I'm NOT anti-Intel; I would like to see them execute better - but they are not. What I was pointing out, is that this slide is NOT an engineering slide, but a marketing slide.
From personal experience (and years of seeing this in the semiconductor biz), I do not trust marketing departments to produce graphs meeting rigorous engineering standards.
What engineer leaves off the X-Axis; none that I've met.
This still dances around the question. What specifically is incorrect in the graph? With this information, we can help the SEC form a lawsuit against Intel for misleading investors.
I agree that I would never leave off units and numbers on graphs that I put out. But, your insistence that the graph cannot be used needs some shred of actual evidence for your posts to matter on the subject. Otherwise your leaving out information about what is incorrect is just as bad as the marketing people leaving out the labels.
The graph says that Willow Cove can reach 3.25 GHz at the same voltage that Sunny Cove uses to reach 2.5 GHz. That is a 30% frequency improvement. Is that incorrect? How much?
The graph says that Willow Cove can reach 3.7 GHz at the same voltage that Sunny Cove uses to reach 3.0 GHz. That is a 23% frequency improvement. Is that incorrect? How much?
The graph says that Willow Cove can reach 4.2 GHz at the same voltage that Sunny Cove uses to reach 3.5 GHz. That is a 20% frequency improvement. Is that incorrect? How much?
The graph says that Willow Cove can reach 4.7 GHz at the same voltage that Sunny Cove uses to reach 3.9 GHz. That is a 21% frequency improvement. Is that incorrect? How much?