Slashdot Mirror
Intel Lynnfield CPU Bests Nehalem In Performance/Watt
Vigile writes "Not many people have debated that Intel's Nehalem architecture is the fastest available for consumer desktop computers since it was released last year, but quite a few have complained about the cost of the platform. Intel just released new Lynnfield-based processors under both the Core i7 and Core i5 names and tests are showing the new CPUs beating Nehalem in both performance-per-watt and performance-per-dollar tests to a startling degree. And while raw performance probably still goes to the Nehalem-based Core i7 CPUs, the lower prices of motherboards and memory for Lynnfield processors will likely more than make up for it." Update: 09/08 14:03 GMT by T : There are more eye-wateringly exhaustive examinations of the new chips all over the Web; here's HotHardware's version, and Tom's Hardware's.
It's called binning and price discrimination. One is a technical/economic tool to maximize profits based on the non-perfect nature of chip manufacture, the other is the capitalists favorite tool to extract the maximum profit possible out of the consumer.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
One wonders if this is a lack of focus, or if they aren't hugely interested in having the whole picture be understood(at least by end users).
If, for instance, they are assuming that the first line of selection will be done by the (presumably informed and competent) OEM, the amount of choice the customer has to deal with is considerably reduced. You pretty much just choose the device you want, and then pick from a very limited set of chips available in that device. Server configuration is still a bit complex; but so are server applications, so server customers can suck it up.
Aside from enthusiasts who just like following the stuff, the relevant picture isn't all that complex. If you want a netbook, you get Atom, game over. If you want an ultralight, you get some cut-down ULV version of the core2. If you get a laptop or a normal desktop, you get a core2. If you get an enthusiast model or workstation, you get a quad core. Within each device type, there are only really a few clock speed/cache size options to choose from(and, unless you are doing Serious Computing or gaming, it hardly matters which one you choose).
Wow, how is explaining the market dynamics of chip manufacturing a troll?!? Was it the use of the word capitalist? You do know that it's a perfectly valid economics term, right?
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Could someone please stop modding this down? It really is not a troll and the post is essentially true.
Comparing a quad core high-performance desktop processor with a lightweight low power mobile/embedded processor would be completely pointless. An argument which the parent actually made with a little bit of humour.
The quad core desktop processor would absolutely trash the ARM in performance, but would result in a phone that would (literally) burn a whole in your pocket for 5 minutes until it ran out of battery.
It really is like comparing apples to oranges. Both types of processors are completely unsuitable for the main uses of the other.
Besides I can think of at least one use for a female flyweight newbie for which I'd never consider a male heavyweight champion.