| lilbroex said:
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. |
So you are saying that if the Wii U CPU was running at 1Ghz it wouldn't matter as it's a Power 7 bassed chip? Sorry but that is wrong, there are other factors that determin performance but clock speed is still a major factor in CPU performance. Yes CPUs have spent a long time sitting at ~3Ghz as that has been a bit of a wall in cilicone bassed CPUs and that has lead to other developments such as adding more cores (Wii U has 3 same as Xenon) prefetch and instruction set and other architecture advancements. But clock speed is still a major factor in performance and a more modern can still be slower than an older one even with all the architecture advancement if it's clock speed is to low.
To use a more apt example lets compare Intel's Nehelem vs the superior architecture Sandybridge, now per clock SandyBridge wipes the floor with Nehalem yet an older Nehelem CPU at 3.2GHz is still much more poerful than a Sandy Bridge CPU with the same number of cores at 2Ghz. You see without knowing the clock speed of the newer CPU you can't claim it's faster than the older one even if at the same clock speed the newer one would be faster.
So yes we do need to know the Wii U's clock speeds before we can say how powerful it is.
@TheVoxelman on twitter
