there are 3 main factors that go into performance, speed and # of cores are the most important that people look at. but theres also the complexity per clock that can give an easy 20% bonus between chips and manufacturers. back 7-10 years ago we had the mhz/ghz war, in the last 2-3 years, and probably the next 5 years, its gonna be the multitasking war. but after that, i think its gonna go back to the ghz war again once things cant be threaded any more. and poor old IPC will be left alone and no one will still care about him.
Doesn't matter how good these processors are. You are still limited to the socket F and that means DDR2 667 or 800. So, I agree, these are not good for gamers.
ca´t imagine how many diseases this monster could possibly cure ..
"Study hard my young friend"[/B].
---------------------------------------
Woody: It's not a laser! It's a... [sighs in frustration]
What would be good was if they increased the speed between CPU and GPU.
the biggest problem with IPC, is that advertising it to the average person is really tough to do. back in the first days of athlon, we had the "2500+" equivalents, people needed to hear what they were equal too, inorder to figure out why they should buy something thats 700mhz less than the old chip. for IPC to really take over, companies would probably have to advertise synthetic benchmarks, like "total cpu now does 1.2 giga-flozers, 20% more than than the old chip". but even that would still be scaling much quicker just from speed and core count. and in real life that number probably would mean nothing. as nice as having good IPC is, you really need to beat the opponent hard for it to mean anything, and translate it so average joe gets it.
Bookmarks