Tony Hill said:I, for one, actually think this is a good idea... or at least
potentially good. MHz is a totally meaningless measure of CPU
performance, but somehow the marketing departments have managed to
convince people that MHz is all that really matters. I've even met
people studying computer science and working in IT departments who
were convinced that two chips running at the same clock speed would
always perform the same.
Intel were having trouble selling the Pentium-M processors, because
people would look at their Mhz and scoff.
No wonder the industry is in trouble. I don't think MHz is aI, for one, actually think this is a good idea... or at least
potentially good. MHz is a totally meaningless measure of CPU
performance, but somehow the marketing departments have managed to
convince people that MHz is all that really matters. I've even met
people studying computer science and working in IT departments who
were convinced that two chips running at the same clock speed would
always perform the same.
... This will help retailers
emphasize that it's actual performance, and not MHz that matters.
Then maybe people will buy chips that are good for what they want
rather than wasting their money on trash like Intel's Celeron chips
just because of the high clock speed (Intel's Celeron 2.8Ghz currently
sells for ~$150 but would be EASILY beaten by chips like AMD's
AthlonXP 2200+ selling for ~$75).
Black said:Intel were having trouble selling the Pentium-M processors, because
people would look at their Mhz and scoff.
Put P-M prices in line with their performance and put
motherboards for them on the market, and sales will take off.
Currently a 1.6 GHz P-M costs more that a 3.2 GHz P4 when
performance wise it should be priced more like a much
cheaper 2.4 GHz or 2.6 GHz P4. And the only motherboards
available for them are crap with no AGP slots and usually
only one DIMM slot.
ago called iSpeed or something like that? It was designed specifically
No wonder the industry is in trouble. I don't think MHz is a
meaningless number and I don't particularly cotton to the idea of
model numbers. MHz only has meaning only in the context of the
particular processor you are considering, but, in that context, it
conveys more useful meaning than a model number.
Everybody has their own way of interpreting signs and portents. I
take this one as a sign that Intel is losing it. Copying AMD...again?
The people who buy those chips will never notice. Think of it as a
tax on stupidity. If Intel comes up with a numbering scheme that in
any way reveals what a scam the P4 Celeron's are, I'll _know_ they're
losing it.
On the other hand, maybe they're getting ready to dump NetBurst, and
they're afraid people will remember what a sweet deal Tualatin
Celeron's were. Is there a "value" Pentium-M out there yet?
I dropped comp.arch from the cross-post. These marketing issues are
not insignificant, and I don't mind reading and yammering about them,
but I don't think they belong on comp.arch.
Come now, this is Usenet, the home of off-topic discussions! :>
In comp.arch Rob Stow said:Balderdash. Everyone seems well aware that a P-M will perform
on a par with a P4 clocked about 40% higher. What is stopping
them is the high prices for the P-M and tremendous difficulties
in getting a decent motherboard for the damned things.
Sander said:Considering they are primarily a laptop cpu, it suprising you can
get any at all. This also affects the price.
Rob Stow said:Balderdash. Everyone seems well aware that a P-M will perform
on a par with a P4 clocked about 40% higher. What is stopping
them is the high prices for the P-M and tremendous difficulties
in getting a decent motherboard for the damned things.
They are far and away Intel's best *desktop* cpu.
Balderdash. Everyone seems well aware that a P-M will perform
on a par with a P4 clocked about 40% higher. What is stopping
them is the high prices for the P-M and tremendous difficulties
in getting a decent motherboard for the damned things.
Put P-M prices in line with their performance and put
motherboards for them on the market, and sales will take off.
Robert Myers said:The only available published SpecCFP2000 numbers I am aware of, 547
base, 552 peak, Hewlett-Packard Company, ProLiant BL10e G2 (1.0GHz,
ULV Intel Pentium M), do not support that assertion, even if you
assumed that results would scale linearly with frequency without
changing the Front Side Bus, which they would not. Compare that to
Intel Corporation Intel D875PBZ motherboard (3.4 GHz, Pentium 4
processor with HT Technology Extreme Edition): 1548 base, 1561 peak.
It seems to me that there's something "funny" going on with P-M just now.
Up to 1.9GHz has been promised for >6months and yet current product is till
pegged at 1.7GHz max with many premium laptops still using 1.4 & 1.5GHz.
It would seem that either Intel is holding back on higher clock speeds or
they are having trouble making them. I do know that when you run a 1.6GHz
at full tilt it gets bloody hot.
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.