Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Fujitsu Coming Out With Crusoe Machines 67

Pulzar writes: "Fujitsu will release two notebooks containing Crusoe processors from Transmeta in November, the company said today, bringing the total number of companies coming out with Transmeta-based products to seven."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Fujitsu Coming Out With Crusoe Machines

Comments Filter:
  • You mean a Pentium MMX isn't 5x faster than a Pentium at the same clock speed? And a 486 isn't faster than a Pentium? I'm outraged!
  • by xy ( 49954 )
    Well, you would think that...but actually, the chip DOES consume a great deal of the power in a machine like a laptop, which is the market that the transmeta chips are aimed at. When running full-bore, a pentium III or an Athlon will draw 40-60 watts of power...that's a LOT, especially when you're talking about drawing it from a laptop battery pack.
  • If you're making a small disposable consumer device...

    Such as notebooks???

  • by arivanov ( 12034 ) on Monday September 25, 2000 @05:24AM (#757094) Homepage
    You mean "I need numbers"?

    I want to see thee very very very simple things:

    1. network pipe over loopback under linux (memory to memry + some CPU).
    2. standard mysql benchmark test
    3. linux kernel compile for a reasonably populated .config

    In btw: I do not want top notch performance as the laptop disks and IO will cripple it anyway. I just want to finally see what a hell are we talking about.
  • Intels chips use 1-4 watts in full energy save mode. The Crusoe Gets between 0.789 and 2 watts in its energy save mode.

    Yes -- but you're not running in full energy saving mode much of the time, especially if using an OS like windows that doesn't do very smart things for power consumption. In non-power-save mode, the Intel chips burn a lot more power and get a lot hotter then the transmeta chips in a similar mode of operation, largely because the transmeta chips can scale their clock frequency to application demands, while the Intel chips have relatively simplistic power management capabilities. I've read that Intel has improved their CPUs power management capabilities, but they are still nowhere near as advanced as Transmeta's AFAIK.
  • > What are the reasons to use Crusoe over Intel and AMD? Its not power useage

    Oh, I don't know, but I think power consumption is an issue. And, since you asked, here are:

    REAL Benchmark Criteria for Laptop Computers:

    1. When you walk the full circuit of DFW airport with your laptop, how deep are the welts left where the carrying strap indents your shoulder?
    2. While you wait for the connecting flight and "do work", how many minutes can you go before you need to move the laptop around to keep your lap from getting scorched?
    3. For the typical excessively delayed connecting flights, how long will that baby run without an umbilical AC power cord? Will you need to go to the high priced Gift/News shop due to premature battery death?

    The Crusoe might not beat the latest flat-out performance figures of the conventional high speed x86 chip offerrings by companies with R&D budgets orders of magnitude larger than Transmeta, but it does address some REAL benchmarks.

  • Flame ?
    I think you need to cool down a bit.

  • Wouldn't it make sense for Transmeta to rush in the delivery of the much hyped webpads that was supposed to showcase the primary benefits of the Crusoe processor?

    It seems to be coming to light that the crusoe can't compete with Intel on performance and may not provide enough power savings in a traditional laptop to make a difference, so they need to find a niche market and quickly. I though that was their business plan from the start but it looks like we'll just see some regular notebooks coming out with fairly normal features and eventually Transmeta will be unable to justify their existence to manufacturers or consumers.
  • With all due respect, that's just silly.

    Why should a parent choose not to provide a valuable tool to their child just because it could cause a gap between them and lower incomes?

    -I'll never teach my son robotics because the other kids' dads aren't roboticists and it would cause a gap.

    -I'll never let my son own a dog because it could cause a gap between him and those that can't have a dog.

    -I'll never let my son eat steak because some people can't afford steak and it would just cause a social gap.


    you may quote me
  • While I agree with you that the Crusoe offers a lot of potential, I think you're giving Transmeta's "code morphing" way too much credit.

