intel: too little, too late, paul otellini is a goner

, http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-10204048-64.html?tag=mncol

between intels tick-tock chip cycle, there is always a flop year. last time is 4.0ghz p4, this time is every product they have launched.
to name the failed projects:
/intel atom ( was designed for mid, ends up in netbooks, an apple reject)
/montevina(processors shall be 2.6-3.6ghz, too consevative on clock speed)
/ssd(ask samsung or even sandisk) /wifi cards(its a giveaway).

the untapped laptop segment is obvious the 12" ultraportable which has a sell point of $600( the average consumer buying power). it means pc makers only have $400 budget on parts. $262 ulv cpu and 10w just dont meet the requirement. http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/di...vidia_from_Developing_x86_Microprocessor.html
intel is basically telling nvidia to develop their own (< 1ghz) cpus . http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/41865/122/
amd has atholon neo ready, but given this companys track record, we can pretty much ignore Neo or neon or whatever its.

losing 2-3 billion dollars a year means nothing to a giant company like intel, but devoting all resource on delevoping failed technology will prove to be too costly. internal politics can bring down a company, look no further than dell, it only took 2 years for michael dell to demolish the pc empire he spent 20 years to build.

paul otellini is definitely a goner along with most other current high ranking officers. he may not even stay long enough for larabee launch, he could be ousted by angry shareholders by the time Q209 financial report is out.

the next best product for computer industry is not so much a computing device, its a communication device with a cpu. palm and dell axim has proved computing on the go is a failed practise.
the purpose of this communication device is to combine internet and wireless service to create an ubiquitous information highway. dell e4200 seems to be teh perfect weight & size wise for mobile internet, 12 inch and 2.2lb. but whats inside of e4200 has to change to communication based like ports and antennas and receivers. the move is to get out of windows and office and meet the people and see the world around us. the wild card on mobile internet market has to be apple +nvidia if they acquire via. nvidia is the only company has the technology to support an internet+ wirelss convergence comunication device. but still the biggest obstacle today is not lieing in technology sector, its in manufacturing --batery and cooling, a 6 cell battery weights 0.8lb, a small cooling fan plus copper rod for a 12 inch laptop weights 0.5lb. yet the ultraportable needed to be as thin and light as possible, 2lb is the ideal weight. w/o major innovation on laptop battery and cooling method, hardware maker will be struggling to put out a quality produtc.

 

whut is this trying to say? How is atom a flop when you cant look anywhere without seeing a netbook around?

And how is 12" the untapped segment when consumers are buying netbook because they are cheap, not because they are small (as evidenced by the rapidly expanding sizes)? 12" is pretty much a business only market, consumers want usable screen sizes, and 12" is just too small for most people (but great for airline travel).

 

I beg to differ. Actually, Michael Dell stepped down and was replaced by Kevin Rollins, who proceeded to demolish Dell. Now, Michael Dell is back and trying to repair the damage...

Oh, and why is this specifically in the Dell Latitude/Precision/Vostro forum?

 

I don't get this guy. His name is NoMoreDell, but he uses a Dell Studio 17? And I've definitely seen you bashing Dell on other threads as well...

 

There nothing to get, he's a troll.

 

With 635 posts? Must be a just converted troll, or a really really dedicated one.

 

1. I'll move this to the hardware forum.

2. Regarding CPU speed, most people are happy with what they have now. Cool operation and long battery life are the priorities for most people. Quad core is around for those who need more power.

