O Plameras wrote:
> The whole point of my original post is that clock cycle is a basic
> measure of performance in that the shorter it is, the faster (execute
> more instructions per unit time) is the throughput (performance).
> Another way of saying this is in a particular Intel CPU family the
> bigger the MHZ the faster is the CPU.
Ok, here where the disconnect is.
I would be happy to say that "if all other things are equal, there
is a direct relationship between clock speed and performance".
However all other things are not always equal. Performance can
be affected by memory and bus latency, cache sizes, pipeline depth
and other factors.
Whenever any of these other factors come into play, your statement:
Clock cycles has everything to do in the analysis of CPUs. It
is the basic measure of CPU performance.
will be misleading and in some cases wrong.
Erik
--
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
Erik de Castro Lopo
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
"There are only two things wrong with C++: The initial concept and
the implementation." -- Bertrand Meyer
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
