WBMW,
re: In my opinion, multiple numbers will confuse the consumer, and any single number will fail to capture the performance for different applications.
Well, you could have one average number for business apps, one average for games, etc. And then you could average those for an overall system performance rating. The consumer could make his decision based on his expected use of the system.
re: I see no problem to listing megahertz as a measurement of CPU clock cycles per second, just as long as there is a way to also identify advantages in the micro-architecture.
IMO, that is what is "confusing the consumer" right now.
re: The actual solution to this problem may be difficult indeed, but as long as one company or the other is ahead in megahertz, I don't see much of a compelling reason for them to pioneer in this area.
The component manufacturers want the specs to stay the way they are, to preserve their brand equity. They want folks buying "AMD" or "Intel" computers. If the systems were independently rated, some of the brand equity would transfer to the OEM's; the ones that could build the best performing systems for the dollar would win the consumer. Then folks would be buying "Dell" or "IBM" computers, regardless of the component's brand. (and without brand equity, component prices would come down)
I'm talking from the consumers perspective. From an Intel investors perspective, I like the status quo.
John |
