post-it wrote:my prosessor's clock speed is 1466mhz so I match my memory to the clock speed ( 512meg X 3 )
the Black Monarch wrote:post-it wrote:my prosessor's clock speed is 1466mhz so I match my memory to the clock speed ( 512meg X 3 )
512x3 ≠ 1466!
512x3 = 1536!
Silly little man.
the Black Monarch wrote:Well, that's not really comparable, since CPU clock speed is measured in cycles per second while RAM is measured in a number of binary digits. You can't really compare the two. However, you could say he has more GigaHertz in the CPU than GigaBytes in the RAM... it's still meters and liters, but at least you now have a quality to attach to your quantity.
CPU speed is starting to become meaningless anyway. A 2.0 Ghz Centrino performs like a 3.0 Ghz P4.
the Black Monarch wrote:That's odd. My friend claims that his IBM laptop ("Mr. Lucky") has a 2.0 gig Centrino... maybe IBM overclocked it and didn't tell him... or maybe he's bullshitting us...
alternatefutures wrote: First, there is no chip called "Centrino", it's the Pentium M. Centrino is a P-M, the chipset, and wireless.
alternatefutures wrote:Secondly, the Pentium M is only architecturally superior to the P4 if, after both have ramped as far as they can go, the Pentium M is faster and at least as stable (if you go by performance, and it does look as if the final Banias will be better than the final Northwood).
alternatefutures wrote:If you go by power efficiency and heat disipation, then yes, the Pentium M is better (hence why it is in a laptop and the Pentium 4 isn't).
alternatefutures wrote:I know our AMD friend likes to rate work done per clock cycle as the sole factor, but that isn't so.
our AMD friend wrote:performance = speed * instructions/clock
the Black Monarch wrote:There is no "as far as they can go."
That would be the MOBILE Pentium 4, which is a lower voltage P4. The desktop version wouldn't be in a laptop unless there was a market for a laptop/heating blanket.the Black Monarch wrote:Hey, my laptop uses a P4 that was designed for desktops. So the Pentium 4 IS in a laptop.
alternatefutures wrote:First, there is no chip called "Centrino", it's the Pentium M. Centrino is a P-M, the chipset, and wireless. Secondly, the Pentium M is only architecturally superior to the P4 if, after both have ramped as far as they can go, the Pentium M is faster and at least as stable (if you go by performance, and it does look as if the final Banias will be better than the final Northwood). If you go by power efficiency and heat disipation, then yes, the Pentium M is better (hence why it is in a laptop and the Pentium 4 isn't).
alternatefutures wrote:I know our AMD friend likes to rate work done per clock cycle as the sole factor, but that isn't so.
The Black Monarch wrote:Hey, my laptop uses a P4 that was designed for desktops. So the Pentium 4 IS in a laptop.
alternatefutures wrote:If that were true then we could have chips running at insanely high speeds. Significantly overclocked Pentiums and Athlons can be maintained at near freezing and still be so unstable you can't boot to Windows. Cooling is not the only limit to a chip's design. Yield factors are another thing and a good reason why Barton chips still have lower frequencies than the vapor 2800 and we have a Pentium 3.0 Ghz with an 800MHz FSB instead of a 3.06 800Mhz FSB.
alternatefutures wrote:If the point of a CPU was just efficiency (which does play a huge part in the laptop arena), then I would agree with your definition of superior architecture. However, if the point of a CPU is performance (as in workstations), then efficiency, while good, does not a superior architecture make. Right now I'd say Intel's and AMD's current highend 32-bit offerings are at parity overall, but it depends on what you need to accomplish. If you're an engineer working with Autocad then the Athlon has the superior architecture. If you're a special effects guy working on 3DStudio Max, then the P4 has the superior architecture even though it is less efficient per-clock. The question is, can you, as sales likes to say, make up the efficiency difference in bulk (and hopefully some extra). If you can, then I don't see how you can call it inferior. It might not be as elegant, but for something that's pretty much invisible to the end-user, that's not of much concern.
Return to Video Hardware Discussion
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest