> Who said anything about adding the speed of the non-CPU components to the CPU?

You said, there: "when you talk about SoC speed, there's more than just the CPU to consider".

> I referred to adding the speed of all the components of the SoC.

...which in the case of the C515's SoC apart from the CPU include a GPU and a DSP, the latter two being non-CPU SoC components in the context of this discussion. (Sometimes, the SoC as a whole is referred to as a "CPU", but clearly not here).

> Why should it be dishonest simply because it is different from non-SoC systems.

It's misleading because it's *not* different from non-SoC systems in the context of clock speeds. Clock frequencies don't work in a way that it would technically make sense to add them up across different components, no matter if SoC system or non-SoC system.

> Freescale's representation of the 5121e SoC's three cores as having
> a combined 1700 MIPS

...has been invented by you.

> It's a combined measure of performance.

DMIPS figures are measures of Dhrystone benchmark performances. While often mistaken for doing so by people who are less educated in the field of computer hardware, clock frequencies as such don't indicate performance unless the compared hardware is sufficiently similar on the core level. In the case of the C515 you could use the *real* clock speed of its ARM11 core to compare it to other ARM11 based tablets. If you know only the sum of the components' added clock speeds you can't really compare the performance to another device's performance because you don't know how the sum is portioned between the components. Theoretically speaking, if the "800 MHz" is the result of adding up clock speeds the C515's SoC could have a 100 MHz CPU, a 100 MHz GPU and a 600 MHz DSP. Knowing that a DSP, like I told you, is only usable to a very small range of software, do you anticipate the difference this would make in terms of real performance in everyday usage?

|||

[ Edited by Velcro_SP 18.04.2011 - 19:23 ]

> 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.

|||

[ Edited by Velcro_SP 18.04.2011 - 19:22 ]

> You alluded to a company that combined MIPS measurements

"Allude to" in the sense of "explicitly naming", yes.

> provided a websearch with "Freescale" among its search terms.

You seem confused. The websearch with the "freescale.com" term was provided by me only *after* you falsely claimed that I was referring to Freescale, to prove to you that it's *not* Freescale adding DMIPS numbers. The websearch in my prior posting which you didn't read properly only contained the terms "limepc.com" and "1700mips", nothing more.

> Seeing no reason why adding MIPS should be any "more truthful" than adding MHz

Just in case you don't see it yet (in case you do see, feel free to ignore this paragraph): Dhrystone is a performance benchmark, which can be used to compare different types of cores with each other. Clock frequencies are not directly related to any kind of performance and can only be used to indicate performance with hardware that is similar on a core level. CPUs, GPUs and DSPs are very different kinds of hardware on a core level, but if you run actual code on either one (compiled from the same source code that is), you're able to compare their actual performance in terms of the benchmark that consists of said code. So it actually has *some* relevance regarding the SoC's overall performance in terms of Dhrystone benchmark to be able to state the added up DMIPS figures. Of course, without telling each core's stake it's not of that much use, but still better than the absolutely meaningless clock frequency sum that is derived from adding up clock frequencies of sub-units.

> I took your expression "industry standard" to refer to the combining of MIPS
> measurements. But you meant the MIPS benchmark only, not the combining of it.

Actually, by "industry standard" I did not only "mean" the Dhrystone benchmark alone, I also *wrote* it exactly that way:

"running an industry standard benchmark on either component and adding up the results"

> As has been clearly stated now, it is actually THTF's agent and LimePC
> that have done this combining

Yes, stated by me first and then reiterated by you.

|||

[ Edited by Velcro_SP 18.04.2011 - 19:20 ]

> there's no reason to get bent out of shape.

It's just that I object to attempts at rewriting the discussion's process.

> I thought you meant Freescale.

Yes, that's obvious. What isn't obvious to me yet is how you came to this conclusion when I explicitly named who I meant from the very beginning.

> If Freescale wasn't among the search's terms. It was among many of the results.