    Transmeta's x86->microcode translation is no more dynamic than an Athlon's or Pentium's is. Let's look at their strategies:

    Translate/reorder x86 instructions on the fly in software using "code morphing". The results will be in Cruesoe-native VLIW (Very Long Instruction Word) format, which is really just a block of 4 "normal" instructions that are guaranteed to have no dependence on each other/create any hazards if executed in parallel. Recent translations are kept in a cache.
    Advantages: - Hardware is really cheap and doesn't consume much power since there is no instruction reordering/translation done in hardware.
    - Performance will be good if you have a high hit rate in your translation cache.
    - Absolutely awful performance when you have nearly any misses in your translation cache.

    x86 instructions are converted into RISC-like micro-ops in hardware on the fly. Most common x86 instructions have a one-to-one correlation to a micro-op, and instructions are reordered dynamically to try to exploit parallelism.
    - Fast: the worst case translation here is the same as the best case translation on a Crusoe (i.e., it's as if all instructions are a hit on the translation cache, as translation functionally incurs no overhead).
    - Instruction reordering should be no worse than Crusoe's best effort.
    - The reordering/translation hardware is very, very complex and takes up a ton of power.

    As for the argument that "normal benchmarks cannot be applied to the Crusoe," don't believe Transmeta's marketing BS. An industry standard benchmark like SPEC9x does use real applications (like gcc, etc.) for longer than a few milliseconds, and should be a good indication of Crusoe's real world, steady state performance.

    Don't get me wrong, I certainly like the Crusoe. However, if you're looking for performance on x86 applications equivalent to even a mobile Celeron, you'll probably need to look elsewhere. To me, the real intriguing aspect of Crusoe is the prospect of running "native" applications. Running an os (read: linux) and user apps compiled for the Crusoe architecture would eliminate the need for the "code morphing" overhead, as the packing/reordering of instructions into VLIW format would happen at compile time. Such a system should be very fast (I would imagine equal or better performance per clock to a mobile pentium), and have killer battery life to boot.

  • It's true that the Crusoe might run a little slower than its rivals, but I don't think speed matters as much in its target market: laptops and smaller machines. Besides, from what I hear, the performance isn't on the order of something you might actually be able to detect doing normal laptop apps ("Damn! I want this spreadsheet to load in 1.5 seconds, not 1.72 seconds!"). ;-)

    Anyhow, I look forward to seeing the first Transmeta-based machines hit the market. Should be fun!

  • Intel has cranked up the speed [] of its fastest notebook PC processor to 850 MHz, while vendors including Toshiba, Compaq, and Dell unwrapped new systems powered by the latest chips. Santa Clara, Calif.-based Intel released two mobile Pentium III processors running at 800 MHz and 850 MHz. The chips use Intel's SpeedStep power management technology, which allows them to conserve battery life by running at a slower clock speed when the notebook is unplugged from a mains supply. Intel also increased the speed of its fastest Celeron chip from 650 MHz to 700 MHz. Intel's Celeron family is designed for lower-cost notebooks.

    (As appeared in

  • by Junks Jerzey ( 54586 ) on Monday September 25, 2000 @06:17AM (#757103)
    The speed complaints need to be taken with a grain of salt. The comments are mostly from people with 500 horsepower cars, complaining that 300 horsepower cars are slow and worthless.

    Stop and consider some of the most impressive high-tech games of the 1990s: Quake, Flight Unlimited, Mario 64, System Shock. Now look back at what kind of top of the line machines were being used for the development of those games. Quake was wrapped up when 90 and 120 MHz Pentiums were the best you could get, for example. Now suppose you could have told the developers of these games about a chip with:

    * A raw clock speed 3.5 times higher.
    * A much faster bus (100 vs. 66 MHz).
    * A much larger cache.
    * A significantly better processor design featuring out of order execution and less need to pipeline by hand.
    * 3D video cards at least 5x faster than what was being sold in $100,000 SGI machines in 1995. (Remember, in 1995 software rendering was the norm.)

