zarx on 05 July 2012
| Aielyn said: Are neither of you capable of seeing that you're arguing over two different things? lilbroex is talking about comparing two chips of vaguely similar clock speeds - say, 2.5 GHz vs 3 GHz. In most cases, that clock speed doesn't really inform anybody as to the power of the system, outside of direct comparisons between two otherwise-identical chips. Even if there's just one small added ability to the new chip, it could bridge the gap in clock speed. zarx is talking about comparing chips of significantly different clock speeds, something that lilbroex didn't explicitly rule out, but clearly wasn't talking about. When the clock speeds are noticeably different, other changes might not be enough to make up the difference. In the end, I think lilbroex's actual point is that, while we might get a slightly better idea of how powerful the system is by knowing the clock speed, in the end it's not going to be enough information to settle anything regarding the arguments. And I think zarx's argument is that we will get a better idea of how powerful it is. In other words, you're arguing two sides of the same coin. |
I got the impression he was argueing that the clock rate was irrelevent to how powerful the system was. Hence when he said "Clock speeds wouldn't make much differences anyway and haven't for nearly 10 years" which is just wrong.
We can't know how powerful the system is until we know all the factors and my arguement has always been without a key peice of information the other information doesn't really mean anything, just like knowing the clock speed and not knowing the othe aspects such as architecture and number of cores would be useless for figuering out how powerful the system is.
@TheVoxelman on twitter
