Tony, "The quanti-speed thing is unprecedented in computer history. "
How soon you forgot about iCOMP index for Intel Pentiums?
Colorful iCOMP charts used to be stuck on every retail box.
"All other computers have been sold based on brand name (IBM, Sun, Dell), or benchmarks or clock speed, or, of course, a combination of these."
You just have justified the AMD approach as a combination
"of these", just replace "or" for "and":
AMD Athlon-XP 1800+ is a brand with benchmark rating close
to actual clock rating. Feel better now?
"If you cut it in half, but double clock speed and all else remains equal, and you end up with the same throughput, who cares?"
Nobody, except Intel zealots like yourself and John Fowler.
In case you have ignored couple of early posts on the
subject, let me remind you of one example:
Intel Itanic running at 800MHz,
spec.org.
posted performance score of 701 (SPECfp2000).
At the same time, a Pentium-4 processor running at
1900 MHz,
spec.org.
scores on the same benchmark at 696.
Why are you not complaining about inflated clock speed
rating for the P4, or different "standards" of measuring
frequency, or something else, just for the sake of
complaining?
For John and you, I suggest to drop the nonsense.
- Ali |