    That machine is a 333 MHz Pentium II with a Voodoo 2 card. Can you imagine the power? Wow, could you develop some mind boggling games on such a box. And most people are just surfing, downloading porn and MP3s, and using Word. Fast forward, and now we have people putting down 400-500MHz as "slow crap." Personally, I'd take a Crusoe that gave equivalent performance to such a machine, especially considering that it would be cheaper and use much less power. Blindly going for more megahertz is not the way to progress.
  • Quite so. Several user surveys have shown that long battery life and
    low size/weight are the two most important qualities for most people.

    Still the Crusoe won't make that much of a difference until the
    power usage of other components starts to come down. I recall that
    the Crusoe has some support for reducing usage of other online
    components by building a model of their operation ob board. If
    successors of the Crusoe can actually simulate other circuitry and so
    reduce the chipset count, that would be another big win both for power
    consumption and performance.

  • The optimisation done by the Crusoe is much more ambitious than that
    done by released Intel processors. Rememebr that the Crusoe is a VLIW
    processor which is capable of executing four microcode instructions at a
    time. I guess the new VLIW Intels will do the same, but for now the
    Crusoe technology is much more advanced than the Intel stuff.

    I agree about performance, but the engineering really does live up
    to the promised `very cool'. I think the performance delivered in
    January was a disappointment: I think they had been hoping to beat
    Intel chips of a comparable clock rate.

  • HBS __requires__ you to have a laptop - you need to bring it with you to your finals, and then type and print answers rather than write.

    So yes, I DO need a laptop (or else I have to drop out...)
  • What if you had two kids? Twins? Of which one of whom was, for some reason, way behind the other?

    One wanted a new computer and a Lego Mindstorms set, the other wanted to learn how to read and vaccinations against polio? And you could afford to do only one?

  • Didn't you forget to add "and twice as expensive and half the applications"?


  • Hmm, that's a really good question. And by "good", I actually mean "stupid".

    This has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the original conversation.

    If a parent can afford to give their child certain tools, they should do it. This will help the child. If other kids get upset, that's their problem. I'm not taking care of those kids, their parents are.

    While I don't like the fact that some people are poor in the world, I don't have the resources to help everyone. I *do* have the resources to help my child. I will help him, and continue to help him no matter how upset some brat decides to get about it.

    the end.

    you may quote me
  • Yeah right, genuine curiosity from someone who thinks lions live in laptops. Were you making some kind of metaphor, because lions don't even use batteries.

    Get a clue.
  • Can't wait to see Crusoes in set-top/embedded boxes. Decent performance, no heat, and no loud fans!

  • Honestly does anyone , specially school children need these notebooks. Aren't they increasing the gap between children coming fron different income groups if introduced in shools?
  • From Crusoe LongRun Technology page []:

    "In contrast, the TM5400 can adjust its power consumption without turning itself off - instead, it can adjust its clock frequency on the fly. It does so extremely quickly, and without requiring an operating system reboot or other slow and involved OS or BIOS operation. As a result, software can continuously monitor the demands on the processor and dynamically pick just the right clock speed (and hence power consumption) needed to run the application - no more and no less - so no power is wasted. Since the switching happens so quickly, it is not noticeable to the user."

    It's not just that it can down into Energy Save Mode, but that it can dynamically chagnge the processor speed (and thus voltage) to meet the demands of the applications. It uses the minimum amount of power needed to get the job done. That and the fact that it is freakin small( ~1cm X ~1cm) and freakin fast (supposedly) that keeps me interested in the company.

  • I really doubt that these OEMs are serious about Crusoe. But it's clearly in their interest to play with the Transmeta stuff to put commercial (particularly price) pressure on Intel. Keep them honest.

    Transmeta's R&D and production capabilities are what? Two orders of magnitude less than Intel's?

    Long-term, Transmeta will get steamrollered.

