On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 18:18:02 GMT, CJT wrote:

Robert Myers wrote:

Gnu_Raiz wrote:


What gets me is this new per watt performance metric they are going to
push out? Doesn't VIA have them beat right now?



No.

RM

Actually, I think the answer is probably "Yes."

While VIA's chips offer ok performance, low power consumption and VERY
low prices, they definitely can't match Intel in terms of
performance/watt. The VIA chips are CONSIDERABLY slower than any
current Intel chips. Even the lowly 900MHz Celeron-M, with a TDP of
only 5.0W should be able to match the 2.0GHz VIA C7-M chips when they
ship. Certainly the 900MHz Celeron-M is a LOT faster than the current
1.3GHz C3 chips.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla underscore 20 at yahoo dot ca

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 18:18:02 GMT, CJT wrote:

Robert Myers wrote:

Gnu_Raiz wrote:


What gets me is this new per watt performance metric they are going to
push out? Doesn't VIA have them beat right now?



No.

RM

Actually, I think the answer is probably "Yes."

Its not even close - you can get a benchmark comparison .pdf here
http://www.tollygroup.com/DocDetail....cNumber=205107

--
Rgds, George Macdonald

On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 04:31:48 -0400, George Macdonald wrote:

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 18:18:02 GMT, CJT wrote:

Robert Myers wrote:

Gnu_Raiz wrote:


What gets me is this new per watt performance metric they are going to
push out? Doesn't VIA have them beat right now?



No.

RM

Actually, I think the answer is probably "Yes."

Its not even close - you can get a benchmark comparison .pdf here
http://www.tollygroup.com/DocDetail....cNumber=205107

Seems to be a dead link, I was unable to download the pdf under Firefox
under Linux. I was more under the impression that now Intel was going to
push low power watts as a means of marketing their chips. I took this to
mean that the chip with the lowest power usage wins the day. But now this
brings up a good question, how exactly do you measure watt performance? A
watt is a watt is a watt, maybe someone can educate me on this fine point.

Gnu_Raiz

George Macdonald wrote:

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 18:18:02 GMT, CJT wrote:


Robert Myers wrote:


Gnu_Raiz wrote:



What gets me is this new per watt performance metric they are going to
push out? Doesn't VIA have them beat right now?



No.

RM


Actually, I think the answer is probably "Yes."


Its not even close - you can get a benchmark comparison .pdf here
http://www.tollygroup.com/DocDetail....cNumber=205107

Now show a study _not_ sponsored by Intel. And that addresses the watts
of power used by each processor.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 10:35:07 -0500, Gnu_Raiz
wrote:

On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 04:31:48 -0400, George Macdonald wrote:

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 18:18:02 GMT, CJT wrote:

Robert Myers wrote:

Gnu_Raiz wrote:


What gets me is this new per watt performance metric they are going to
push out? Doesn't VIA have them beat right now?



No.

RM

Actually, I think the answer is probably "Yes."

Its not even close - you can get a benchmark comparison .pdf here
http://www.tollygroup.com/DocDetail....cNumber=205107

Seems to be a dead link, I was unable to download the pdf under Firefox
under Linux.

It works fine for me with Mozilla/WinXP.

I was more under the impression that now Intel was going to
push low power watts as a means of marketing their chips. I took this to
mean that the chip with the lowest power usage wins the day. But now this
brings up a good question, how exactly do you measure watt performance? A
watt is a watt is a watt, maybe someone can educate me on this fine point.

Measuring and expressing results is not easy. There is an obvious space
for a system with the right amount of performance for low heat and, more
importantly, ultra-low noise. The Celeron buried both VIA chips for
similar (enough) power consumption.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald

On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 17:36:17 GMT, CJT wrote:

George Macdonald wrote:

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 18:18:02 GMT, CJT wrote:


Robert Myers wrote:


Gnu_Raiz wrote:



What gets me is this new per watt performance metric they are going to
push out? Doesn't VIA have them beat right now?



No.

RM


Actually, I think the answer is probably "Yes."


Its not even close - you can get a benchmark comparison .pdf here
http://www.tollygroup.com/DocDetail....cNumber=205107

Now show a study _not_ sponsored by Intel. And that addresses the watts
of power used by each processor.

C'mon this was not even a competition - the Celeron was in a different
class and did not fail any tests.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald

George Macdonald wrote:

On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 17:36:17 GMT, CJT wrote:


George Macdonald wrote:


On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 18:18:02 GMT, CJT wrote:



Robert Myers wrote:



Gnu_Raiz wrote:




What gets me is this new per watt performance metric they are going to
push out? Doesn't VIA have them beat right now?



No.

RM


Actually, I think the answer is probably "Yes."


Its not even close - you can get a benchmark comparison .pdf here
http://www.tollygroup.com/DocDetail....cNumber=205107


Now show a study _not_ sponsored by Intel. And that addresses the watts
of power used by each processor.


C'mon this was not even a competition - the Celeron was in a different
class and did not fail any tests.

Who's to say whether, if VIA were the sponsor, a test could be found
that the Celeron failed.


--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 17:24:57 GMT, CJT wrote:

....snip...

A focus on watts could drive Itanium even deeper in the hole.

Focus on watts in laptops and SFF boxes? Paramount. In blade servers
- ditto. Even at the expence of raw speed. But in desktops there is
always a place for a fan or two, and there is always need for speed,
be you a gamer, software developer, or heavy graphics user. Much more
so in 4U+ servers. The top $ are paid for top notch performance of
"mission-critical" databases and like. The heat produced by a
high-performing chip is a problem that can be and usually is
reasonably solved. That is, unless you deal with Prescott core that
doubles as a space heater.

On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 17:36:17 GMT, CJT wrote:

George Macdonald wrote:
Its not even close - you can get a benchmark comparison .pdf here
http://www.tollygroup.com/DocDetail....cNumber=205107

Now show a study _not_ sponsored by Intel. And that addresses the watts
of power used by each processor.

Ok.. how's this?

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20020605/

I'm no big fan of Tom's, but the fact of the matter is that the VIA C3
at 1.0GHz really struggles to match the performance of an ancient
Celeron 667MHz processor. Now figure that the Celeron-M at 900MHz
offers a greatly improved core, 4 times as much cache, 6 times the bus
bandwidth and 3 times the memory bandwidth. It all adds up to the C3
just not being at all competitive.

Even at 2.0GHz I suspect that the yet-to-ship C7 processor will have
difficulty competing with a 900MHz Celeron-M, and it will do so with 4
times the power consumption (20W for the VIA chip vs. 5W for Intel).

Ohh, here's another set of slightly dated numbers comparing the C3 at
800MHz to a PIII at 500MHz:

http://www.dansdata.com/c3.htm


-------------
Tony Hill
hilla underscore 20 at yahoo dot ca