Rob Young (young_r@encompasserve.org) on 6/19/03 wrote:
---------------------------
>Paul DeMone (pdemone@igs.net) on 6/19/03 wrote:
>---------------------------
>>Bill Todd (billtodd@metrocast.net) on 6/19/03 wrote:
>>---------------------------
>
>>
>>>For all I know you could be Rob Young masquerading as someone more competent
>>>while talking up Itanic: you certainly sound that way right now.
>>>
>>>- bill
>>
>>FUD it up while you can Bill. In a couple of weeks the benchmarks and the DS
>>will be released and I'll bet the joke will be on you.
>
>Gee... I guess the Itanic moniker will be too thin to skate
>on then. I was just coming to love it in a Winston Smith
>kinda way.

From all indications the Itanic moniker will be quite appropriate until the core is redone to reduce its appetite for power compared with the performance it generates. So you'll likely be holding your breath waiting for it to disappear for another 3 years at least - unless it actually starts taking over enough of the market to indicate that such issues are far less significant than one might think (now's your cue to say "Just wait for Madison!" again, though you'll soon likely have to change that tune - again).

I'm still looking forward to the data sheets for the 1.3 GHz model, though: the response here so far makes it seem likely that a sub-70W power figure such as Paul has been touting is somewhat unlikely (though unlike Paul David actually managed to answer the question that I posed and explained how it might be *possible* if Intel has put enough work into optimizing that particular product).

- bill