Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : Transmeta (TMTA)-The Monster That Could Slay Intel -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (101)	1/25/2000 1:01:00 PM
From: ComradeBrehznev	Respond to of 421

Daniel, "so they're pushing the low power/ good enough performance angle, because that's all they got." I agree, it's actually 'Marketing 101'. Apparently, their focus is on lowest power with 'good enough' performance. Intel and AMD have focussed on 'maximum performance, power be damned'. AMD's method is to find the maximum thermal envelope of the notebook, and ramp up power and performance until it just fits, and then call taht 'mobile K6'. "the one benchmark that shows any processor dependence in completion time is Office 2K, and the completion times listed are .133 hrs for Mobile PIII 500 mhz, .167 for the 6-months-out TM5400. Head scratching time there" Check the benchmark again, that's with the low-end (533MHz) part, they announced a 700MHz part. I just read new Dell and Gateway ads for their notebook lines, and none advertised anything above a PIII-500. Performance- wise, Transmeta may be 6 mo behind top of the line stuff, not too bad, imho. Esp for less $$ and lower power. I'll be anxious to try one out. CB

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (101)	1/25/2000 2:06:00 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 421

Dan, I've been involved in the past in lots of bechmarking. But mostly to find system performance to do real time radar data analysis. But from the bench marking I've done I also learned what it takes so that I can have fast system performance for the stuff I do. So I'm impressed with crusoe. Now watman.com shows my system and watman.com shows other 2, 3, and 4 display systems I've built use and tested. All my systems are based 200Mhz Pro's and on any of my system's as long as I keep processes out of swap I get instant response. For the last couple of years I've stayed with PPros as I generally just don't need any more performance. I usually will only upgrade to get a minimum of twice the performance and being cheap that performance is just getting within my cheap threshold. Now comparing a PPro to a Pentium III pretty much is defined by the clock only. So a 500 Mhz P3 is 2.5 times as fast as a Ppro. My take on the benchmarks for performance. 0.0178/ 0.0194 = .91 and times 2.5 = 2.3 times a 200 Mhz Pro 0.0178/ 0.0211 = .84 and times 2.5 = 2.1 times a 200 Mhz Pro But also not noing the nature of the benchmarks performed by transmeta I'm giving transmeta the benefit of the doubt. Now I get stellar performance with my Pros with Linux. The performance of Win98 is kinda OK But doubling the perfomance of Win98 would make it good. Now I won't be able to have dozens of apps open in Msft OSes until I have a 1/2 gig or more of memory maybe. But the performance of the crusoe chips even running piggy msft software should be quite good. But the power use is just outstanding. To me the end to end systems design of crusoe with the goal of reduced power for mobile apps give crusoe a 8 to 12 month technology lead. The cursoe performance I believe will be great for 95, 98% of users expectations. Now Win2k is a question. Will Win2k raise the resource required bar? Also someone asked about vliw as to benefits and x86 instructions. I think of vliw as the means to create how you do with software what is done in hardware. The main focus of doing it in software is elimination hardware and thus reducing power. The software is more complex but also give more flexibilty. Tom Watson tosiwmee