It's not a matter of utilization, but of capability.
You seem to look at all of this in a vacuum. Why are all your remarks predicated on the fact you believe Intel's design is better? Yet, don't fundamentally understand physical aspects of... more?
Efficiency and cost and wattage are all demographics and marketing of the product, but what is and isn't on a chip is strait forward (architecture).
Secondly, the CPU doesn't knows what is coming next, it doesn't know what software is coursing threw it's veins, or even cares.. it just executes.
So, if a particular CPU can handle more of what you are trying to do with it, then it's better.. so which architecture you have doesn't matter, as long as it suites your needs. (ie: movieman's point)
What I don't get, is that you are arguing what is actually happening inside the chips.. and saying it's isn't what is actually happening.
Here:
- 4 lanes highway & 1 toll both, is not good for heavy traffic, but efficient on manpower..
- 4 lanes & 4 toll booths, is great, but excessive if you have light traffic..
You pick^... do you travel during rush hour, or not?




Reply With Quote

Bookmarks