John

 

This thread is a joke. Intel has zero competition in mobile sector. they have 2.66ghz at 25w and 2.93ghz at 35w. Plus they have quad core mobile out. I think mobile market is so one sided that it is not funny

 

I do not want to comment on the first post, but I think AMD is getting their act back together in the mobile department. The ZM series of Turion Ultra's are actually really good processors. The problem is that Intel does have the upper hand, but there is nothing wrong with recommending Turion Ultra processors. They are as good as many of Intels mobile processors.
However the problem comes because most of the people here are Intel fans, which is why most people here recommend Intel over AMD.
Another problem is many system manufacturers coded their fans to turn on too late causing the AMD processors to gain a bad reputation for running hotter than the competition. In reality this claim is false, because when you compare an Intel and AMD mobile cpu rated for the same TDP in the closest platforms, they will run nearly identical temperature wise

I want to recommend AMD more, but it seems the only manufacturer which uses them is HP

I think if Dell/HP/Tohiba started making a high end AMD laptop, AMD sales would rise yielding more money to the company to increase their ability to make a better processor

Just think about it, say we NBR people recommend 50 people a day to buy an Intel processor, thats a ton of money going to Intel which could go to AMD and make better competition. AMD at the moment is only really generating revenue because their desktop processors have a higher bang for the buck than Intel processors. In the server department, AMD's scale better which is why they are generally used.

I use both processors daily, but I at the moment wish AMD was doing better.

K-TRON

 

The new Turion Ultra processors are indeed better heat wise then we often give them credit for but regardless if the manufacturer or processor is at fault, laptops with Turions in the past generally did run warmer (although some HP AMD laptops do seem to be ok)

I however do agree with that customizable laptop wise, it seems like HP is the only vendor (excluding some small ones like cyber power and ibuy power and avadirect) that really offer a AMD based laptop that you can customize. We would probably see a lot more competitive AMD laptops if more vendors picked it up of course. But of course that really doesent change the fact that you dont have a lot of good choices with AMD and recommending AMD latops just so they can make a better product while getting an inferior product does seem kinda unwise.

Before I get shot for being an intel fanboy, I actually really like AMD. They have done a great job with basically killing Nvidia in the mid and mid-upper graphics card range (basically anything below a GTX 280) and their phenom II processors are really a good idea (the phenom II 720BE triple core comes at an amazing price for what it offers)

But I do believe most of the NBR community is making the right decision in terms of recommendations for laptops. No doubt an AMD processor would suffice for many, but when you look at the AMD mobile line their Athlon X2s offered on lower end HP/Compaqs are really not that great while you can often find a lower end dual core for about the same price that offers much better heat management and performance for price. On the higher end AMD really has nothing too spectacular.

So where they really have anything is the mid end or lower mid end. I would say one of their biggest advantages is actually because of the 3200 IGP which is quite a bit better than anything Intel offers on the integrated end which allows users who just a little bit of graphic performance to get what they need. The Turion ultras really best compete i think with the older generation core 2 duos (perhaps T6400 laptops) value wise and are often overlooked (I mean the dv5z was rarely recommended until the dv5t was stopped offer, and the dv4z isnt that popular either it seems in recommendations)

So basically to sum up my rant, yes AMD does offer some ok choices in the mid end or lower mid end performance range in terms of mobile processors but because you are basically limited to HP in terms of customizability and because they lack in the upper (excluding your dual optertrons =)) and lower ends I find it reasonable that intel is overwhelmingly recommended when choosing a laptop. Perhaps AMD's new platform will change this in terms of ultraportables?

 

sorry to be off topic but AMD is kickin butt in the mobile GPU's as well and there phenom 2 's are nice for OC'ing

dang he posted before me.

 

I am very confused by the first post.

I see what K-tron is saying, I'm definitely more of an Intel guy and not because I'm a fan boy but because I'm all about speed and performance. The new Turion line that's in the notebooks at computer stores doesn't have anything comparable to a P9500 from Intel.

 

WTH is this?!? It was during Otellini's time that Intel went from the dark days of P4 Netburst to Core 2.

And its Montevina not Mantevina thank you. AMD is NOT competitive in mobile segment and never was. They don't need higher clock speeds.

