O Plameras wrote:
> These are excuses.
Yeah, right!
How about articles like this:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2001/08/29/hot_microprocessor_news/index.html
which states:
We've now reached a clock difference of 600 MHz between Intel's 2 GHz
Pentium 4 and AMD's 1.4 GHz Athlon processor. It's tough to convince
unknowing customers that 1400 is the same as 2000.
and later:
"AMD's Athlon is often faster than Pentium 4 even though it runs at a lower
clock!"
I think you need to realise that many people have published statements
that directly contradict your statement:
Clock cycles has everything to do in the analysis of CPUs. It is the
basic measure of CPU performance.
If Intel has ever made a statement that supports your view then show us
so we can bring this issue up with consumer affairs.
Erik
--
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
Erik de Castro Lopo
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
"I could never learn to use C++, because of the completely
overwhelming desire to redesign the language every time I tried
to use it, but this is the normal, healthy reaction to C++."
-- Erik Naggum
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
