Marvell Technology Group (MRVL)

Procedural Aspects of our Compensation Decisions

During our 2007 fiscal year, our executive compensation committee regularly received input from Compensia, an independent compensation consulting firm engaged by the committee in January 2006. For

19

compensation decisions associated with fiscal year 2005, the committee relied on data and advice from Aon Consulting, Inc., the compensation consultant who assisted the committee through December 2005. In addition to the data and advice provided by the compensation consultant, the committee also considered input from our Chief Executive Officer with respect to the performance and contributions of our other named executive officers. The committee also discussed with our Chief Executive Officer the size and terms of the option grants for our named executive officers, although the ultimate decision as to the size and terms of those option grants was made solely by the committee. The committee also reviewed tally sheets for a comprehensive and holistic view of executive compensation.

In making compensation decisions for our named executive officers during our 2007 fiscal year, our executive compensation committee reviewed data regarding two peer groups composed of publicly traded technology companies provided by Compensia. The first (or “primary”) peer group consisted of semiconductor companies the committee believed to be generally comparable to us in terms of size. For the decisions made in our 2007 fiscal year regarding our 2006 fiscal year performance, the primary peer group companies consisted of Agere Systems, Altera, AMS Holdings, Analog Devices, ATI Technologies, Atmel, Broadcom, Conexant Systems, Cypress Semiconductor, Fairchild Semiconductor, Intersil Corporation, LSI Logic, National Semiconductor, Nvidia, On Semiconductor and Xilinx. The second (or “high performing”) peer group consisted of technology companies with comparable revenue and strong revenue and earnings growth (that the committee believed generally to be higher than typical market levels) over the last several years. This peer group was composed of Broadcom, Juniper Networks, Network Appliance, Nvidia and Sandisk. The compensation consultant also provided the executive compensation committee with information on market trends and developments in executive compensation and ideas for structuring executive compensation arrangements. The members of these two peer groups are periodically reviewed and updated by the committee with the assistance of the compensation consultant. The committee used the primary peer group to analyze companies of similar size and industry to us and the committee used the high performing peer group to analyze companies that historically had demonstrated higher than average growth rates and were expected to continue having higher than average growth rates because the committee believed that we have in the past had a higher than average growth rate and the committee expected us to continue to have a higher than average growth rate.

Procedural Aspects of our Compensation Decisions

During our 2007 fiscal year, our Executive Compensation Committee regularly received input from Compensia, an independent compensation consulting firm engaged by the committee in January 2006. For compensation decisions associated with fiscal year 2005, the committee relied on data and advice from Aon Consulting, Inc., the compensation consultant who assisted the committee through December 2005. In addition to the data and advice provided by the compensation consultant, the committee also considered input from our Chief Executive Officer with respect to the performance and contributions of our other named executive officers. The committee also discussed with our Chief Executive Officer the size and terms of the option grants for our named executive officers, although the ultimate decision as to the size and terms of those option grants was made solely by the committee. The committee also reviewed tally sheets for a comprehensive and holistic view of executive compensation.

In making compensation decisions for our named executive officers during our 2007 fiscal year, our Executive Compensation Committee reviewed data regarding two peer groups composed of publicly-traded technology companies provided by Compensia. The first (or “primary”) peer group consisted of semiconductor companies the committee believed to be generally comparable to us in terms of size. For the decisions made in our 2007 fiscal year regarding our 2006 fiscal year performance, the primary peer group companies consisted of Agere Systems, Altera, AMS Holdings, Analog Devices, ATI Technologies, Atmel, Broadcom, Conexant Systems, Cypress Semiconductor, Fairchild Semiconductor, Intersil Corporation, LSI Logic, National Semiconductor, Nvidia, On Semiconductor and Xilinx. The second (or “high performing”) peer group consisted of technology companies with comparable revenue and strong revenue and earnings growth (that the committee believed generally to be higher than typical market levels) over the last several years. This peer group was composed of Broadcom, Juniper Networks, Network Appliance, Nvidia and Sandisk. The compensation consultant also provided the Executive Compensation Committee with information on market trends and developments in executive compensation and ideas for structuring executive compensation arrangements. The members of these two peer groups are periodically reviewed and updated by the committee with the assistance of the compensation consultant. The committee used the primary peer group to analyze companies of similar size and industry to us and the committee used the high performing peer group to analyze companies that historically had demonstrated higher than average growth rates and were expected to continue having higher than average growth rates because the committee believed that we have in the past had a higher than average growth rate and the committee expected us to continue to have a higher than average growth rate.

172