SSD: Intel still has the best SSD. Sandisk isn't even here yet. Please, this is what's called spreading a FUD

Atom: This is a bit fishy but still an overall success no matter which way you look at it. MIDs with Atom are coming out there and they are looking good. They took a long time because that's just how it is. You don't see every single product in a more niche market introduce itself to the world the day the CPU comes out.

http://www.umpcportal.com/2009/02/viliv-s5-pre-orders-sold-out-in-15-minutes-review-information

Viliv S5, the Atom based MID sold out 600 of the higher end F-log models in 15 mins in Korea for pre-order. Similar happened to official introductions.

Wifi: This is the only one I agree. But you know what they say. Even the most unintelligible comments have some sense in them.

 

All you have to do is look at the market right now. No major manufacturer besides HP uses AMD processors in many (3+) mobile products. Intel is very competitive, especially considering there is no one to really compete against. When Otellini came, AMD looked like it would gain some serious consumer backing - Dell was introducing its first systems with AMD, etc. Intel is the hands down best choice in mobile processors for power. They're going to launch the P9700 in May (2.8GHz @ 25W). That's...beyond good.

 

In what way are they good? As far as I can tell, the best Turion Ultra out there is the ZM-86 clocked at 2.4GHz and it is comparable to the low-grade Penryns and Meroms (e.g. T8100, T7300). The P8400 (which is the lowest base option offered on all but the cheapest laptops) not only beats the ZM-86 in performance, but also has a 25W TDP rather than 35W. Intel's T/P9XXX processors aren't even in the same league.

Don't get me wrong -- I would like AMD to do better. Intel needs competition, otherwise they have no incentive to move forward. They wouldn't dare delay Calpella for the sake of letting the OEMs sell off Montevina CPUs at higher prices if the race with AMD was competitive. However, at this time, I cannot in good conscience recommend an AMD-based laptop to anyone unless I see one that is dirt cheap and I know that they don't need performance..

 

And AFAIK AMD rates according to average power draw, while Intel rates at MAX power draw. So 35W AMD is like a 45W Intel. Huge difference when 35W AMD is competing with 25W Intel. Of course, AMDs chips also include the mem controller power draw, while Intel's don't...until clarkfield/arrandale gets here.

There are acceptable AMD mobile CPUs, but none excel like Intel's chips do.

 

While you may have a point that Intel's engineers haven't always met their design targets, I think that their dominance in the netbook sector and the huge success of their Merom-based CPUs speaks for itself, really.

 

I believe you have it backwards, AMD rates their TDP as basically the most power the chip can consume if everything (or nearly) is maxed out. Intel rates theirs by average power consumption. This page is pretty old but I believe it serves it's purpose very well. As well, you should know that AMD CPUs include an IMC thus raising the TDP a little. Intel on the other hand, doesn't have an IMC (no mobile i7 yet) and because of this, you need to add a little to the TDP to count for the bridge (don't remember if it's the north or south).

The only times the TDP can really be compared is when it's between the manufacturer's own CPUs as long as there have been no major changes to the CPUs. Ie. Can't compare i7 to previous gen C2D because of the IMC (I consider the IMC a large enough difference to throw off the comparison).

 

I don't see the problem with this. The whole point of the tick-tock cycle is that there are improvements, and massive upgrades. This allows consumers to have a reasonable upgrade cycle while still improving the hardware for those that purchase between cycles.

All Intel is doing is trying to create two netbook markets, the cheap ones will run the atom; meanwhile, the $400-$1000 models will get a very low clock Core2Duo with only slightly more power draw then the atom.

So more expensive netbooks will have more performance and act more like mainstream laptops. Is that really so terrible?

 

The page you link quotes Intel's documents about Pentium 4s. Given what the P4s were, Intel's marketing people must have been rather desperate to present them as cooler than they were. They have no need whatsoever to do the same thing with C2Ds so I'm curious if they kept that definition.

In any case, the TDPs from Intel and AMD probably still do mean different things, but they don't vary enough to make the comparison invalid. It is extremely unlikely that a 25W processor from one will run hotter than a 35W CPU from the other.

 

ZM86 does not even match P8xxx series forget about 9xxx series. Unless someone is looking for a laptop with integrated gfx, AMD is just not in the game. You can buy a laptop with P8600 for $700. Plus majority of amd based laptops come with even lower rated QL or RM series.

