandal should have technical experts scratching their heads.
But of course, that has an explanation, too. All the usual suspects who wait for the opportunity to pounce on a potential scandal for Intel are the ones coming out of the woodwork today. But once reality sets in and people realize there's no story, this too will be a part of history that no one remembers.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
