Processor Speed being misreported

[Scintilla]

Pawned.

[the Black Monarch]

OK so you have a temporal disorder AND ADD. *YOU* accused me of bringing this up first when in fact you did...

If by "this" you mean stock opterons, then you're wrong on me being the first to bring them up. If by "this" you mean anything else, then you're wrong about me accusing you of bringing them up. Choose the area in which you were wrong about me, and get over it.

No, I was making the point that if a 2.0 Ghz part can beat it in some benchmarks and is comprable in others one can make the logical assumption (as Klinky did) that since a 2.0 Ghz solution can do so well, it must be more efficient *and* a 5.0 Ghz solution would be amazing

Which technically constitutes comparing a 2 ghz chip and a 5ghz chip, which you yourself said was ridiculous. Make up your mind.

Mhz to Mhz, the Athlon solution is much more efficient and cost-effective.

I never doubted that.

I guess it was too much for me to assume you'd have half a brain and could actually formulate such obviously apparent theories with such things as logic and reason.

I guess it was too much for you to realize that not only was I already in agreement with such "obviously apparent theories", but logic and reason are the same thing.

I was also making the point that you're basically saying "OMG if you have this really rare and almost impossible-to-get-for-consumers part, it pwns normal things! OMG I AM SO COOL AND SMART!"

No, I'm not saying that. You're saying that. The closest thing that I said was "if an AMD user and an Intel user each have this really rare and almost impossible-to-get-for-consumers part, the Intel user will slightly pwn the AMD user".

Says who? Do you know anything about transistor theory? Have you ever designed a processor or understand the intricacies of one? Are you an expert in this field or a designer on such teams? Have you even looked at the roadmaps?

I've looked at the history of clock speeds. Not too long ago, the fastest P4 operated at half of what the fastest P4s do today. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to predict that clock speeds will roughly double again in a similar period of time.

http://www.animemusicvideos.org/phpBB/v ... 0&start=20

Looks pretty owned to me. He destroys your statement by questioning your ability to read and then furthers the argument against you which you later do not retort.

He says absolutely nothing that contradicts anything that I've said.

the Black Monarch = Daniel Wang ????

No, but I'm beginning to think that DW's account has been hijacked by the evil Tommyrude. The last time I was here, DW was much more civil and didn't make things up about people to try to make them look bad.

And in an amazing coincidence, my water cooling equipment from Swiftech arrived while I was writing this. Woohoo! Viva la Vodka!

[madmag9999]

now befor i say what i want to i just want to state that im not takeing any sides here and am no computer expert i just want to say what i think and see if i can contribute to this disscussion

But will in one or two years.

Says who? Do you know anything about transistor theory? Have you ever designed a processor or understand the intricacies of one? Are you an expert in this field or a designer on such teams?

I'm guessing the answer is no to all of these questions. One year? Ha! Have you even looked at the roadmaps? Stop trying to look like you know what you're talking about.

now if memory serves me right there is a law that states that the speed of transisters or something dubles every two years so monarch might be correct. i dont remember the details on it maybe u do dw or maybe when dvirusis dad gets home he will know.

And if the Athlon needed to be at 3.5 Ghz to perform well then...A) why are hundreds of thousands of people buying them and B) why do benchmarks and well anyone in the industry disagreeing with you. Maybe because you're wrong.

Or maybe because I didn't say just "perform well," I said "perform as well as the P4 that got overclocked to 5.25 GHz"

And if you can point me to a non-overclocked Opteron that can beat a 5.25ghz P4, I'd REALLY like to hear about it.

Again, grumble grumble bitch bitch and the like.

So you want a test where a non-overclocked AMD processor performs better than a highly overclocked Intel processor?