Biggest Problem I see is AMD does not value mobile segment that much. Otherwise why have we not seen any new major architectural change in turion platform. If they had a "phenom 2" equivalent mobile cpu at 3ghz, they would have captured larger percentage of cpu sales. Instead they seem to be happy focusing on desktop segment where their highest rated CPU is selling for $200.

 

Plus it is stupid to expect 3.6ghz mobile cpu when there is no competition at the high end mobile cpu. That makes zero business sense. Montevina has seen pretty good boost. highest rated cpu in santa rosa platform was at 2.6ghz(ignore X9000). We will soon see T9800 at 3.06ghz and that is a good 15% boost. All this without any competition.

 

Based on CPU-world's archives, Intel still calculates TDP based on average use.

You need a big salt mine to compare TDPs from both camps because of how both companies measure TDP. From CPU world, we'll go with a nice average P8600.
It's TDP is 25W, but when really utilized, it will consume nearly 2x that, 47W.
Now, if we consider that AMD states the maximum power consumption (I went through each of the past few AMD generations and selected a few random samples), AMD mobile CPUs do in fact consume less power when fully utilized than an Intel CPU, as 35W<47W.
My other point was that AMD CPUs (+MB) actually only use 33W TDP (just a made up number, used to remove the effect of the IMC), while Intel's CPU+MB consume 27W TDP (another made up #, added 2W for southbridge)

 

No, it won't. That 47W is not when it's really utilized, it's in the instant just before it fries. Here is their definition of maximum power dissipation:

Maximum temperature here is 105C and it will downclock long before it reaches that.

Is that really the case? They don't quote the min/max numbers for AMD, but their definition of TDP linked from the ZM-86 page says that the TDP is usually 20-30% lower than maximum power dissipation.

That's a fair point. I don't know if it makes a significant difference though.

It's kind of hard to compare these processors because there are so few of the AMD variety out there, but I'm pretty certain that Intel's CPUs don't run significantly hotter or draw more power than AMD's because otherwise the latter would be strongly favored for thin and light notebooks (where both of these parameters are more important than performance).

 

I won't disagree that the CPU will downclock at that temperature, but that doesn't matter. But by that definition, the maximum power draw is calculated the exact same way as AMD calculates their TDP (absolute worst case). Thus when AMD says a CPU will draw 35W, it will, at worst draw 35W (see the link I provided earlier to see that the AMD CPU never goes over it's rated TDP). Intel on the other hand, calculates based on average utilization and so we can get a 25W CPU actually using 47W when fully utilized.

You have me on that one, but all cases I can find show that AMD CPUs never exceed their rated TDP at default clocks. This is the reason AMD wants to have a double standard for power consumption, TDP for maximum power draw and ACP for average power draw.

It doesn't really, I was just stating that you need to adjust the numbers a bit to account for the differences in the CPUs (IMC vs. FSB)

Right. Powerdrawwise (under maximum load at least, not sure about idle, probably the opposite) AMD is ahead of Intel (again, because of their differences in TDP). Heatwise, they are about the same (with Intel a little head because of their process tech), example, take an AMD and Intel CPU that both have a maximum power draw of 35W. They both must then give off the same amount of heat. If the system is designed to dissipate 35W of CPU heat, then both CPUs will run at approximately the same temp. It has also been said that most AMD systems have the BIOS set to turn the fan on at a higher temp than the BIOS for an Intel system (take with salt). I definitely will admit that on a TDP/performance basis, Intel beats AMD currently.

 

Right, but except with a thermal virus code(code that stress EVERY part of the CPU) Intel CPU won't reach max values. Back when the had the P4 with fast dynamic LVS circuits and double clocked ALUs it'll reach TDP values with less demanding code.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2extreme-qx6700_11.html#sect0

QX6700 with 130W TDP: 109.4W
X6800 with 80W TDP: 72.1W
Athlon 64 FX-62 125W: 130.0W

The AMD companion chipsets are known to have less power consumption than Intel chipsets yet the Intel laptops generally have an advantage. In significant majority of the real world situations Core 2 chips consume less power.

