“””””In a direct comparison between the old Pentium M 1.7 GHz and the new Dothan with 2.0 GHz, the newcomer clearly manages to gain the upper hand. In some of the benchmarks, the mobile CPU produced with 90-nm technology is up to 22% faster. Even if you only consider the difference in clock speed between the two CPUs, Dothan still offers a 5% advantage.””””””
I'm not 100% sure what they are saying a 1.7 giz Dothan is 5% faster then 1.7 giz pentium M???? If that is the case 5% that's decent improvement on a clock for clock comparison.
I did have a problem with this though.
“””””””And again, we applaud Intel's decision to end its marketing strategy of emphasizing gigahertz clock speed specifications as the true measure of processor performance. Nevertheless, it remains to be seen whether the new processor-number style nomenclature will really make it easier for end users to find the right product.””””””
Applaud intel? IMHO intel is changing cause the game is over p4 hit a wall. The MHz myth was intentionally implemented or done by intel. 3 years later this decision based on misleading marketing and ignoring design engineers in favor of marketing to fool or mislead consumers. Why the pat on the back? It's not as if intel changed because of a conscience or something. P4 is finished p3 is what needs to be worked on. Obviously going back to MHz would make intel look bad compared to amd so go with even a more confusing setup based on really (not too much) from a consumers point of view.
A standard set of real benchmarks are what is needed in the cpu industry so consumers are not misled. AMD was pushing for this for the last couple of years but intel will have no part of it. So amd had to drop it.
What I don't understand is why THG is patting Intel on the back.
If I glanced at a spilt box of tooth picks on the floor, could I tell you how many are in the pile. Not a chance, But then again I don't have to buy my underware at Kmart.
I'm not 100% sure what they are saying a 1.7 giz Dothan is 5% faster then 1.7 giz pentium M???? If that is the case 5% that's decent improvement on a clock for clock comparison.
I did have a problem with this though.
“””””””And again, we applaud Intel's decision to end its marketing strategy of emphasizing gigahertz clock speed specifications as the true measure of processor performance. Nevertheless, it remains to be seen whether the new processor-number style nomenclature will really make it easier for end users to find the right product.””””””
Applaud intel? IMHO intel is changing cause the game is over p4 hit a wall. The MHz myth was intentionally implemented or done by intel. 3 years later this decision based on misleading marketing and ignoring design engineers in favor of marketing to fool or mislead consumers. Why the pat on the back? It's not as if intel changed because of a conscience or something. P4 is finished p3 is what needs to be worked on. Obviously going back to MHz would make intel look bad compared to amd so go with even a more confusing setup based on really (not too much) from a consumers point of view.
A standard set of real benchmarks are what is needed in the cpu industry so consumers are not misled. AMD was pushing for this for the last couple of years but intel will have no part of it. So amd had to drop it.
What I don't understand is why THG is patting Intel on the back.
If I glanced at a spilt box of tooth picks on the floor, could I tell you how many are in the pile. Not a chance, But then again I don't have to buy my underware at Kmart.