| Revision as of 23:29, 3 March 2014 editSomeone not using his real name (talk | contribs)11,896 edits →VansHardware site← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:32, 3 March 2014 edit undoSomeone not using his real name (talk | contribs)11,896 edits →VansHardware siteNext edit → | ||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
| : That's less of problem than the fact that the source is cited simply to be contradicted (in Misplaced Pages's voice) without a citation, in violation of ]. That reviewers were "unfair" by comparing the chip with more power-hungry ones may or may not be okay, given the astounding success of ]s in general (and of Intel's Atom too.) ] (]) 16:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC) | : That's less of problem than the fact that the source is cited simply to be contradicted (in Misplaced Pages's voice) without a citation, in violation of ]. That reviewers were "unfair" by comparing the chip with more power-hungry ones may or may not be okay, given the astounding success of ]s in general (and of Intel's Atom too.) ] (]) 16:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC) | ||
| : And by the way, that VansHardware review has been cited & quoted by a textbook, which does not diss it (the review) . ] (]) 16:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC) | : And by the way, that VansHardware review has been cited & quoted by a textbook, which does not diss it (the review) . ] (]) 16:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC) | ||
| * If anyone is curious why the Efficeon sucked in the market, look for example at an actual product review of the Sharp Actius MM20 . Despite the low power consumption of the CPU in this Sharp machine (1GHz Efficeon), its battery life was only about 2 hrs.—on par with a 1-GHz Pentium M system with as similar (actually a bit smaller!) battery, and the Sharp was worse in terms of performance compared to about anything else in that roundup. This is said the review (pp. 146 and ). I presently don't feel like putting anymore time in Misplaced Pages editing though, so I won't make any edits to this sucky wiki article. Ta-ta. ] (]) 23:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC) | * If anyone is curious why the Efficeon sucked in the market, look for example at an actual product review of the Sharp Actius MM20 . Despite the low power consumption of the CPU in this Sharp machine (1GHz Efficeon), its battery life was only about 2 hrs.—on par with a 1-GHz Pentium M system with as similar (actually a bit smaller!) battery, and the Sharp was worse in terms of performance compared to about anything else in that roundup. This is said the PC Mag review (pp. 146 and ). A CNET review has similar findings . I presently don't feel like putting anymore time in Misplaced Pages editing though, so I won't make any edits to this sucky wiki article. Ta-ta. ] (]) 23:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC) | ||
| ==Tomshardware== | ==Tomshardware== | ||
Revision as of 23:32, 3 March 2014
 | California Start‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Companies Start‑class | ||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
ambiguous=
- Linus Torvalds has by now left Transmeta to dedicate himself to the further development of the Linux Kernel.
the above sounds a bit ambiguous - when did Torvalds actually leave Transmeta? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kpjas (talk • contribs) 02:35, 16 May 2004
New
Does Transmeta publish their VLIW instruction set? How much info if publicly available? As I understand it, currently the processors are shipped/intergrated in an x86 only configuration, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.178.230.241 (talk • contribs) 01:50, 11 October 2004
- Does Transmeta publish their VLIW instruction set? No.
- How much info if publicly available? It is IP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Admiral tojo (talk • contribs) 22:45, 15 August 2006
CMS
Is the Code Morphing Software (CMS) built into the microprocessor chip itself, or is it on a separate chip ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidCary (talk • contribs) 22:56, 15 December 2004
- Reply: Chances are, (CMS) is going to be built into the processor to help curb bottlenecks in performance. Its probably on a type of prom chip that is part of the processors core. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.216.45.125 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 2 June 2005
- I thought Transmeta produced yoghurt and Linus Torvalds was employed as a test taster. — JIP | Talk 15:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Trivia statement
A bullet is "Can easily run Linux". The company can easily run Linux? If this is in reference to the processors, any processor can run linux as easily as any other operating system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.87.68.252 (talk • contribs) 12:01, 19 June 2007
VansHardware site
The VansHardware site referenced in footnote 4 has been established as being created by a via employee. At the time the referenced article was written via and transmeta were actively competing for the same business. I think the annotated assertions based solely on that website should be removed due to objectivity. See http://www.vanshardware.com/news/2001/september/september_news.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.100.188 (talk) 06:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- That's less of problem than the fact that the source is cited simply to be contradicted (in Misplaced Pages's voice) without a citation, in violation of WP:SYN. That reviewers were "unfair" by comparing the chip with more power-hungry ones may or may not be okay, given the astounding success of netbooks in general (and of Intel's Atom too.) Someone not using his real name (talk) 16:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- And by the way, that VansHardware review has been cited & quoted by a textbook, which does not diss it (the review) . Someone not using his real name (talk) 16:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- If anyone is curious why the Efficeon sucked in the market, look for example at an actual product review of the Sharp Actius MM20 . Despite the low power consumption of the CPU in this Sharp machine (1GHz Efficeon), its battery life was only about 2 hrs.—on par with a 1-GHz Pentium M system with as similar (actually a bit smaller!) battery, and the Sharp was worse in terms of performance compared to about anything else in that roundup. This is said the PC Mag review (pp. 146 and 148). A CNET review has similar findings . I presently don't feel like putting anymore time in Misplaced Pages editing though, so I won't make any edits to this sucky wiki article. Ta-ta. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Tomshardware
So I found this citation at Tom's Hardware saying "Intel estimates that Silverthorne processors without Hyperthreading will post about 126-130 points in the EEMBC v1.1 benchmark of the Embedded Microprocessor Benchmark Consortium, while the hyperthreaded versions will reach up to 172 points Transmeta's discontinued 1 GHz Efficeon CPU with a score of 137.". However, the EEMBC does not have an "EEMBC v1.1" benchmark as such. They do have a Digital Entertainment benchmark where the Transmeta Efficeon 1GHz indeed scored 137. I was completely unable to unearth the source of that 126-130 points claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chx1975 (talk • contribs)
- To add insult to the injury, the vague benchmark is extraploated to claim there was a 1.6 GHz Efficeon, which consumed the same as the Atom, something that's completely not in the source! Someone not using his real name (talk) 16:01, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Split article?
The article seems to cover too broad a range of topics to be comprehensive in either. It would be helpful to split the discussion into Transmeta (the company) and Transmeta's VLIW technology (which can go into more details of benchmarks and performance).
Linking to an article discussing the merits of VLIW and parallel execution units, compared with the more 'traditional' multiple core ideas being promoted by the traditional processor companies would also be helpful.
174.101.136.61 (talk) 12:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Categories: