All Things Microsoft > Microsoft Hardware

CNet Propagates Mhz Myth, Goes "Hardcore"

(1/3) > >>

rtgwbmsr:
Look at this:
 
quote: For the best value, pick a clock speed one or two notches below the fastest available.
--- End quote ---


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  :D  )

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.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page