SPONSORED LINKS
At 10:00 AM 12/4/97 -0500, richard wrote: >On Wed, 03 Dec 1997 23:13:27 -0800, Randal Whittle <rwhittle@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@usc.edu (213) 740-7775 Director, Electronic Commerce Program Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California