[citation][nom]rosen380[/nom]FWIW, Passmark has a Xeon E5-2650 from this year as 56x more powerful than a Celeron 2.0 from 2002. So, 10 years with no advancement in clock speed yields almost a 60x performance improvement.[/citation]
Only in highly multi-threaded workloads. Furthermore, the Xeon is not a consumer processor like the Celeron and it is a high end processor, also unlike the Celeron which is a low end processor. You cherry-picked one of the least relevant and most biased methods of comparing performance between the two time frames of 2002 and now in 2012.
So, are you agreeing or disagreeing with clock speed being a poor choice of gauging CPU performance without regard to differences in architecture? Hell, the original post that this is for was comparing the Eniac to a modern mobile phone, I'm pretty sure that is old Celeron vs new Xeon, times about a billion.
Given identical chips, one at 2.0 Ghz and another at 4.0 Ghz [lets assume the latter has enough cooling to handle the excess heat generated, sure CPU clock speed is a good measure], but the reality is that when the CPUs are even one generation apart, let alone several or dozens, clock speed is virtually meaningless.
I suppose if you test is following a link and timing how long until a plain text HTML page loads, the Xeon and Celeron CPUs, certainly won't be separated by a factor of 56... but I'm pretty sure the Xeon will still destroy the Celeron in that basic task.
[citation][nom]john_4[/nom]The Bible say nothing against science, fool. It's science that always tries to belittle the Bible.[/citation]
he said church note the bible you flat worlder who fell over the edge of the world.