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 : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cirruslvr who wrote (137936)	6/22/2001 11:32:02 AM
From: Dan3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Re: Do you realize you are comparing a low-voltage mobile PIII to a normal mobile PIII processor? That's why the voltage you quote is 1.35v, not the 1.6/1.7 the normal .18 mobile PIII uses. But you knew that... The low voltage part is a different spec sheet (and doesn't clock nearly as high). The figures I used were from the the regular mobile chip (which can be clocked/voltaged down using speedstep. Voltaged? the mobile 1.13GHz max power consumption of 27.9W Link please. Your figure contradicts Intel's posted spec sheet (that I linked to in my post). The spec sheet shows 28 watts typical for core/cache only, not max power and not including I/O. The coppermine part uses about 34w at max power, at a higher voltage and about 2/3's that power at a voltage closer to the one used for rating the tualatin. Tualatin clocks higher a lower voltage - but it draws a surprisingly high number of amps at low voltage compared to coppermine. Dan