Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Intel Releases New Pentium M Processors

Posted by timothy on from the leapfrog dept.

doormat writes "Its been known for a while, but now it's official, as Intel releases Dothan, the 90nm version of Banias, aka the Pentium M processor. It also debuts Intel's new numbering scheme. The fastest new part is a Pentium M 755 2GHz w/ a 100MHz FSB, and 2MB of L2 on die cache. Reviews are starting to tip up as the NDA expires. One is at Tom's."

11 of 190 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Intel fanboys around the world do a 180... by tobirius · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think more important than the naming scheme is, that these cpus are faster while producing less heat. I don't like my computer being louder than my hairdryer.

  2. FSB @ 100 MHz ? by haxor.dk · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Save your money. Even a 2 MB Level2 cache at core speed wont amend that bottleneck.

    1. Re:FSB @ 100 MHz ? by Chep · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I beg to disagree, if those guys can be trusted. Sure, a better FSB would clearly help, but look at what they achieve with a single-channel FSB100.

  3. laptop woes by Ryan+Broomfield · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Laptops get faster but laptop users don't get any smarter. Every day I see people with a brand new processor and 128MB of memory on windows XP. They insist that their laptop is slow but refuse to spend the extra 50 bucks to get a decent amount of ram in the machine. oh well.

    --
    download games I make at: http://www.shippysite.com
    1. Re:laptop woes by TheLink · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I recently used a Pentium-M notebook with 512MB RAM, Windows XP and some junk on it (instant messaging stuff).

      It was slow. In one case it did lots of paging out for dunno what reason, then when I tried to switch tasks I had to wait a long time for things to page in and for the system to regain its senses.

      A 1GHz Duron, 128MB pc with Windows 2000 was more responsive and stable in comparison - same apps (two apps).

      From my experience with other XP machines, Windows XP is a downgrade from Win2K. The only advantage XP has over Win2K pro is you get to see the various owners of processes in the task manager. For some stupid reason you have to get Windows 2000 Server with the terminal server stuff to get that feature on the task manager.

      Windows XP is the Windows ME of the NT family.

      --
  4. Desktop by moxruby · · Score: 4, Insightful

    My ageing duron 1.3ghz does everything I want it to.
    If someone made a reasonably priced, Pentium-M desktop using low power and heat components, I would consider buying it. Especially if it had no fan.
    The energy savings alone would make it worthwhile.

    1. Re:Desktop by hsa · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If someone made a reasonably priced, Pentium-M desktop using low power and heat components, I would consider buying it. Especially if it had no fan. The energy savings alone would make it worthwhile. Who cares about the energy savings? This baby would be *quiet* and you could really leave your machine on, while sleeping in the room.

  5. Re:Welcome to the silly numbers by martingunnarsson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Those sites getting more popular is a good thing, right? Instead of just looking at the clockrate, people will actually compare performance. The average Joe has no idea what makes a P4 2.0 GHz better than a Celeron 2.0 GHz. They're the same speed for crying out loud! Yeah, you get the point.

    --
    Martin
  6. Re:Welcome to the silly numbers by PhrostyMcByte · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Someone needs to make an open source benchmark on a bootable cd so OS doesn't matter, and no background apps can cause harm to it. Moving from MHz/FSB/Cache/etc to a single common rating # would make things a lot easier for the consumer. This would also spur more competition between the CPU companies, as they couldn't so easily obfuscate the true speed from their users.

  7. Re:Welcome to the silly numbers by kryptkpr · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There is no fair way to compare CPUs of different architectures (with synthetic tests).

    If you let companies into the bechmark design process, they will cheat (see 3DMark scandal).

    If you don't let companies into the bechmark design, then your benchmarks will never be able to squeeze "the most" performance out of anything, and how much performance you do get could be determined more by how you're testing then what you're testing on.

    Comparing CPUs is a very difficult task to do.. notice the reviewer ran more then 10 "real-life" tests to compare the processors.. this is a far more useful metric to the consumer then how well it can crunch through some synthetic tests.

    They just want to know how much faster their games will go, their videos will encode, and how much quicker photoshop will render their favorite filter. Those is very difficult to represent with a single, common number .. especially across architectures.

    --
    DJ kRYPT's Free MP3s!
  8. Summary of Article (Tom's Style) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    In this article
    [fullscreen ad]
    click for more...

    we review the
    [fullscreen ad]
    click for more...

    new Pentium M
    [fullscreen ad]
    click for more...

    processor.
    [fullscreen ad]
    click for more...

    (ad nauseum)