Nowhere on these hits do Freescale add "the MIPS of the components of the 5121e SoC". Moreover, Freescale is open about the MPC5121e's components' particular clock speeds.
> that's an okay way to do it.
I still don't think so. As I said I think it's slightly more truthful than adding clock speeds, but still far from ideal.
> adding the MHz of SoCs is also an okay way IMO, and no less honest, as long > as a manufacturer or retailer is open and tells how it is adding.
Cherrypal doesn't tell the CPU core's clock speed, which for the potential customer is the most important clock speed figure in a SoC and in a CPU in general. If Cherrypal also told the CPU core's clock speed beside the sum of all the SoC components' clock speeds I'd be okay with it. But they don't.
> Saying adding clockspeeds is dishonest is like saying dividing > them is noble or obtaining their square root is callous.
Huh? It's obvious (see TurboPascal's posting in the Cherrypal support forum) it's not absolutely clear that the "800 MHz" figure is derived from adding up clock speeds at all. Like I told, Cherrypal's processor spec for the C515 is ambigous at best and there're at least two different ways to read it.
> It's about how accurate the result is and whether its communicated honestly.
So you think it's communicated honestly by Cherrypal, and TurboPascal, snipe and me are just not able to understand this honest communication?
