[citation][nom]truerock[/nom]I think what I am hearing from Intel is:1. AMD isn't really pushing Intel competively - so Intel can be lazy about increasing the speed of its CPUs2. Because Intel doesn't need to develop faster CPUs they can try to rip off their customers with obsolete CPUs that incorporate non-CPU technology, i.e. video/graphicsIntel has always wanted to avoid creating faster CPUs and put other technologies on their CPU chips. Granted, it was AMD that started the "a slower CPU can be better" myth. I understand that multi-CPU and enhanced memory architectures provide better throughput - but, nothing beats a faster CPU clock at most tasks. We have been stuck at less that 4 GHz for 7 years! That is insane. Intel has no viable competetor and is using its monopoly to screw everyone.[/citation]
There is also a thing called IPC (instruction per clock) ...... The primary reason why a Athlon single core Athlon 64 at 2.2 GHz matched or beat a 3.2GHz HT p4 on most tasks back in the day......
AMD never started a Myth about MHz speed. Intel started that the MYTH about MHz/GHz with there P4 when they notice that AMD had something that can compete and exceed there own product. Thus hoping that the public thats not educated in computers would see High GHz and would by there product. AMD countered that MYTH by stating that higher MHz does not equal higher performance.
After a year or more of trying to push this myth, intel droped the rest of the Netburst line (after prescott, there was suppose to be Tejas and Nehalem) and with the core line. Which is much faster than the P4 even with only running 1 core on the core 2 line.
Now for the Performance between Core i5 Sandy Bridge vs Core i5 Nehalem, I guess you haven't seen them as other sites like Anandtech has bench marks that are single cores and show this.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/3871/the-sandy-bridge-preview-three-wins-in-a-row/9
Core i5 2400 @ 3.1 without turbo boost on, beatting core i7 880 AND core i7 980x is impressive to me as it sounds those had turbo on.
GHz Mean nothing these days. P4's (even though im typing on one as we speak) proved that. 3.8GHz (which was a p4) is the highest shipped cpu and that that was due to heat and amount of power needed to keep thats High GHz. Same issue even today. Even with IBM cpus for severs, they dont reach 3 ghz. (except for an experimental overclocked 500GHz chip thats not made on silicon but thats was 4 years ago.) IPC, better cache system, wider ram bandwidth, will be better for performance on single threaded stuff than higher ghz.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram