Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: IBM wins the CPU contract for the Microsoft's X-BOX 2.  (Read 9107 times)

Description:

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline bhoggett

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2002
  • Posts: 1431
    • Show all replies
    • http://www.midnightmu.com
Re: IBM wins the CPU contract for the Microsoft's X-BOX
« on: November 04, 2003, 12:56:29 AM »
@KennyR

[quote}I don't know of any x86-compatible ones since Cyrix, and that died at the 300MHz or so along with the P2.[/quote]
What about the C3s?

You know, the ones they use in the VIA EPIA boards like the ones sold by the Mini-ITX store.
Bill Hoggett
 

Offline bhoggett

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2002
  • Posts: 1431
    • Show all replies
    • http://www.midnightmu.com
Re: IBM wins the CPU contract for the Microsoft's X-BOX
« Reply #1 on: November 04, 2003, 05:15:17 PM »
@Crumb

Quote
C3 are waaaay slower than ppcs... they are waaaaay slower than celerons at the same clock rate.

Yes, they are, but that wasn't the point I was making. You'll note I was responding to KennyR's assertion that the last fanless x86 chips died with the Cyrix 300 and the P2.

For better performance you'd need to look at the mobile models from both Intel and AMD.

Then you have the various statements that high end PPCs don't need any cooling, when in most cases they need a great big heat sink and active case cooling instead. Expensive silent case fans are not the same thing as no fans at all.

That's not to say PPC's don't run cooler that x86 chips cycle for cycle, but the issue is often exagerrated.

Incidentally, I note that the "more powerful cycle for cycle" argument has been rolled out again. While this is true, it's usually irrelevant. the comparison that really matters is "performance/price" because we all know we shouldn't pay any attention to cycle figures.  :-P
Bill Hoggett