Intel Pentium 4 2.0AGHz "Northwood" Processor Review
Posted by Steven Parker on 18 March 2002 - 22:02 · no comments & 79 views
About the Author
Full name: Steven Parker
Forum name: Neobond
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Full name: Steven Parker
Forum name: Neobond
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Slashdot It!
Submit to reddit
Submit to blinklist
Bookmark on del.icio.us
Add to furl
Share on Facebook
Add to Windows Live
Add to Google
In this review we are covering one of Intel’s newest brainchildren, the PGA-478 Northwood Pentium 4 2.0A GHz. Intel has so kindly provided us with not one, but two chips for review, so we will also be testing for manufacturing consistency. Here's a quote from the Introduction:
"For the past years, Intel, facing extremely stiff competition from rival AMD, has been churning out one new product after another in order to regain its dominance in the desktop processor market. The Pentium 4 series introduced last year, with speeds ranging from 1.3GHz to a whopping 1.9GHz and packing new technologies and optimizations like SSE2, NetBurst and a 400MHz system bus, was marketed with great aggression by Intel but lost out due to the fact that the cheaper AMD Athlon XP chips outperformed them by a wide margin."
"We have strong relationships with many of the state attorneys general," said Microsoft spokesman Jim Desler. "We work with them on various activities and initiatives. On this issue, we agree to disagree. While the states do have a role in antitrust enforcement, the non-settling states stepped outside the boundaries of that role when they chose to pursue a different course from the Justice Department, resulting in conflicting national competition policy."
In making the filing, the states are trying to protect their sovereignty over antitrust matters, something a dismissal could potentially undermine, said legal experts.
"There are a lot of us who, having done antitrust defense, would like to see this whole dual-sovereignty issue resolved," said Emmett Stanton, an antitrust lawyer with Fenwick & West in Palo Alto, Calif. "If there was a case to challenge this, this would be the one."
The "friends of court" briefs filed by the 25 states were not expected, but a third brief from the litigating states came as no surprise. The states rebutted Microsoft's request more in the context of the overall antitrust case than in regard to the sovereignty issue.
They argued that Microsoft's request is "effectively, a motion to set aside the Court of Appeals' mandate."
In June 2000, seven judges unanimously upheld eight separate antitrust violations against Microsoft.
The filings could give the litigating states important air cover as they return to court next week for what could be as much as eight weeks of testimony. They are looking for stiffer sanctions than those proposed by the Justice Department and the settling states. The settlement largely puts restrictions on Microsoft's business practices. The litigating states also want restrictions on how Microsoft develops and deploys software.
While overseeing the settlement proceeding, Kollar-Kotelly must weigh whether the settlement meets the standard demanded by the Nixon-era Tunney Act. That law requires that a settlement be in the public interest and that no backroom dealmaking influence the process. Kollar-Kotelly could reject or approve the proposed deal at any time.