  • I have played with numerous Transmeta systems. I even have one by my desk now. It's real simple. Power consumption does matter. I read that the Intel P4 will consume up to 66W, compared to the TM5600 2-3W. This is INSANE. I don't want a 66W CPU anywhere near my hifi amp. Why do people bother arguing about audio codec quality when they have two or more fans with roughly the sound of a hovercraft in their room. Simple test for which chip is "cooler". When decoding a DVD in software, put your finger directly on the chip packaging. Not the heatsink, the packaging. HINT: Don't try this at home. You WILL get burnt on one of them. As for performance. I'm happy. Just remember, not everyone needs 1.4GHz P4s, lots of Celerons get sold, even today.
  • by JabberWokky ( 19442 ) <> on Monday September 25, 2000 @03:40AM (#757116) Homepage Journal
    The cost of that, however, is that a large portion of operations occur in software which yields for slower performence than the competition.

    sigh If you don't know how a CPU works, please just stay out of the Crusoe pool.

    Your nice Intel (or AMD, or Cyrix or other) chip performs all its calculations in software - or just as much as the Crusoe does.

    Which is to say, each opcode is broken down into microcode, which is then translated to circutry on the actual chip. Generally, once you get past the opcode level, you stop calling it software.

    What the Crusoe has is the ability to manipulate the microcode programming realtime. In a Pentium, or AMD, or any other chip (including those RISC chips that are not really so RISC anymore), that microcode programming is fixed and can't change. In Crusoe, the potential is for the chip to adapt and allocate internal, on-chip resources to the current task.

    In a simplified way, when you play MP3s, the chip takes on the characteristic of a dedicated MP3 decoder. When you run SETI at Home, it takes on the characteristics of a dedicated SETI chip. When you run Windows, it takes on the characteristics of Rodney Dangerfield.

    The simple fact is that the Crusoe chip offers loads of potential, has a great idea that should be explored, and looks like it came out (in the first batch) slower than the competition, so they tried to pitch the (coincidental) lightweight power consumption.

    Incidently, they were right about one thing. Normal benchmarks are not applicable to this category of processor. You can't measure it by running through a set of simple computations for a short amount of time (milliseconds). If you do, it won't adapt. In real life usage, however, you are more likely to be running KWord or Quake III for more than a few milliseconds, giving it time to reconfigure to an optimal setting.

    With today's huge advance in hardware, I don't see much use for such "software oriented" chips.

    Yeah. Down with software. Firmware's so much better. Gimmie the days of slapping in carts into the back of a TI computer. Who needs magnetic or optical media anyway. :)


  • Well.. I see your point very clearly, and I understand your thing about time.. but there are some apps that I have that require some power, but I really need battery life as well. Right now I have thinkpad, that eats a battery about 3 hrs. For a 10 hour day, I have three batteries that i carry with me - each quite hefty in and of themselves.

    For example, my job as a technical consultant requires me to carry around quite a bit of data. The result is that I have a database that is in the range of 1.5 gbs. Querying and generating a a report needs to be zippy - as my client is actually right there looking at me and waiting as I look for the answer. So it needs power and number crunching ability. I am just worried that Transmeta wont be able to deliver me a level of power that will suit the few applications that demand and still cut power for applications (ie spreadsheet, etc) that dont need it.

  • I think we are answering different questions.

    I am concerned about how schools, state and federal education departments, and school districts allocate their resources. I'm worried about scenarios in which magnet schools and charter schools get a lot of newer resources, while poorer schools, especially in poorer districts, suffer increasing crowding, underpaid teachers and poorer teacher quality. Unfortunately, both politics and the culture of "computers will fix everything" have made giving out laptops and PC's to wealthier schools the easier fix that taking care of basics elsewhere.

    In Richmond, CA, last year, a high school had to close due to lack of maintenance funds. They had closets filled with PS/2s and ancient Cisco routers donated by high-tech companies who couldn't be bothered to donate real money. What is maddening is that not only do the schools get nothing useable when they get old PCs, the donating corporations get massive tax write-offs for giving away obselete and unuseable technology, and then congratulate themselves for their largesse.

  • yeah. i couldnt tell the difference. i work on a 650MHz piii daily along with a 500 and i can definitely tell the difference between a 650 and 500.
  • I guess your normal laptop usage might be to turn it on and let it sit for a couple of hours, but when I use a laptop I tend to turn in on and use it for a while.