All 7 results went to limepc.com (due to the "site:limepc.com" part of the search). Only *one single* of those 7 results mentions the term "Freescale":

http://www.google.com/search?q=site:limepc.com+1700mips+freescale

> Its SoC was among all of the results

Yes, that was the purpose of my websearch link after all.

|||

[ Edited by Velcro_SP 18.04.2011 - 19:18 ]

> The one for the X1 refers to Freescale too, though it misspells it.

Yes, you're right there, thanks. That makes it 2 out of 7 results

> I just described the discussion as I recalled it in response to your question

So it seems you recalled it incorrectly. Fair enough. Sometimes it's better to actually re-read a part of a discussion instead of relying on flaky memory.

> Seems like I saw Freescale referred to elsewhere in that search too.

You mean in others of those 7 results than the 2 with the "Freescale"/"Freescal" mention?

> Google's results for identical search terms can vary.

Usually not in a search where "site:" is specified, like I did. So I doubt that anybody (including you) doesn't get exactly those 7 results, of which exactly 2 contain the term "Freescale" or a derivation of it. But even if all 7 results contained the term "Freescale" or a derivation of it they would still reside on limepc.com, not on freescale.com or any other site.

> But okay that's not "many."

Thanks. I'm glad this is clarified.

|||

[ Edited by Velcro_SP 18.04.2011 - 19:20 ]

> I didn't say different results occurred in this case

I know. That's why I've been assuming you get the same 7 results all along.

> I said not generally "many" but rather "many of those results."

Yes, that's exactly how I've understood it.

> in the context of 7 results should be read as "substantial portion,"

Yes, no misunderstanding here either.

> After all, 7 itself is not "many."

No doubt about that. And 2 out of 7 is not "many" as well, I think.

> There might have been a non-indexed image that referred
> to Freescale as well. I dunno

I just checked all 7 results and didn't see any "non-indexed image that referred to Freescale". So we're still at 2 out of 7. But as I said, even if all 7 results contained the term "Freescale" or a derivation of it they would still reside on limepc.com, not on freescale.com or any other site.

> I try to be aware of the important facts, not the nitpicking details.

If you stopped conceiving such details I wouldn't have to refute them ;-)

Update:

> else that thread wouldn't have been started by TurboPascal on
> cherrypal.com, speaking about a "significant mismatch".

Apparently, the issue has not been resolved yet. It's now even called a "physically absolute nonsense marketing trick" there:

http://www.cherrypal.com/support/index.php?topic=1400.msg2073#msg2073

> has Cherrypal completely scammed us on this one?

While *I* don't feel scammed by them it seems their Japanese distribution partner does:

http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ja&tl=en&u=http://gpad.tv/topic/cherrypal-scam
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ja&tl=en&u=http://www.redstar.co.jp/cherrypal.htm

|||

[ Edited by Velcro_SP 13.07.2011 - 10:38 ]

> I translated "scam" to Japanese with an online tool, searched
> the untranslated page for the Japanese text and found it.

Yes, the English word "scam" is even in one of the URLs.

> I can see that Redstar cancels its relationship with Cherrypal.

Yes, and I can also see the phrases "legal action", "law enforcement", "we have a number of lawsuits filed" and "both for civil and criminal" mentioned in the Google translation.

> what role should some "distribution partner" play, I don't know.
> It might be a "sales partner."

I don't know either. I just took the word from the "domestic distribution agreement with the company" phrase that's in the Google translation.

> Here is a familiar-looking cheap tablet: link.

Lower specs than the C515 (400 MHz ARM9 VIA WM8505+ vs. 800(?) MHz ARM11 Telechips TCC8902)

Update:

> What could you do best when your recent cheap product doesn't meet the claimed
> specs? Exactly, you plan to sell a more expensive better spec'd successor:
> http://www.mobilemag.com/2011/01/18/exclusive-cherrypads-next-7-inch-android-tablet-will-have-gsm/

CherryPad 2 review:

http://www.thebestandroidtablet.com/android-tablet-reviews/cherrypad-android-tablet-ready-for-bulk-orders/

Update:

> CherryPad 2 review:
> http://www.thebestandroidtablet.com/android-tablet-reviews/cherrypad-android-tablet-ready-for-bulk-orders/

New review of the predecessor:

http://techniczone.com/cherrypal-cherrypad-america/

Okay, Andreas, I think you made substantial mistakes here. It may be partially or perhaps excused to the facts that these are in English which is not your first language, and that the "reviews" (which are not reviews at all) are misleading, even in English.

