Will DPReview admit they need to eat some crow?

Started Sep 15, 2009 | Discussions thread
KALEL33 Senior Member • Posts: 2,797
Re: Yeah blame the marketing.

plugin wrote:

You are over simplifying things greatly. When all CPUs were single core, MHz was indeed a major factor in determining performance. It was the move away from simple CPU architectures (things like multi core, hyperthreading, mutli level cache and just as importantly, the way in which all these components in a CPU talk to each other) that made it less relevant to talk only speeds.

However, since you think that this is an analogy to camera MP, the truth is still that MHz means performance. A dual core system with faster clock speeds will generally outperform a quad-core with slower clocking, for most applications. It is only when you get into very specific environments that more cores makes up for faster clocks.

The move away from labeling CPUs by clock speed is more a reflection that the situation is more complex than that, than it is an admission that clock speed is not as important as ever. And people rarely upgraded computers for faster clock speed CPUs - the upgrades came as CPU families added enough power to make it worth upgrading. Of course this really has nothing to do with camera resolutions.

Sorry, but your wrong. Clock speed did not make a processor "majorly" better than another one. There were many AMD processors that had slower clock speeds but were faster at processing. If what you say is true then why did the P4 1.41 GHz perform slower than the P3 1 GHz processor, all on the same system? Also, my laptop, less than 2 years old, is a 1.6 GHz processor single-core, that is faster than old Pentium 3 GHz processors. By your logic, it should be half as fast with both being single core.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow