I prepared some charts out of the numbers given there. If you check the site, you'll find no directly linked latency chart. But their 1337 page allows to compare rack #a slot #3 to some other rack/slot and returns the missed latency chart of the "Hierofalcon", which looks like this (updated daily):
|Latency plot of AMD "Hierofalcon" ES
The first chart already shows, that on a per clock basis AMD's other CPUs already lag behind in simple integer code of the old kDhrystone benchmark. The floating point based Whetstone benchmark draws a somewhat different picture with more equally distributed per clock performances except that of the old K10 based Phenom II. The next three benchmarks Execl (not Excel!), kCopy, and kPipe test OS functions like spawning processes, doing file copying or using the pipe. The Index is a combined result.
In the next chart we can see the raw performance of all cores, only normalized again to Hierofalcon.
Even then the 8 cores of the ARM based processor have a good standing in the first two benchmarks, while in the OS benchmark, it roughly keeps up with Kaveri and Bulldozer, both running at much higher clock speeds.
The ARM based CPUs are meant to put many lower power cores together. To have a first impression of that effect, I used the given TDP numbers as the only metric available for all CPUs. Here are the power efficiency numbers:
Of course, many (including me) would like to see more interesting benchmarks, but these are the first numbers we've got and they aren't bad at all.