CNet Propagates Mhz Myth, Goes "Hardcore"

[rtgwbmsr]

Look at this:
 

quote: For the best value, pick a clock speed one or two notches below the fastest available.

Is someone paying CNet to put this stuff on? C'mon, they do so much pro-M$ work they should be paid for it.

Check the rest out (Including "Hardcore" applications like Digital Video    )

http://computers.cnet.com/hardware/0-1018-8-20548580-1.html?tag=st.co.1018-8-20548580-16.dir.1018-8-20548580-1

[voidmain]

Well clock speed (Mhz) does count, but only for comparisons between chips within the same chip family. You can't even use clock speed to compare two Intel chips in different families (P2 vs P4) let alone use clock speed to compare chips of completely different architectures (P4 vs Itanium vs PPC(601) vs PPC(603) vs PPC(604) vs G3 vs G4 vs PS-RISC vs Sparc vs SuperSparc vs UltraSparc vs etc).

And how the chips are cached among many other factors can greatly change the performance of a chip family. They are obviously speaking to the level of the average windoid.

[ October 23, 2002: Message edited by: void main ]

[Chooco]

what they are saying is to not buy top of the line and they are right. look at some of these prices in canadian dollars
AMD Athlon XP 1800+  Retail Boxed   $   160.00      
AMD Athlon XP 1900+  Retail Boxed   $   185.00      
AMD Athlon XP 2000+  Retail Boxed   $   205.00      
AMD Athlon XP 2100+  Retail Boxed   $   255.00      
AMD Athlon XP 2200+  Retail Boxed   $   310.00  

do you see the HUGE price difference between 2100 and 2200? that is what CNET is talking about.
the price changes go
25
20
50
55

[ October 24, 2002: Message edited by: Chooco ]

[Kintaro]

The last 3 are all $55 apart, so wheres that massive difference.

[Chooco]

to upgrade from 2100 to 2200 you pay 20% more for a very small increase in speed, it's just not worth it. you shouldn't honestly pay 20% more just to get a small boost of speed.

[rtgwbmsr]

But they didn't say anything about chip architectures did they?

You can't compare across chip architectures. They don't even regard architectures as an issue.

[ October 24, 2002: Message edited by: The_Muffin_Man/B0b ]

[TheQuirk]

quote:Originally posted by Ex Eleven / b0b:
The last 3 are all $55 apart, so wheres that massive difference.

These are not your worthless Australian dollars.

[TheQuirk]

Originally posted by The_Muffin_Man/B0b:
Look at this:
 

Is someone paying CNet to put this stuff on? C'mon, they do so much pro-M$ work they should be paid for it.

Check the rest out (Including "Hardcore" applications like Digital Video     )

http://computers.cnet.com/hardware/0-1018-8-20548580-1.html?tag=st.co.1018-8-20548580-16.dir.1018-8-20548580-1[/Q UOTE]

Big-fucking-deal. Are you trying to find things wrong in various articles? They're right. Why would you want to buy something that's just faster by a small amount of performance for an extra <insert large sum of money here>?

Next time try to find a wrong article; not a bad article that you're trying to make look like it was written by MS nazis.

[hm_murdock]

cnet licks billy's hairy nutsack

[Calum]

true but 'cnet propagates mhz myth' isn't really very surprising news for that very reason.

[Refalm]

CNet spoof news

[EDIT]OK, sarcasm is a accepted Refalm, but me (Refalm) thinks that Refalm shouldn't put hook crosses instead of the CNet logo. So Refalm, don't do it again!

* Edited by Refalm *[/EDIT]

[ October 30, 2002: Message edited by: Refalm ]

[Pantso]

quote:Originally posted by The_Muffin_Man/B0b:
But they didn't say anything about chip architectures did they?

You can't compare across chip architectures. They don't even regard architectures as an issue.

[ October 24, 2002: Message edited by: The_Muffin_Man/B0b ]

Very true! Nowadays, noone seems to care much about chip architectures. It's like Intel and AMD are the only processor manufacturers out there for most people.  

[hm_murdock]

you can't even really compare the Athlon and the P4. and yet people try to compare RISC to CISC and use that as a basis for "why (insert brand x) sucks compared to Wintel, because we have 3GHz"

funny how back in the day, PPC whipped the holy living fuck out of x86 wihle at a lower clock... and everybody in the world was aware of it... but they've now conveniently forgotten that because now their stuff has big numbers and is "a couple of seconds faster" on running a filter that takes ten minutes to apply in Photoshop.

When you throw that many clock cycles at something... yeah, it'll be faster. But that doesn't make it *better*!

[Master of Reality]

quote:Originally posted by TheQuirk-V654654.54:


These are not your worthless Australian dollars.

ya, he's talkin about ultimate Canadian dollars. Your crappy australian dollars are our canadian dollors' bitch