Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: AK2004 who wrote (188946)	3/7/2006 8:52:35 PM
From: eracer	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 275872

Re: are you saying that it would be faster with big files and slower with small files? I said just the opposite. Anandtech in the FX-60 review converted a 304MB wav file in 32 seconds. If it took the overclocked FX-60 73 seconds and the Conroe 65 seconds in the Intel benchmarks it is obvious it is not an apples-to-apples comparison and that the Intel tests probably used a much larger wav file. I suppose that the experiment can be constructed where conroe cache would give it an advantage but I have never seen 800MB mp3 file, have you? The mp3 file is going to be several times smaller than the original wav file. An 800MB WAV file would only be slightly larger than a full CDs worth of music, which would be a relevent file size to test for anyone interested in ripping CDs to their MP3 player.