Not just highly overclocked, but THE most overclocked Intel chip EVER.

now that sir is just plain retarded why in the world would u want to run a test with a rediculesly overclocked p4 against a non overclocked amd?

now this next coment might sound a little stupid but iv been wondering since pure H2O dose not conduct electricity and if a computer was made of plaistic/silicon and had a water proof case couldnt you technicly fill it with water then run 2 pumps in the case one sucking the water out and one pushing it in and then cool the water outside the case to just above freezing point this would be a fairly good way to cool something wouldnt it? not quite as expensive as liquid nitrogen

[Corran]

now if memory serves me right there is a law that states that the speed of transisters or something dubles every two years so monarch might be correct. i dont remember the details on it maybe u do dw or maybe when dvirusis dad gets home he will know.

It is called Moore's Law but it is hardly a law. It is more of a trend observed by a guy named Gordan Moore (a co-founder of Intel). The press nicknamed it a 'law' and it just stuck. It has no true indication of the future of processor development, it's just an estimate.

[Scintilla]

now if memory serves me right there is a law that states that the speed of transisters or something dubles every two years so monarch might be correct. i dont remember the details on it maybe u do dw or maybe when dvirusis dad gets home he will know.

It is called Moore's Law but it is hardly a law. It is more of a trend observed by a guy named Gordan Moore (a co-founder of Intel). The press nicknamed it a 'law' and it just stuck. It has no true indication of the future of processor development, it's just an estimate.

There are two views I've heard on the definition of a law (which entails talking about the difference between laws and theories) (and you know I'm not talking about the legal kind). Oddly enough, both of them were fed to me in school (but not the same school), so I don't really know which one to believe as being more widely used.

One is that laws tell WHAT happens, while theories tell WHY they happen. If that's so, then it would count as a law.

The other is that theories are unproven and laws are proven, and that's the difference. If that's so, then it wouldn't be a law.

[madmag9999]

dvirusis dad who is a physicist said its a "hypothesis" and "yes, that is how the trend has gone" and then dvirus read an artical about it and said "okay the article says that it was a trend he observed and the trend still holds"

[the Black Monarch]

now if memory serves me right there is a law that states that the speed of transisters or something dubles every two years so monarch might be correct. i dont remember the details on it maybe u do dw or maybe when dvirusis dad gets home he will know.

The "law" states that the number of transistors on a CPU will double every 18 months. It really has nothing to do with clock speed.

now that sir is just plain retarded why in the world would u want to run a test with a rediculesly overclocked p4 against a non overclocked amd?

I dunno. Ask dw, or the guys at Tom's Hardware.

now this next coment might sound a little stupid but iv been wondering since pure H2O dose not conduct electricity and if a computer was made of plaistic/silicon and had a water proof case couldnt you technicly fill it with water then run 2 pumps in the case one sucking the water out and one pushing it in and then cool the water outside the case to just above freezing point this would be a fairly good way to cool something wouldnt it? not quite as expensive as liquid nitrogen

First of all, water DOES conduct electricity, just not very well. Second, a chip that is stable at a given clock speed and 0 degrees Celsius is not necessarily as stable as one at the same speed and -190 Celsius. The colder you get those transistors, the more quickly they can switch and the more stable the chip becomes. That 5.25 ghz chip would not have reached 5.25 ghz if the people who did that test had only brought it down to, say, -40 celsius.

This concludes today's lesson on extreme overclocking.

[madmag9999]

well fuck i guess my chem teacher and dviruses dad who is a physicist are wrong then seems ur smarter then 2 college educated ppl so i dont think water would cunduct

So you want a test where a non-overclocked AMD processor performs better than a highly overclocked Intel processor?

Not just highly overclocked, but THE most overclocked Intel chip EVER.

and secondly
thats a direct quote from u monach not from dw. dw never said he wanted to run the test of an extreamly oced cpu vs a not oced cpu u did. if ur gone say something dont go back on it.

[madmag9999]

o and about the water cooling thing i know its better to have it colder but useing water is more efficent becouse its not extreamly expensive. u can make di water at your house. and water proof a case with nothing more the the shit u get at the hardware store now this still leaves the steel cd drives witch would corod but if they were alumium it would all be good

[the Black Monarch]

Go take a bath with a toaster and THEN tell me how well water conducts electricity.