On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 3:01 AM, Roman Mamedov <r...@romanrm.ru> wrote: > On Sun, 8 May 2011 16:02:02 -0400 > Matt Turner <matts...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> You're comparing a tiny netbook to a quad-core desktop. Sorry, but >> that's an incredibly meaningless comparison. >> >> Compare with an x86 netbook. You'll be much less impressed. > > Before judging on what is meaningless and what is not, how about you read up > on what Fuloong is, vs. what Yeeloong is. :) > > Like I said certain end-user tasks are performed equally well on both. If > those are enough for the user's needs, having a low-power computer is much > more efficient. That's all. :)
And certain end-user tasks are performed equally well on 1 GHz Pentium III's as well. You're comparing apples and oranges. And by the way, instantaneous power usage really _is_ a useless measurement unless you're worried about blowing your circuit breaker. I'd be more interested to see total energy used to perform some specified task. For instance, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the Loongson would actually use more total energy to compile an application than the x86 box. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "loongson-dev" group. To post to this group, send email to loongson-dev@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to loongson-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/loongson-dev?hl=en.