    That's what the low power consumption is supposed to help with. If you could choose between two laptops, and one of them would give you twice the battery life with the same charge, which would you choose?
  • Whats especially sad is that those machines where in a closet. "Since 2000/05/11, MCA support is part of NetBSD tree" []

    Those machines would kick ass on what I used learning TurboPascal and TurboC++ (an original HP Vectra = 12 Mhz 80286).
  • While I agree with you that the Crusoe offers a lot of potential, I think you're giving Transmeta's "code morphing" way too much credit.

    Perhaps I should have bolded or italicised the word "potential" I used throughout the message. I figured that simply leaning heavy on the qualifiers would show my opinion. It's hard not to outright say: "Crusoe looks like crap on a die".

    Personally, I remain unconvinced that Transmeta will ever be a real sucess story. A little publicity, some OEM support, and they will (IMO) probably fade from view.

    BUT - the concept is good. I just don't see it as having been translated to a practical product.


  • I surely hope things work out for Transmeta. But I have to say that I have my reservations.

    I would honestly love an full powered notebook that can run my standard collection of apps - but I am haunted by the claims of low performance and unreal predication of performance numbers.. lets see how it all pans out and then I will decide for sure.

  • The thing about those Crusoe chips is that they take much less power than other processors on the market.

    The cost of that, however, is that a large portion of operations occur in software which yields for slower performence than the competition.

    With today's huge advance in hardware, I don't see much use for such "software oriented" chips. With processors going faster and more efficent and power sources becoming larger and smaller, this might make such processors rather unuseful. Won't you say?

    This may be fashionable now(wow! This is a Linus firm!) but we may want to think a little bit ahead.

  • Has anybody done a good reveiw of these chips? I tested it out at the PC expo but I have not been able to read up on it?
  • Both users report that they are very happy!

  • Don't FUD the trolls...
  • Yes, but Linus works there.

    Still makes it vapourware...
  • It's good to see an intelligent x86 clone that's aimed towards power management than raw speed. Afterall, with Intel/AMD locked into that 'Clash of Titans' thing we're hardly likely one of them producing this sort of processor.

    (Ok, StrongARM perhaps, but you know what I mean).
  • It certainly will be interesting to see when these machines hit the market, how much they are (globally, not just in the states) and how they stack up against everything else.

    Maybe they will be a cheap solution for poor students like myself to be able to afford :)

  • by Tet ( 2721 ) < minus poet> on Monday September 25, 2000 @03:46AM (#757131) Homepage Journal
    What is all this obsession with chip power usage? I would think the rest of the computer--hard drive, fan, monitor--would consume the lion's share of the battery.

    Indeed, but if you can get the chip to run cool enough, you won't need a fan. A traditional CRT monitor uses so much power that there's no point using a low power chip on such a system. But that's not their market. They're being aimed at the portable market -- notebooks and webpad type devices. Yes, LCD screens still suck large amounts of power, but advances are being made in this area (hopefully LEP screens will have low power requirements). Also, consider the CPU in a set top box (e.g., a satellite or cable decoder box). How many people would put up with them if they needed a noisy fan in them? With its low power requirements, a Crusoe is ideal here, a market that's inaccessable to Intel and AMD (with their current offerings).

  • Don't compare BogoMips for different processors - it doesn't work that way, and is dependant upon the processor architecture itself.

    For example a K6 will have a BogoMips value roughly twice that of the clock Speed in MHz, whearas a Pentium will have a BogoMips value of about 40% of the clock speed in MHz.

    Only use BogoMips when comparing processors of the same type.

  • Oh really? let me see..

    [root@formatter kde2]# cat /var/log/messages | grep -i bogo
    Sep 25 15:32:50 localhost kernel: Calibrating delay loop... 1464.73 BogoMIPS

    And thats on Pentium III 733. Do you think that my Pentium III is 3 times faster then yours? I really don't think so!