EDIT:

http://www.silentpcreview.com/article300-page6.html

Pentium M 770 Load 27W TDP: 23.3W
Turion 64 ML-44 Load 35W TDP: 37.0W

So what's this talk about AMD not exceeding TDP again?

The truth is no matter how AMD and Intel BSes about their TDP system being more realistic in the real world they are really the same metric.

 

Oh Jesus, look at where this debate is going. Does the point of contention even have any significant effect on the general facts already accepted in this thread?

 

You're right. But my point was basically to show that they measure TDP in different ways. I'm just going to let this thread go.

Corrected the bold for you. As for the TDP, I did not realize that it seems (at least in the desktop sector) that Intel CPUs often do not exceed their rated TDP. One little nitpick though, it is really difficult to compare power consumption between computers since there are variables (I do however give Intel the win for the examples you've shown). What still doesn't get explained is how CPUWorld gets a maximum power dissipation for the Intel chips > TDP.

 

Wow, Intel is currently tops in everything they do (and this is from a non-fan, I prefer AMD), kicking out fetuccini would be ridiculous.

 

updated my original post.

 

Well at least some details are posted, but we should not assume too much if we don't work for Dell.. lol Otherwise would just be vulgar bias critics.

 

http://www.pcworld.com/article/163284/intel_rivals_gang_up_to_make_mobile_chips.html
Sample chips will become available in the second half of 2010, but Couture couldn't provide a date when mass production would start. IBM is expected to move to the 32-nm process later this year, and could move to the 28-nm process sometime next year. Other partners in the alliance include Chartered Semiconductor Manufacturing, Infineon Technologies and STMicroelectronics.

IBM and its partners could get an early manufacturing edge over Intel, which is expected to move to 32-nanometer later this year to make its "Moorestown" mobile chips. Intel could catch up when it moves to the 22-nm process in 2011.

 

I don't understand why this is being marketed as a challenge to Intel. "Sample chips will become available in the second half of 2010" means that this is extremely unlikely to be on the market before 2011. Intel is moving to 32nm now (Westmere is supposed to be out at the end of 2009) and in 2011, they plan to move to 22nm.

BTW, Otellini is fine. Intel's profits fell in Q1 2009, but they still beat Wall Street's estimates.

 

http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2009/04/15/why-the-big-dip-at-dell-in-the-first-quarter/
last year’s first quarter, the Taiwan-based company’s worldwide market share stood 9.6%, compared to Dell’s 14.7%, according to Gartner; in the most recent quarter, Dell had dropped to 13.1%, as Acer edged up to 13%.

 

http://www.appleinsider.com/article...g_for_mac_netbook_manufacturing_contract.html

Long-time Apple manufacturing partner Foxconn is amongst the frontrunners to receive a contract to build a Mac netbook, according to a new report.

 

Its true, and sad. The ratio is like 18:1 for Intel, for the mobile market on CPUs. And frankly it shouldn't. Many reviews are just pure BS too.

I had a C2D T7500, and my new laptop is AMD because it had a better gpu. So I risked it, and my Turion X2 Ultra ZM outperforms my T7500 hands down. Of course they have nothing that can compare to the high end mobile processors (C2Q Mobile/C2D High End Mobile) but still.

AMD should get working, but I think the siding will change, just wait for Bulldozer, but until then Intel has the edge, and its one hell of a edge...

I have a good feel for these things, Ive always been on the best CPU brand at the right times. I feel it in my bones. lol.

 

The T7500 is a two year old processor that is currently in the third tier of Intel's hierarchy. AMD's problem is where its top processors (like your 2.2GHz Turion X2 Ultra) can currently compete. They're most certainly not anywhere close to Intel's best (the T/P9XXX series) and they're even outclassed by Intel's second tier (the T/P8XXX series). The Turion X2 Ultras can beat some of the third tier processors, but at that point, very, very few people care.

