Cpu Comparison


AireTamStorm

Unix Addict
Joined
Nov 13, 2005
Messages
971
Age
38
Website
Visit site
I was wondering how the ARM cores in the GP2X compare to that of the XScale chips used in Pocket PCs.

Not a Pocket PC vs GP2X discussion, rather a chip vs chip debate.
 
X-Scale is ARM based, it is Intel’s brand for there ARM licence chips.

As for the X-Scale performance, its current incarnation is somewhat lacking overall but the clocks are much higher so overall performance is higher but a 200MHz X-Scale CPU would be slower clock for clock.
 
x-scale is based on strongarm wich "arm redesigned", its a good bit more efficient but isnt classic arm compatible anymore.
afaik
 
DJWillis posted on Dec 6 2005 at 04:03 PM said:
X-Scale is ARM based, it is Intel’s brand for there ARM licence chips.

As for the X-Scale performance, its current incarnation is somewhat lacking overall but the clocks are much higher so overall performance is higher but a 200MHz X-Scale CPU would be slower clock for clock.

So a 200 MHz ARM (GP2X) would outperform an XScale 200 MHz?

And XScale is based off of StrongARM, which is a bit different than the traditional ARM cores.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
XScale processors implement the ARMv5TE architecture, minus the floating-point instructions. The ARM920T and ARM940T implement the v4T architecture. Intel have also extended the ARM architecture with multiply-accumulate instructions, and the "wireless MMX" instructions (starting with the PXA270).
XScale's reputation for being slower than similarly-clocked ARM cores is mainly due to the XScale's longer pipeline. Because of it, binaries optimized for the classic ARM pipeline will run slower, but AFAIK when running XScale-optimized binaries the performance will be the same or even better.
 
Back
Top