    Try to compare it with standard tools - then flame!
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Oh how wrong you are! Ever been on an 8 hour flight when your notebook goes dead after 2 hours? I thought not. I take these trips several times a month and I will be first in line to get a Crusoe notebook. Look to see Crusoe notebooks sell like hotcakes in the Fortune 500 domain.
  • TM CPUs


  • by Anonymous Coward
    Why does anybody care aoubt "energy efficiency" with these Crusoe chips? Listen, people, the major power consumers in your house are your huge great refrigerator, and your air conditioner and your central heating. The power consumed by one measly computer chip is hardly going to save the ozone layer.

    Furthermore, power is cheap. There's a lot of oil out there, when that runs out there's coal, then there's nukes and by the time the uranium runs out, we'll have worked out how to make solar power ready for primetime! People should be concentrating on making computer chips faster and more powerful, not bothering our asses with this load of tree-hugging hippy crap!

  • Haven't you noticed how _everything_ is marketed in Japan only to start with, as they have much more of a gadget market than most other places in the world. There's a lot of cool stuff that doesn't even make it outside their borders, unfortunately.
  • actually having been one of the few people who actually used a crusoe laptop i can say it KICKS ARSE. it's as fast as my desktop (650MHz PIII) and video playback is *really* smooth. unfortunately i only tested it on win95 for a brief period at the crusoe booth runing on an ibm thinkpad. i cant compare the power savings but its no different than a piii 650 laptop.
  • xy - - I am kinda anonymous but I just signed up as GHOSTOP and left a default/hotmail/address in the user info bin. Still want to contact you out of the slashdot forum. Possible? Bill
  • Bah...
    Obviously, the benchmarks are faulty... I shouldv'e guessed, right?

    And regarding your attempt-to-be-cinical remark as to me preferring hardware over software... I'll just advise you to get rid of all those nasty graphic cards, sound cards and all that disgusting ancient firmware technology that can(should?) be replaced by nice software.

    Good luck.

    I HAVE to find me a good quote...

  • O2K benchmark:
    PIII ~8 minutes.
    Crusoe ~10 minutes.

    Average battery life:
    PIII ~2 hours.
    Crusoe ~8 hours.

    So for a roughly 20% performance hit, you get roughly 400% battery life. That's not bad, if you ask me.

    you may quote me
  • no...from the (admittedly little) experience i had using one of these its more like a 700Mhz TM performs like a 650MHz PIII.
  • Yeah! Let him have it!
    Eeek!! It's me...
  • On the PC Watch website:

    PC Watch: Fujitsu LOOX S/T []

    And here:

    Fujitsu LOOX []

    Hope this helps...
  • Somehow I don't see 1Ghz processors in Palms none too soon.

    Perhaps 'efficency' doesn't just mean power consumption. If you're making a small disposable consumer device, cost is often far more important than performance.

    The best example of this would be the current/upcoming console wars. With Sega/Sony/Nintendo consoles having 200/300/400 Mhz processors respectively, Microsoft claims it will have a 733+Mhz monster. I wonder which ones need fans?
  • Well in this case, FUD is exactly what we have about Transmeta. Are you certain? I have doubts about the performance. If i will buy a chip is uncertain. Sounds like FUD. If that makes me a troll, well then so be it.

  • by nomadic ( 141991 )
    What is all this obsession with chip power usage? I would think the rest of the computer--hard drive, fan, monitor--would consume the lion's share of the battery. And wouldn't drastic enough decreases in performance negate the lower power usage? I mean, if it takes twice as long to complete something, it doesn't really matter if it only uses half as much power. These aren't meant as flames, I'm genuinely curious as to these chips appeals (in laptops at least, I can appreciate how appropriate they might be for embedded systems).
  • OK. In words of less than one syllable it is:
    1. I do have experience with Transmeta CPUs.
    2. Cooling is a more and more difficult problem for CPUs that consume a lot of power.
    3. The P4 consumes a lot of power, generates a lot of heat and therefore needs a big noisy fan and heatsink to stop it from melting.
    4. The Transmeta CPUs do not have this problem, as they consume less than 5w max, and usually less than 2.
    5. Large fans make a lot of noise.
    6. Having a noisy fan in the same room as your audio system is bad as all the quiet passages are wiped out with white noise from the fan. Just do a search on slashdot for all the debates on audio codecs and ask yourself "Does it matter, if I have a loud fan trashing the audio quality anyway?"
    7. Putting your finger directly on a P3 chip may well result in third degree burns. DO NOT DO THIS.
    8. In my experience, performance of the TM CPUs is adequate for the tasks they have been designed to tackle. These are not Xeons, they are designed for notebooks and internet appliances.
    Hope that helps to clarify what was a rambling statement with no HTML formatting to make it legible. :-)
  • I really don't understand all the hype over Transmeta. Just because one person, admittedly a fairly smart person, joined the company to help them write some software, doesn't mean the company should be held in the same regard.

