c3 user report

The C3 changed considerably depending on the clockspeed. The 600 was not only near the slowest clock, but also the crappest architecture. The 733's got faster, and the 933 - > 1GHz chips are a lot better again.

<i>Does this count as Community Service, Officer?</i>

Thanks for the data, Poorboy,
I will ask for a 933 or faster C3
and check it.

No doubtly TomsHardware tests tells
not much has been done
on paralelism

Maybe this is structural to C3
and one of the reasons
it is a so low transistor-count CPU

No problem.

Here's some background (from the datasheets):

Samuel 1 400 MHz - 800 MHz, 128K L1, No L2, 18u
Samuel 2 700 MHz - 800 MHz, 128K L1, 64K L2, 15u
Ezra 800 MHz - 866 MHz, 128K L1, 64K L2, 13u
Ezra-T 800 MHz - 933 MHz, 128K L1, 64K L2, 13u

So above 800MHz is safe-ish. 933 is a best bet.

You're right about parallelism. Even some Floating Point instructions cannot run simultaneously with the Integer unit. And the FPU (along with MMX and 3DNow! I think) runs at half core speed, hence the low score in floating point intensive tasks like mpeg encoding.

For some ppl, it's like looking at a Civic and wondering why it can't keep up with the latest Porsche. It's about Horses for Courses. For most uses it'll be fine, and it'll run cooler, quieter, using less power.

<i>Does this count as Community Service, Officer?</i>