I'd seen both these before. In my view, neither of the authors has actually based his or her text on hardware that he or she has received, the first one you link is based on a picture and what the author read elsewhere, and the second is based on what the author read elsewhere.

> Andreas, I think you made substantial mistakes here. It may be partially or
> perhaps excused to the facts that [...] the "reviews" (which are not reviews
> at all) are misleading, even in English.

How are these my "substantial mistakes" if those articles "are misleading, even in English", as you say?

> In my view, neither of the authors has actually based his or her text on
> hardware that he or she has received, the first one you link is based on
> a picture and what the author read elsewhere, and the second is based
> on what the author read elsewhere.

This may be true. I don't know. The first article is filed under "Android Tablet Reviews", hence I called it a review, so it's not really my invention or misunderstanding but the author's claim (or whoever put it in that category). I should have put quotation marks to represent that. This is my lapse which I admit.
For the second article it's true that I assumed it's a review. I may have been wrong there. Yet it contains numerous statements that are expressed in a specific way so they normally could only be made by actually testing the device for real (as does the first article albeit to a much lesser degree). And as the article contains no reported speech or explicit references to original external statements I assumed it's a review.
Anyway, thanks for sharing your views on those two articles.

|||

[ Edited by Velcro_SP 11.11.2011 - 07:25 ]

> That you may have been understandably misled doesn't mean you didn't
> make substantial mistakes. It may mean you shouldn't be blamed for them.

Okay, that's a thing we can agree upon I think.

> It is a substantial mistake to inform MZ readers that the "CherryPad 2"
> has been reviewed, when not only hasn't it been reviewed

As I said I should have put quotation marks there as it wasn't meant to be my claim but a reporting of the website's claim that it is a "review". Not putting it in quotation marks was my mistake (substantial or not), yes.

> but it hasn't been sold

A "preview" kind of review then ;-)

> and even its existence is in some doubt

That's an interesting thought. What do you think is it the author believed he wrote that article about, especially in the light of sentences like the following?

"The screen is a capacitive 1024×600 multi touch display [...]; though it still works better with a stylus than without. This leads to a decent picture quality and makes the slate quite capable of showing decent video playback. Physically, the screen itself is still susceptible to glare and the front casing is a tad flimsy"

I'm not sure you can really see those things from paper specs and pictures of the device alone.

> except perhaps as a tenuously-connected Chinese unit that could be rebranded

Ah, so exactly like the original CherryPad then ;-) You believe the author could have taken some random Chinese tablet and called it "CherryPad 2" in his article at a whim?

> I also consider it a substantial mistake to tell them about a CherryPad 1
> review that is not a "review" but rather a person's summary of reviews and
> other information he or she has read, which is what I believe that one to be.

So it's not a review but a summary of reviews, okay. Seems I made the "substantial mistake" to call it "review" instead of "summary of reviews".

|||

[ Edited by Velcro_SP 11.11.2011 - 07:23 ]

> you told MZ readers that the CherryPad 2 had been reviewed,
> and the Cherrypad 1 had been newly reviewed, misinforming
> them on both counts.

I already admitted both "substantial mistakes" in the posting you just replied to. To reiterate:
1st article: By omitting the quotation marks I technically made the website's claim that it was a review my own, so that it was not noticeable any more that it was meant to be a mere reporting of the website's claim. I admitted this "substantial mistake".
2nd article: I called it a "new review" when I should have called it a "new summary of reviews". I admitted this "substantial mistake".
I sincerely thank you for making me aware of those "substantial mistakes". Anything else "substantial" you want to discuss? Like for instance answering my questions from my previous post?

|||

[ Edited by Velcro_SP 22.10.2011 - 19:21 ]