    Linus has proved his worth and has a reputation that could hardly be sullied. Maybe he took the job at Transmeta for the money and the challenge of what they were trying to do, not whether they would produce something useful.

    Till I see a Crusoe powered notebook or appliance for sale it is still vapourware.
  • First off, I'm out of the loop on the crusoe deal, so this question may be totally irrelavant...

    When you say that a large portion of the operations occur in software, are those on the instruction level, or on a lower level?

    If it is the instruction level, it would be interesting to try to improve on the instruction code that transmeta provides.
  • Well....during the initial presentation I also remember them saying there was room for some tweaking in the "code morphing" software. They might have working a little more performance out of it...but I am not going to expect a quantum leap in it at least. I imagine there could be at least some improvement since then.
  • But Dave Ditzel, Transmeta's CEO, has said that Crusoe-based notebooks will perform just as well as competing chips in real-world circumstances. A 700-MHz Crusoe 5600 will perform just as well as a 700-MHz Pentium III, he said.

    Wasn't it stated somewhere that, due to code-morphing, the Transmeta chips would have about 80% the horsepower of a regular x86 chip of the same MHz?

    I hope this wasn't something PR said. I'm a fan of Transmeta's stuff, and I'd hate to see 'em make promises they can't keep.
  • You can already get that with PPCs. Why wait for tomorrow to do what you can today?
  • by mikpos ( 2397 )
    Of course school children need them. How else are they going to learn anything?! Have you seen the state of the TV and VCR sets in public school today? They're practically ancient!
  • What are the reasons to use Crusoe over Intel and AMD? Its not power useage

    Intels chips use 1-4 watts in full energy save mode. The Crusoe Gets between 0.789 and 2 watts in its energy save mode. Amazing. 061900.htm

    AMD's chips use as little a 3 watts in energy save mode also.

    And has anyone seen any REAL benchmarks? You know Sandra any thing to compare it besides Window Desktop Idle, MP3 Playback and DVD playback. For all we know it could run just as fast as a winchip or a Cryix (but be a whole lot cooler)?

    In Transmeta OWN report, when they compare Office 2K scores, it took the P3 chip 0.133 hrs (8 min) to compleate the benchmark and the Crusoe 0.164 hrs (10 min). Thats a prety sizeable difference.

  • From the article:

    But Dave Ditzel, Transmeta's CEO, has said that Crusoe-based notebooks will perform just as well as competing chips in real-world circumstances. A 700-MHz Crusoe 5600 will perform just as well as a 700-MHz Pentium III, he said.

    Weren't they saying not so long ago that the 700Mhz TM5600 would give `comparable performance' to a PIII at 500Mhz[1]? Looks like their Code Morphing{tm} software is morphing the marketing figures as well as the x86 code...

    [1] And the Transmeta Vaio Picturebook [] is going to be of `similar performance' to the 400Mhz PII in the current Picturebook, using a 500Mhz TM5600...
  • "...a large portion of operations occur in software which yields for slower performence than the competition."

    "With processors going faster and more efficent and power sources becoming larger and smaller, this might make such processors rather unuseful. Won't you say?"

    On the contrary. I would say that insanely fast processor speed coupled with increasing power consumption would call for a chip that is slightly less fast and a LOT less consuming.

Vitamin C deficiency is apauling.