Samsung Intros 8-Core Exynos 5 Octa Processor
Top message: Got cores? by Eee_err Eee_err
Replying to: Re: Got cores? by T Bone
Re: Got cores?
Well, yes and no. I agree with the premise of what you're saying, but I think you're a little over board, when you say things like, "its often the cast that a computer with fewer megahertz is actually faster than one with more megahertz". Yes, there is much more to a processor than a clock, but the clock is the speed at which it does what it does. So, with any two processors on the same architecture, the one with the higher clock should be fine.
The problem you are referring to is that the clock speeds of inferior technologies were often touted over superior architectures. This was the marketing strategy that propelled Intel to dominance, although AMD consistently out performed them and significantly undercut them on price during the period you were talking about. Nonetheless, the two architectures of the time were as similar as they could be, and it was the one time in processor history that you could know the most about a processor by its clock speed.
Once AMD introduced 64-bit processors and Intel brought out the Pentium IV, the naming conventions and speed specifications became too contorted to follow, and this debacle is what I think you are mostly referring to. However, this didn't really take place until the very end of the 90's and on through the first part of the 21st century.
Nonetheless, clock speeds are still meaningful given that you're comparing processors in the same architecture. A 2.5 GHz Core i7, processor is certainly faster than a 2.0 GHz Core i7 processor. But the fastest AMD processor still isn't faster than a 2.0 GHz Core i7, though I haven't checked the benchmarks recently and AMD could have something I don't know about. And more appropriately, a 2.0 GHz ARM processor doesn't even come close to having the capability of a desktop processor. But I don't see anyone comparing phones to PC's... do you?
The problem you are referring to is that the clock speeds of inferior technologies were often touted over superior architectures. This was the marketing strategy that propelled Intel to dominance, although AMD consistently out performed them and significantly undercut them on price during the period you were talking about. Nonetheless, the two architectures of the time were as similar as they could be, and it was the one time in processor history that you could know the most about a processor by its clock speed.
Once AMD introduced 64-bit processors and Intel brought out the Pentium IV, the naming conventions and speed specifications became too contorted to follow, and this debacle is what I think you are mostly referring to. However, this didn't really take place until the very end of the 90's and on through the first part of the 21st century.
Nonetheless, clock speeds are still meaningful given that you're comparing processors in the same architecture. A 2.5 GHz Core i7, processor is certainly faster than a 2.0 GHz Core i7 processor. But the fastest AMD processor still isn't faster than a 2.0 GHz Core i7, though I haven't checked the benchmarks recently and AMD could have something I don't know about. And more appropriately, a 2.0 GHz ARM processor doesn't even come close to having the capability of a desktop processor. But I don't see anyone comparing phones to PC's... do you?
Replies
No replies to this message
