SI
SI
discoversearch

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.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (61177)6/9/1999 7:59:00 PM
From: kash johal  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1572644
 
Tench,

Re: Mobile CPU comparison.

I think you know very well that Intel is skirting the benchmark issues.

They like to compare the Dixon to a mobile PII.
They compare the new 366 Celeron mobiles to Pentium MMX mobiles.

They should be comparing the current mainstream offerings:

Low end is the mobile Celeron and high end is the mobile Dixon.

The only essential difference is the extra 128K of cache in Dixon.

I bet the extra cache makes little difference in the benchmarks which is why they don't want to compare them.

But you knew that already didn't you.

Regards,

Kash



To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (61177)6/9/1999 8:25:00 PM
From: Kevin K. Spurway  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1572644
 
The argument was that the higher latency of a Xeon vs. a CuMine onchip L2 would be offset in performance terms by the Xeon's larger (512k) L2 size. Therefore, you can make a reasonable guess at CuMine performance vs. a vanilla 1/2 speed L2 PIII by comparing the PIII to a Xeon.

Kevin


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News