Geez. 3.2GHz quad-core. Here I am running a 3.1GHz single-core. Oy.
SW-5120-1900-6153
I like amd and pheromones(especially sex ones)... Err... I mean...
Seriously, its not about how much GHz there is. Its about how it can perform. Especially nowadays.
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megahertz_Myth )
Obviously, that's ultimately how it works in terms of performance, but I'm more just speaking along the lines of technology.
When I got my PC a couple years ago, yeah it was out-of-date, but only a little. The best dual-core processors were 1.8GHz, and quad-cores weren't commercially discussed, basically.
And now look at us. Oy! I mean, I obviously knew tech was going to get to this point, but I didn't think it'd get here that quickly, and at an arguably affordable price-point at that.
SW-5120-1900-6153
@ thetonestarr,
Yeah, I know what you mean. Back in 2004, I was using AMD 64 single core CPUs and then in 2006 I upgraded to dual core CPUs and now we are at quad core cpus in 2009. Technology is moving at such a rapid pace now.
If Nintendo is successful at the moment, it’s because they are good, and I cannot blame them for that. What we should do is try to be just as good.----Laurent Benadiba
| Deneidez said: I like amd and pheromones(especially sex ones)... Err... I mean... Seriously, its not about how much GHz there is. Its about how it can perform. Especially nowadays. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megahertz_Myth ) |
I know that. Clock speed is a useful way to compare CPUs of the same architecture though. So in this case it ought to be ~7% faster than the previous fastest quad-core Phenom II at 3GHz. Real-world figures will be slighthly less than theory, in this case it's +5% on average.
To compare across CPUs of different architectures all you can do is look at real-world figures from reviews. So in this case it would be about as fast as a 2.83GHz Core 2 Quad, or slighly slower than a 2.66GHz Core i7, or about as fast as a 3.6GHz original Phenom.
And it should beat 3.1GHz Athlon X2 by a 30% margin in single-thread apps and a lot more in 4+ threaded apps.
Yeah I member I bought a single core AMD 64 in April 2006, three years ago. I fink it was called Athlon 64 3200+, and it was 2.2Ghz.
A Phenom 3.2 Ghz times four cores = 3.2 x 4 = 12.8 Ghz. Thats almost six times as many Ghz as my CPU I bought in 2006.
Soleron said:
I know that. Clock speed is a useful way to compare CPUs of the same architecture though. So in this case it ought to be ~7% faster than the previous fastest quad-core Phenom II at 3GHz. Real-world figures will be slighthly less than theory, in this case it's +5% on average. To compare across CPUs of different architectures all you can do is look at real-world figures from reviews. So in this case it would be about as fast as a 2.83GHz Core 2 Quad, or slighly slower than a 2.66GHz Core i7, or about as fast as a 3.6GHz original Phenom. And it should beat 3.1GHz Athlon X2 by a 30% margin in single-thread apps and a lot more in 4+ threaded apps. |
So if that's true then AMD are still playing catch up to Intel in terms of CPU power? I thought these new Phenoms were meant to be a completely new architecture?
Not that it matters much anymore as I can't afford a new PC for a while and my old 3800X2 seems to be chugging along OK for now :P
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2025 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
