www.aceshardware.com
Uh, why do we have so much daftness in debate about the P4 when anyone who would actually read tech articles on the architecture should realise that:
a) the P4 was always aiming at much higher clock speeds than the P4 on the same micron process
b) the P4 would perform clock for clock slower than a PIII typically because of the longer pipeline aiming at those clock speeds.
The figures and engineering philosophy quoted in this article make perfect sense out of what we've been seeing:
P4 debuting at 1.4GHz when even 1.13GHz PIII was recalled due to problems on that process;
benchmarks indicating inferiority in benchmarks comparing 1.2GHzTbird DDR and 1.4GHz+ P4 RDRA< (or similar).
I'm not saying the P4 is a good or bad chip. I'm just saying that in practice, when the P4 has matured, our buying decisions will as always depend on how much the P4 costs and how the competition compares in performance. When things have matured.
Uh, why do we have so much daftness in debate about the P4 when anyone who would actually read tech articles on the architecture should realise that:
a) the P4 was always aiming at much higher clock speeds than the P4 on the same micron process
b) the P4 would perform clock for clock slower than a PIII typically because of the longer pipeline aiming at those clock speeds.
The figures and engineering philosophy quoted in this article make perfect sense out of what we've been seeing:
P4 debuting at 1.4GHz when even 1.13GHz PIII was recalled due to problems on that process;
benchmarks indicating inferiority in benchmarks comparing 1.2GHzTbird DDR and 1.4GHz+ P4 RDRA< (or similar).
I'm not saying the P4 is a good or bad chip. I'm just saying that in practice, when the P4 has matured, our buying decisions will as always depend on how much the P4 costs and how the competition compares in performance. When things have matured.
