View Single Post
  #9  
Old April 13th 04, 10:11 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 07:18:42 -0700, "Jim" wrote:

You say TomAto, I say TOmatO.

Hey, I didn't create the nonemclature, and that's the problem. We don't
have any substitute for MHz, not like they now use w/ memory (PC2100,
PC2700, etc.). At least this is more honest in that it uses a common
denominator, bandwidth. But even here, clock matters, because THAT'S THE
WAY MOTHERBOARDS ARE CONFIGURED!

Tell ya what, explain to all of us why a P4 2.6C 800MHz CPU is synchronous
to PC3200 *without* mentioning clock speed. Now explain to us all the the
purposes and effects of CPU/DRAM ratios *without* mentioning clock speed.
Fact is, you can't! That's the lingua franca of configuration, like it or
not. If you don't understand and emphasize clock speed, NONE OF IT MAKES
SENSE! That's why we're all "hung up" on it!

You can't win in these forums. If you refer to 800MHz, you're pummeled by
posters as an idiot for not recognizing this is NOT the clock speed, it's
the clock that matters. If you refer to 200MHz, you're pummeled by the
other posters as an idiot for being "hung up" on clock speed, that's its the
throughput that matters. Christ's sake, you just can't win, you're damned
if you do, damned if you don't. That's why I usually ignore this dribble.
Just tired of being caught in the middle. I'm not here to help people pass
their MIT finals, I'm here to assist in understanding how to know what to
buy, and how to configure it. To this extent, my response was exactly
correct, indeed if I may be so bold, PERFECT! I wouldn't retract or restate
a damn thing.

As Wes put it so well, if YOU think that two people traveling in a car at 60
MPH means they're really traveling 120 MPH, and that's not misleading, well,
hey, you're entitled to you opinion. And I'm not about to lead the charge
on new nonemclature, it is what it is. We have no other common denominator
but MHz to compare processors, and more importantly, explain configuration.
When you've managed to sucessfully evangelize your new nomenclature, get
back to me.


Yes Jim. Your response was exactly correct. Rereading it I realized
that too.

I was kind of reacting to thinking that 'effective FSB speed' was
portrayed as some kind of falsification.
If some kind of apology is required, you have it.
Still, this issue needs discussion, so I'm not sorry for my post.

But I'm not in the habit of comparing processors by MHz, and I'm sure,
neither are you :-D (got you there ;-))

As for cars and MPH, check out my response to Wes.

ancra