From: Randal Whittle (rwhittle_at_usa.net)
Date: Thu Dec 04 1997 - 13:58:12 EST
At 10:00 AM 12/4/97 -0500, richard wrote:
>On Wed, 03 Dec 1997 23:13:27 -0800, Randal Whittle <rwhittle_at_usa.net> wrote:
>
>>desktop. Do keep in mind that laptops are inherently slower than the
>>same-MHz desktop--i.e., a 560 running at 133 MHz is *not* going to be as
>>fast as virtually any desktop running at 133 MHz. Just part of the
>>tradeoff you make for the benefit of portability.
>
>I think that the 560/133 is slower than a 133 desktop because the 560 does
not
>have an L2 cache.
That's certainly a major part of the equation. But everything I've heard
& read over the last few years is that *any* laptop of a given speed was
slower all but the worst of desktops running at the same speed.
> Reviews of the latest 560 - the 233 mhz 560x - indicate that
>it is as fast as a 233 mhz desktop. For example:
>
>"The latest notebook PCs powered by 233MHz Tillamook Pentium chips perform
on a
>par with 233MHz Pentium-based desktop PCs but, for what they cost, a company
>could buy a Pentium II desktop system and have money left over."
>
>http://www.zdnet.com/pcweek/reviews/1201/01note.html
>
>The article has a favorable review of the 560x.
It sounds as though this is a new event with the Tillamook chip package.
Frankly I'm still suspicious though... Do remember we're talking about
*systemic* performance, not just chip. And as a system, a laptop has
*many* compromises that you don't see in desktops (HD speed, for one--video
for another). All these compromises work to slow the system down compared
to your average desktop.
-------
Randal J. Whittle whittle_at_usc.edu (213) 740-7775
Director, Electronic Commerce Program
Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Thu Jan 23 2003 - 09:53:50 EST