Microsoft responds over PocketPC/X-Scale controversy (poor speed); Intel says no comment

[NFS4]

From PocketPC Thoughts:

"Your request for comment on the previous article was routed to me. We respectfully decline the opportunity as [the] first products using our new processors are just now coming to market."

Best regards,
Mark O. Miller
Intel Press Relations

Well, Intel doesn't have a problem touting it's fastest Pentium 4's when they are "just released."

OTOH, Microsoft at least said something and acknowledged the performance issues:

http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1772

Though with a 200MHz clock speed bump, there is really no excuse for poor performance or no performance gains at all IMHO...

 

[andreasl]

What kind of software do you run on a PDA that requires lots of CPU horsepower?

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: andreasl
What kind of software do you run on a PDA that requires lots of CPU horsepower?

Gaming, video playback (avi, mpg, rv, wmv, asf, etc.), and opening Adobe acrobat files are three that I can think of right now. But there are others like faster page loads in Internet Explorer, faster application performance, quicker load times for more complex applications, etc. Argentum is an awesome RTS game for the PocketPC but it can bog down pretty bad with a lot of units on the screen with the current 206MHz StrongARM.

The fact of the matter is, Intel was claiming huge performance gains with X-Scale and right now there is jack SQUAT. Not even any of the power saving features are in play. Microsoft has responded on the matter, yet Intel won't give their side.

206MHz -> 400MHz should equal more than - 5% to 0% performance gain

 

[ST4RCUTTER]

I last heard that Intel was writing a 4-in-1 driver v1.0 for the Xscale...should correct the problem.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: NFS4
From PocketPC Thoughts:

"Your request for comment on the previous article was routed to me. We respectfully decline the opportunity as [the] first products using our new processors are just now coming to market."

Best regards,
Mark O. Miller
Intel Press Relations

Well, Intel doesn't have a problem touting it's fastest Pentium 4's when they are "just released."

OTOH, Microsoft at least said something and acknowledged the performance issues:

http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1772

Though with a 200MHz clock speed bump, there is really no excuse for poor performance or no performance gains at all IMHO...

remember when the first p4 came out and it wasn't faster than athlons or p3s running ~500MHz less

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: NFS4
From PocketPC Thoughts:

"Your request for comment on the previous article was routed to me. We respectfully decline the opportunity as [the] first products using our new processors are just now coming to market."

Best regards,
Mark O. Miller
Intel Press Relations

Well, Intel doesn't have a problem touting it's fastest Pentium 4's when they are "just released."

OTOH, Microsoft at least said something and acknowledged the performance issues:

http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1772

Though with a 200MHz clock speed bump, there is really no excuse for poor performance or no performance gains at all IMHO...

remember when the first p4 came out and it wasn't faster than athlons or p3s running ~500MHz less

This is a 100% speed bump. Not a 50% speed bump. If the Pentium 4 had been introduced at 2GHz (100% clockspeed increase vs PIII) instead of 1.5GHz, it would have killed everything back then.

 

[AndyHui]

This sucks. Microsoft won't rewrite PPC2002 for ARM V5.

Then again, they should just dump PPC2002 and get on with writing a proper PPC2003 for ARM V5 considering how many problems PPC2002 has.

There go my plans for the iPAQ 39xx series. I might wait for the 5000 series instead.

 

[Rectalfier]

WHA!?! Does it have a 40 stage pipeline?

 

[joohang]

Boooooo

 

[Martin]

My Palm IIIxe 0wnz you all!

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
My Palm IIIxe 0wnz you all!

Buahaha, yeah...in battery life

 

[MadRat]

<<Well, Intel doesn't have a problem touting it's fastest Pentium 4's when they are "just released."
OTOH, Microsoft at least said something and acknowledged the performance issues:
http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1772
Though with a 200MHz clock speed bump, there is really no excuse for poor performance or no performance gains at all IMHO...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
remember when the first p4 came out and it wasn't faster than athlons or p3s running ~500MHz less
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------->>

When you combine more code with a faster processor then this stagnation in performance is not unprecedented.

*Thinks about Pentium66 mated to Windows95 versus 486DX50 mated to Windows3.11*

<<This is a 100% speed bump. Not a 50% speed bump. If the Pentium 4 had been introduced at 2GHz (100% clockspeed increase vs PIII) instead of 1.5GHz, it would have killed everything back then.>>

The original Pentium4 core petered out as clock speeds increased. If you compare the older "P4" cores (.18-micron, 256k L2) to the "P4-A" revisions (.13-micron, 512k L2) then you can see that the original design was severely hampered by its cache design. As the "P4-A" revisions scale they increase much better in performance relative to the original design. Heck, a P4-1.5A may have seemed like a pretty decent chip compared to the original P4-1.5! Fortunately for our overclocker community Intel pitied us by releasing the P4-1.6A's. They could have been tightwads and dumped these lowend P4-A's in the garbage, or - worse yet - crippled the cache and released them as a Celeron-4's without any L2 cache at all... MY POINT IS THAT THE ORIGINAL PENTIUM4 CORE "IS SUCK"!