> Ok than I summarize it: very nice!

Okay, then 1.0× obviously evokes the same reaction 2.4× would have done. Strange …or nice ;-)
My point being: If 2.4× is considered very nice, then 1.0×, i.e. 42% of that, is usually not considered nice, but rather disappointing. Also, nothing of this comes as a surprise (see comment #9), as it has the same core as the known and thoroughly benchmarked X5000. 1.6 GHz e5500 delivers 80% of 2.0 GHz e5500 performance and 73% of 2.2 GHz e5500 performance, no matter if the chip is called T1042, P5020 or P5040. The smaller node size of T1 vs. P5 just makes it faster per watt, not faster per clock. What'll be a little more interesting to see is the e6500/T2081 performance (as is and per clock) as there's so far been no MorphOS on this core. Scalar performance-per-clock increase compared to e5500 may not be significant unless the benchmark executable will be compiled with the right flags to leverage the e6500 ISA and microarchitecture improvements.