I don't know what the concern about these being 90nm chips is. The low clock speed combined with the low 533MHz FSB will probably make these chips even cooler than the 9xx series even under load. What's more, the chips are supposed to maintain EIST functionality, which means that with 14x as the lowest multiplier, they will downclock to 1.86GHz. The current 9xx series doesn't even have EIST enabled, and even when stepping C1 is released they will only drop down to 2.4GHz. I don't really see heat or power being a major concern for the 805D, which was the main disadvantage of 90nm vs 65nm. The 805D is also a B0 stepping part meaning they have the latest 64-bit support with the added instructions.

I hope X-bit Labs can get one soon, I'd love to see how they actually perform. They're supposed to be great overclockers too with HKEPC reaching 3.7GHz.

Data,

It's not so much a concern, but a distinction. If you are saying the 90nm are the equal to the 65nm, you're clearly wrong. I assume that's not your argument, and while you may happy enough with the 90nm, there are others that are not. Power is a difference, and for people, me in particular, it's a big concern.

I think it's important that they be as clear as possible with things like this so people can make their own decisions. While I respect your decision to go with a 90nm since you find it more than adequate, I expect you should respect other people's to pass on this chip if they find the 65nm enhancements more to their liking. Information wouldn't impact your choice, but it would give other people the background they would need to better decide if this processor were relevant to them or not.

People who care about the difference between 90nm and 65nm would know which one the 805 uses.

So by the same token, they shouldn't mention it is dual core, because even more people should know it from the D. Or even the bus speed, since people should know that at 2.66 it will be running at 533 MHz.

It should just read Pentium D 805 at 2.66 GHz released in March for between $144 and $156?

That's an extreme example, but assuming knowledge in journalism is a bad idea, and there are certainly some people, when you consider the sheer number of people that read these articles. You don't make assumptions, you create a full picture.

Actually, many number of people are hitting 4+ GHz with 805. I guess 90nm is just good enough?

The problem never was 90nm,
but the heat and power consuming that these processors have at 3.2Ghz and higher!

D.K.,

The point isn't whether you find them "good enough" or not, the point is that not everyone is going to agree with you and should have information they need. Xbit shouldn't be in the business of deciding what is "good enough" for people; their job is to report information and let people decide for themselves, although certainly they can give opinions on their own reviews. I'm not implying they are trying to here, it is just a simple error of omission, not a deliberate act of trying to influence people. Truthful information is a good thing, trying to decide what is good for other people is generally not.

Qbah,

So you think every person who read that review knows that news item knows that 8xx series is 90nm and 9xx series is 65nm? If you do, you're wrong, not everyone is going to remember everything they are exposed to, even if they are at all. It's easy to include, and would, minimally reinforce what people know and maximally clear up a major concern someone reading it might have.

It's basic journalism. You try to anticipate questions that someone without an extensive knowledge might have so to inform them. You can't assume complete knowledge, because that assumption is often wrong and the omission of information can make an otherwise informative article unclear and confusing. I'm not talking about this one specifically, but as a generality.

Put another way,do you know all the clock speeds for these model numbers? Should Xbit not even bother putting them, since everyone should know them already? Where do you draw the line? If they go this approach, they'll only appeal to a very narrow audience and never expand it to encompass other people who could otherwise benefit from reading their articles (and benefit them with the additional traffic).

As I said, it's just basic journalism and common sense. You don't assume everyone knows everything you do, especially with regards to these crazy numbering schemes Intel and AMD use. It would be nice if they went back to just using GHz, but we're stuck with this horsecrap 805 number. Why do they use numbers like that anyway when they are not so different from their chipset numbers? 805 is a processor, 810 is a chipset, 815 is a chipset ... What sense does all this make? Did they run out of other numbers and couldn't figure out how to use alphabetical names? It seems intent on confusing, so clarity with respect to processor details is kind of important, because after a while the names all blur.

Aye, the processor numberings are getting out of hand. And adding that line (that it is a 90nm) wouldn't harm for sure. But... The 805D is supposed to be a cheap solution, for the mass. I doubt they care whether it is a 90nm or a 65nm, as long as it is cheap. So for those people this information is useless.

As for the enthusiasts, they know that this is a 8xx series processor and they know those are 90nm ones. So I guess they don't need to be informed about it.

So, the 90nm part is not vital (in my view) to this news article. I guess they could add it to make the information complete. However those that need to know it, know it already.

Cheers

My God, do you ever shut up?