1G Pentium III-M vs. 1.06G

[no...@nospam.com]

Apparently Compaq is phasing out the 1G Pentium III-M processor in their 2700
notebooks and making the 1.06G P3M the standard. Since 1.06G is so close in
speed to 1.00G, I am curious as to why Intel produces two CPU's that are so
close to each other in speed. Are there other differences between the two
processors? With the 6% speed difference being attenuated by memory and disk
speeds which are the same, my guess is that the faster CPU results in an
overall system speedup of 1-2%. That hardly seems worth the effort to produce
and support two different models.

[daytripper]

Ah - but it *is* worth the profit - ever notice the non-linear pricing
structure for that last bit of performance?

It is basically setting another speed bin on the line. nbd from a cost
basis...

[veedub]

Think about the speed increases in the past though. It seems the figures,
while still not a big jump, are misleading because on first glance going
from 1Ghz to 1.06Ghz seems miniscule but its no smaller, and in some cases a
bigger jump in speed in absolute terms than past speed increases. Think
about it this way, a jump from 800Mhz to 850Mhz is a jump of 50 Mhz but a
jump from 1Ghz to 1.06Ghz is actually a jump of 60Mhz, actually a greater
increase than the former increase in absolute terms. Granted it is still not
a huge jump and you or me would probably notice no difference, in both cases
for that matter, but it is no smaller a rise than what has been happening in
the past. It is a larger increase in absolute (60Mhz vs 50Mhz) terms and on
only slightly lower in relative terms. The 60Mhz increase is a 6% increase
while the 50Mhz increase from 800 to 850Mhz is only slightly greater at
6.25%. My point is that while I admit it won't offer a huge speed difference
it is no smaller or larger increase in CPU speed than we have experienced in
the past. It is just the 1Ghz vs 1.06Ghz that is misleading, after all what
it a speed increase of 0.06Ghz especially when we are more used to comparing
increases from figures such as 800Mhz to 850Mhz which sounds more
impressive. It really comes down to whether you can afford or want to afford
the new (faster) technology.

[Mike Smith]

"veedub" <veed...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:_GsK7.517$Lf2....@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...

> about it this way, a jump from 800Mhz to 850Mhz is a jump of 50 Mhz but a
> jump from 1Ghz to 1.06Ghz is actually a jump of 60Mhz, actually a greater
> increase than the former increase in absolute terms.

66 MHz, actually, which just makes the point even more strongly.

> The 60Mhz increase is a 6% increase
> while the 50Mhz increase from 800 to 850Mhz is only slightly greater at
> 6.25%.

Actually a 6.6+ % increase, given the above.

--
Mike Smith

[Jenny Mcguire]

<no...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:9_kK7.30942$qx2.1...@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...

> Apparently Compaq is phasing out the 1G Pentium III-M processor in their
2700
> notebooks and making the 1.06G P3M the standard. Since 1.06G is so close
in
> speed to 1.00G, I am curious as to why Intel produces two CPU's that are
so
> close to each other in speed.

What's so surprising about a 66MHz speed increase?
Did you ever stop to think that the entire Athlon XP range of CPU's are only
66Mhz apart?

>Are there other differences between the two
> processors? With the 6% speed difference being attenuated by memory and
disk
> speeds which are the same, my guess is that the faster CPU results in an
> overall system speedup of 1-2%. That hardly seems worth the effort to
produce
> and support two different models.

Well with an XP you will fork out over $60 more for the 1900+ over the 1800+
which is simply 66Mhz faster. Same with the 1800+ vs the 1700+. 66Mhz
difference.... $50 more expensive.

[Dave]

I'm on a PIII 450MHz, that does me fine :)
Having said that I wouldn't say no to a 2GHz :)

Dave

Jenny Mcguire <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:j3EK7.355484$bY5.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...