| 1 |
On Thursday 01 February 2007, Nelson, David (ED, PAR&D) wrote: |
| 2 |
> > Also Pentium-M has a lower latency L2 cache than P-4. With respect |
| 3 |
> > to pipeline lengths I was curious to see what they actually |
| 4 |
> > were: P-4 has |
| 5 |
> > 20 stages, P-M has.. err... < 20 stages (Intel won't say exactly!). |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > I found this an interesting read for those of you interested in |
| 8 |
> > this: |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2342&p=1 |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > Cheers |
| 13 |
> > |
| 14 |
> > Mark |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> At the risk of pulling this topic a little more off-topic - the P-M |
| 17 |
> vs P-4 is an interesting case of a Pentium 3 chipset with a die |
| 18 |
> shrink outperforming a P-4. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> The Intel Core (2) Solo/Duo CPUs are based on the Pentium M as well. |
| 21 |
> Netburst is pretty much dead afaik. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Thanks for everyone's replies. I now know, 6 months later, exactly what |
| 24 |
cpu I have :-) |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
I've been finding over the last 10 years or so that if I don't keep up |
| 27 |
with new cpu developments, it takes ages to get familiar with the |
| 28 |
terminology and current products again. I think it's called "the price |
| 29 |
of rapid technology advances" |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
alan |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives