Slashdot Mirror
Intrinsity Claims 2.2 Ghz Chip
PowerMacDaddy writes "Over at SiliconValley.com there's an article about an Ausin, TX startup named Intrinsity that has unveiled a new chip that utilizes a new logic process with conventional fab processes to acheive a 2.2GHz clock rate. The company is headed by former Texas Instruments and Apple Computer microprocessor developer Paul Nixon. The real question is, is this all FUD, will the real-world performance be part of The Megahertz Myth, or is this thing for real?"
In a nutshell this is saying "Someone said something, but it might be bogus, and the cycle speed really doesn't mean much anyways.". Alrighty then. This is like a "nothing to see here, move along!" type articles.
now that the cpu isn't the bottleneck anymore lets work on memory and other buss bottlenecks..
Actuall the article has little to do with clock rate comparison the way you're thinking of it, it has more to do with manufacturing, and core improvements which could possible raise the MHz across the board. I'll wager they'll try manufacturing chips, but when that fails 1 of 3 things will happen:
1)they liscese the tech, which is what they should do from the begining.
2)AMD or Intel will buy them
3)AMD and Intel (independently) will gear up there marketing drones, and this chip will fade from memory.
what we need is a testing algrythem that all processors use. then we can rate chips as "it completed the Moffitt algorithem in 1.5 minutes!".
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Good point that slashdot should have pointed to, say, the ArsTechnica article on the advantages of the PPC architecture instead of the Apple propaganda. Despite that, no one can doubt that there is a "Megahertz Myth" to a great extent, though perhaps not the the extent Apple suggests. Look at the AMD vs. Intel race right now - people assume that the fastest p3/4 is faster than the fastest Athlon without actually looking at performance results.
Well, I really doubt this will be fud, since that stands for fear, uncertanty, and doubt. This acticle seems to be more of a hype piece.
FUD is tearing down a competitor's product with vague statements and generalizations. FUD is not describing your own new product in glowing terms. That's just marketing BS.
I know, I know...shouldn't nitpick. But when the term FUD is so depricated on the main page at slashdot, I really must object.