Hokay. So.
In the beginning AMD came up with their performance-rating system. It was a bit confusing, but at least could be translated approximately into performance: higher numbers are faster.
Now there's this trend (among Intel, especially, but also on the Turions) to give processors names that have no bearing on how fast they run (clockspeed or performance).
Pentium-M 760? How fast is that again?
Screen resolutions also suffer from the same thing. What's the resolution on WUXGA? WSXGA? UXGA?
Why can't these people name things in a way that actually tells something about what they are? In another year or two we'll have the "Dell Foobion 760 with Intel Pentium-5 Really Fast Edition" or something.
</rant>
I think I and some others would find it useful if someone would post a table of resolution designations and the actual resolutions, and processor designations and spects.
In the beginning AMD came up with their performance-rating system. It was a bit confusing, but at least could be translated approximately into performance: higher numbers are faster.
Now there's this trend (among Intel, especially, but also on the Turions) to give processors names that have no bearing on how fast they run (clockspeed or performance).
Pentium-M 760? How fast is that again?
Screen resolutions also suffer from the same thing. What's the resolution on WUXGA? WSXGA? UXGA?
Why can't these people name things in a way that actually tells something about what they are? In another year or two we'll have the "Dell Foobion 760 with Intel Pentium-5 Really Fast Edition" or something.
</rant>
I think I and some others would find it useful if someone would post a table of resolution designations and the actual resolutions, and processor designations and spects.