When is that coming out anyway? In the middle of 2007, the tech sites were saying "Expect AMD to introduce Fusion designs based on Bulldozer and Bobcat beginning in 2009." Now it seems the earliest they're expected is 2011. Intel will not stand still for the next two years.

 

Yea the Turion can't compete with the 9XXX but it does a good job against T7X P8X, its ok. And cheap. AMD has their fusion thing going on which is neat. But they really got slapped by Intel in the last couple of years.

*But who knows ZM86 may still be slower than 9XXX but it might possibly be decent, but the lack of AMD benchmarks is astonishing. My system is currently #1 place on HWBot for my CPU. So it shows how monopolized the mobile CPU market is.

Intel however is starting to push their luck, i7 940 is garbage, i7 920 can achieve i7940 speeds at no effort whatsoever.

They are starting to overpriced because they are in the lead. AMDs Bulldozer is set for 2011, Intel won't stand still, but if you look at their future plans they don't seem to have anything that will match AMD's Bulldozer, it could fail, it could be great, we don't know.

AMD's Phenom II X4's can compete decently with the Intel Quads. And even on some games with the i7. There are the ups to the AMD, (Media Performance), i've noticed a couple things.

Even if AMD fails, it will still be great for cheaper systems that are still decent.

*Oh the Turion X2 Ultra may also be able to compete with the T9100-9300 (at least with superpi). You must remember Intel has Mobile processors over 2.6ghz, while AMD doesn't.

 

True I guess intel wouldn't bother releasing new gen processors that would hugely outpace their competitors when they are a nose ahead anyway. Save $$ on the development process I assume

 

Larrabee could also damage Intel, depending what route they are going with it.

 

What's this BS about Core i7 being overpriced?? This is the best performing CPU out there. And when have a 2nd fastest clock tier hasn't been much more costly than the 3rd fastest clock? It always have, like back when Core 2's first came out and E6700 was $562 and $E6600 was $284. Tell me AMD didn't implement a similar system when the Athlon 64 CPU was the fastest out there(hint: they did). When you price your product cheaper than its necessary you lead your company to bankruptcy.

You aren't doing a fair comparison at all then. You just said: "my new laptop is AMD because it had a better GPU, and my Turion X2 with a better GPU beats T7500 with a worse GPU."

#1 rule of benchmarking: Keep the comparison FAIR

You claim the Turion is faster(as a CPU) but you compare to a system that has a worse GPU.

The only reason Core 2 is favored is because performance and power wise, AMD is NOT competitive. You can say things about price-performance or whatever but you are getting a laptop which most of the time the components aren't upgradeable so why cripple the system by going to a inferior CPU?

Another way of looking at it is: Is AMD going to have anything that will match Nehalem?

 

i7 920 isn't overpriced. 940 is (well at least were I live (760$)). I didn't make that clear sorry for that. They needed something to fill the gap i guess. But w/e your right. I take that part back.


Yes my new laptop is a AMD because it had a better GPU. Where I live (Canada) in store, I could not find a system that was a C2D with a gpu better than a 9600M GT therefore I had to go for the AMD laptop since it had a 3850 which is much better than a 9600M GT.

As for comparing the systems, I'm quite sure your GPU has no impact on CPU benchmarks such as WPrime and SuperPI. And thats where my AMD Turion X2 Ultra beat my old laptop which had a C2D T7500.
(The Turion ZM's roughly equivalent to the T Series of C2D)

As for crippling the computer, in the things im doing, a worse gpu would cripple the system more than a worse CPU. Hence why im much better of with a Turion X2 Ultra @ 2.2Ghz with a 3850 rather than a C2D @ 2.6Ghz with a 9600M GT.

And yes, AMD may not catch up and probably won't. But they could. That's why its exciting to wait and see what happens, AMD has like 1/6th the workers Intel does, its a much smaller company, so chances are it wont ever be in the lead, or at least it wont be in the lead for very long.

