2 GHz is quite good for a foxton-less quad-core 65nm Itanium, PA-Risc/Alpha users will be more than happy to join IPF at that clock and with the new high bandwidth CSI interconnect.
I expected something along 2.3/2.5Ghz@130w TDP , 3GHz@200w TDP.
Why ? What's changed except a process shrink to 65nm to warrant such optimistic expectations.
It is really amazing how some people just can't look beyond clock frequency. Power consumption of a CPU core is both a function of frequency and the activity factor. If you take a processor core that is stalled 75% of the time with a five year old FSB system architecture and in a new device it is now running only 50% stalled with integrated MC and system fabric what is that going to do to per CPU power consumption for that workload?
Care to compare performance between two 1.67 GHz I2 style CPUs running at 75% stalled vs four 2.0 GHz CPUs running at 50% stalled?
Market Data 
Markets 
