> LimePC said so [...]. And THTF's sales agent did so

Yes, this time you got it right. They did so, and I said they did.

> Excuse me for getting the company in your comment wrong

Excuse granted ;-)

> you casually referred to an "industry standard"

Yes, that's what the Dhrystone benchmark is.

> and said it was "more truthful" to add that way

Yes, that's what I said. And in order to put this assessment into perspective I added that this way was still far from ideal.

> which threw me off.

How so?

> these links refer to a Freescale SoC, and most expressly say "Freescale."

Yes, no doubt about that, as it *is* a SoC from Freescale actually. But that doesn't mean those spec claims have been made by Freescale.

> it's not underhanded at all, not comparatively or relatively, to add the frequencies
> of components on an SoC, as long as it is made clear that is what is being done.

As I said, it's not that clear that this is what has been done with the C515's processor specs claims made by Cherrypal, else that thread wouldn't have been started by TurboPascal on cherrypal.com, speaking about a "significant mismatch". And as Jim tried to get across to you, to the usual customer it doesn't matter if it's a SoC based system or not because he wouldn't even notice from using the device without opening it. SoC or not, I find adding up clock speeds of the CPU, the GPU, a DSP and what else might be in the system and presenting this sum as spec misleading at best, unless the particular clock speed of the CPU (which I took the "800 MHz" claim for until you made me aware of how Cherrypal might have "calculated" this figure) is given as well.