> I have come to the conclusion that the Tualatin will be a
> better mobile chip than the A4.
Keep in mind that the Athlon 4 uses a lot less power than the Athlon MP, as its operating voltage is much lower. So making a comparison based on the Athlon MP power dissipation is not the right thing to do.
I don't have the numbers on me, but a quick calculation suggests that the Athlon 4 at 1.20GHz at 1.40v will require just above 31Wtyp. The Tualatin is still better, but not by as much as you would think given the process difference. In addition, SpeedStep is a somewhat lame and primitive means of dropping power. 3DNow! and LongRun are much better (instead of running statically at a lower performance level when power needs to be conserved, the AMD and Transmeta processors vary their power and performance by the current demand of the system, so in "power saving mode", the AMD and Transmeta processors would suffer a *much* smaller performance penalty while not having to sacrifice too much in terms of power conservation).
Additionally, the Athlon 4 is a higher performance processor. Well, it's higher per clock. Tualatin will apparently be outdoing it in straight frequency. Basically, you can *arguably* say that the Tualatin is better, and you can *arguably* say that the Athlon 4 is better. Beyond that, the Athlon 4 has, I expect, a strong advantage in pricing (except, allegedly, when Dell is involved). And it's actually out and available (I expect Tualatin to have decent availability, but as of the current moment, the highest speed Intel mobile chip is still the 1.00GHz Coppermine).
-JC |
