The DTK is a minimum viable platform, not a product.
(That's not to say I'm not hellish curious about some Rosetta2 examples that aren't cherry-picked!)
My guess as to why this is, is that Apply locks Rosetta to run only on the high performance cores.
That being said presumably Rosetta 2 will be pegged to the faster cores (your app can do hunting as to what sort of load it might create/need).
edit: we do: https://www.notebookcheck.net/Qualcomm-s-Snapdragon-8cx-amas...
With that, we have something to compare the A12 with.
EDIT: In the end the only really good benchmark is your particular workload run on the processor. Everything else is just evidence towards what that'll be.
Likewise Apple’s CPUs are not designed by ARM. They are Apple designs licensing ARM instruction set
Also, its really good marketing and allows everyone to have the same talking points because if you want to explain the naming scheme of any processor manufacturer it will take longer than the amount of time that anyone has an actually attention span for people not interested in the subject already.
Certainly, for many workloads, what matters isn’t the performance of the CPU but how efficiently it can offload those tasks to the GPU and ‘Neural Engine’. Those two parts also might use up the majority of the transistors.
The CPU also _could_ have a few un-ARM-like extensions that help in emulating x86. It may be interesting to watch what gets committed to LLVM.
You may ask what happen when Wafer move away from Silicon.
I don’t see them moving to new names or to “Apple Silicon v2” when hardware advances.
Now they're going to "Apple Silicon", it might be ARM this decade and who-knows-what next decade, but it will remain as reliable and fast and blah-blah as "Apple Silicon".
totally unreliable info, but interesting.
How is this "unreliable"?
Native benchmarks wouldn't be very interesting, since this is the same processor we see in the iPad Pro. What's interesting is how Apple will handle the transition from Intel to ARM, so measuring Rosetta's virtualization capabilities is absolutely what we should be focused on until we actually get access to genuine Apple Silicon desktop chips.
Not necessarily. They might be interesting. The processor might have active cooling and be less thermally limited in the Mac Mini form factor. In which case Apple might have clocked it slightly higher.