Intel Corporation (INTC) Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC)

INTC 33.62

-4.2%

Nov 20 3:59 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (173838)	3/27/2003 4:27:15 PM
From: advinfo	Read Replies (1) of 186894

Thanks for your reply. Yeah, looking at the raw ghz numbers would favor the non-M model, but I was wondering if the 4M 2.2ghz had a more efficient architecture that would outperform the non-4M 2.6 ghz. The articles below state that the new M dramatically outperforms the 4M, I'm still curious about a 4M to non-4M benchmark. I talked to a rep at Sony today that said a non-4M would burn a battery in 45 minutes or so playing a DVD, I didn't realize it was such a hog. I'll probably get the 4M for the times when a 2-3hrs of battery is nice to have... Intel confirms clock speed irrelevant for notebooks Pentium M far better than Pentium 4M. It's the end of megahurts madness theinquirer.net No megahertz war for Intel Centrino Clockspeed airbrushed from history theinquirer.net

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next