 

http://www.computerworld.com/action...leBasic&articleId=9131832&intsrc=news_ts_head

While netbooks have given Atom a nice ride, some say the low-cost chips are hurting profits -- on multiple fronts

 

WPrime and SuperPI are the worst benchmarks you can use, because of the fact that no CPUs are bound by the performance of the execution units(like ALU), but rather things like branch prediction, misspredicts, memory parallelism, caching. And you'd know from looking at the top #10 or so results the exactly same speed grade CPUs are performing all differently. Which means the comparisons are meaningless in the first place because all 2.2GHz CPUs should perform equal.

Yea, GPUs don't matter enough alone, but when you factor in everything being different it would add up, as evidenced by widely varying scores in the WPrime database. Again, its not the CPUs fault that the particular country you are in has better GPUs for the AMD laptops.

Last Intel presentation I have seen about total spending, Intel isn't spending 100% of the R&D on CPUs. AMD on the other hand, is much more focused on CPUs. The total employee difference is around 7x. Pretty sure on CPUs that gap would be in the order of 2.5, or less.

 

I didn't blame the CPUs for the laptop not having good GPUs. I just stated thats why I got a AMD, its been a long time since Ive had a AMD I was always a Intel type person.

And from the reviews I heard of AMD I was nervous but when I actually got the laptop. I was pretty suprised to see that it was simular performing to the T7500 from what I could tell(Rendering/CineBench). Of course it couldent compete with higher end Intel CPU's but it did a better job than I originally expected.

But.
Fair enough.

Im still deciding weather I will go the i7 or Phenom route for my desktop. Either way Ill get a decent PC.

Im not trying to say that AMD is gonna beat Intel forever. Im just saying they may suprise us in the future, or they may just stay the same as they are now.

If I would want to find out how the Turion performs what would be good benchmarking tools? Would PCMark05 do the job? or are all benchmarks kinda a waste?..

Isn't rendering a good way to test CPU speed, thats like drastically CPU dependant.

 

+rep for very good info. There are a couple of things to add though (largely adding info related).
- in most situations the CPU isn't bound by ALU/etc. (most "regular" programs), but there are times when the CPU is bound in this way
- branch prediction is very important, it probably has one of the largest effects on performance. Take the P4, because of the longer pipeline, if code was designed for it it would scream, but if a branch prediction was wrong, everything had to be thrown out. The shorted pipeline in the Core architecture mitigated some of these problems but because of this there is also less parallelism possible (unless more hardware was added), so... IF the P4 and Core were the same aside from this pipeline change, the P4 would absolutely spank the Core
- "Which means the comparisons are meaningless in the first place because all 2.2GHz CPUs should perform equal." I'm not sure if you're stating this or not, let me know. I agree, in theory, all CPUs (in a given batch/maybe series) should perform equal (can't compare different architectures because of the differences between them. eg. i have 2 adds i want to do. CPU1 has 1 ALU, CPU2 has 2 ALUs. It's easy to see that CPU2 will take 1/2 the time of CPU1 [ignoring really minor architectural differences]). The problem we get is that no two systems are alike, something will always differ. There may be a different # of programs/services running or (if they are the exact same) they may run in a different order (thus decreasing performance when compared to the optimal situation).

 

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2009/04/29/ap6353039.html
Taiwan's Acer says quarterly profit sinks 31 pct

 

http://www.informationweek.com/news...icleID=217200485&cid=iwhome_art_iPhon_mostpop

second is reportedly a tablet-like media pad that can play music and videos, view photos, browse the Web with mobile Safari, and make calls over a Wi-Fi connection.

 

Apple has been building a brigade of expert chip designers for more than a year now, spearheaded by its acquisition of the 150-person fabless chip design firm P.A. Semi for $278 million last April.
http://www.appleinsider.com/article...dding_more_graphics_chip_experts_to_team.html

 

how is this thread still alive?