zarx said:
lilbroex said:
zarx said:
| lilbroex said:
Clock speeds wouldn't make much differences anyway and haven't for nearly 10 years. Thats like comparing a core-i3 to a pentium D with th esame clock. That clock will make little difference in the power. We know that the Power7 runs circles around the cell and the cel lthe runs circles around the the power5.
We know that GPU is at least 2 generations ahead of the ones in th PS3 and 360, and the specs suggest that its uses technology that even further advanced than that. The overall effective power is "close" to 3 times the capability within reason.
|
Actually clock speeds make a huge difference a Power 7 at 0.1Ghz is going to be slower than one at 3Ghz and a 3 core Power 7 chip at 1GHz is going to be slower than the Xenon at 3.2Ghz. There are other important factors and it's not really useful for compairing 2 different CPU architectures but it is still the main factor that determines how fast a CPU is hence the popularity of overclocking.
|
Nice taking what I said far out of context to a nonexistant, impossible extreme.. because I was obviously talking about the same processor vs. itself as opposed to versus different generation witha level of power comsumtion that isn't even possibe...
|
Wut?
read the entire quote chain again
|
I reads the same way I ran it the first time. Clock speed is mostly insignificant now. Has been since intel core series took off. You can find many quad core processors running at 3 Ghz but none of them have the same peformance.
The most important thing is the tech under the hood and the cache speed, not the clock speed. Yes, it still makes some difference but not enough to mak ea serious difference. An AMD Athlon dual core clocked at a higher speed than a core 2 duo will underperform it in every category while using more energy to do it.
