Quote:
Originally posted by Chronus
However, last November, INTEL's director of operations (IIRC) answered to a question asked by a CNBC anchor (about the slow recovery of the sector and the competition INTEL was experiencing from AMD) in this way:
"There's really no competition in the CPU market. We dominate this market and set its trends. Without a doubt, the gap between our technology - in terms of speed and eficiency - and our competitors's will continue to build up."
Speed != clock rate.
Quote:
Originally posted by Chronus
"A desktop system based on the Intel® Pentium® 4 processor at 2.80 GHz delivers six times the productivity performance gain of commonly installed systems that use the Intel® Pentium® III processor at 500 MHz, as measured by Productivity Performance SYSmark 2002*. "
What part of that do you disagree with? Are you saying the 2.8 GHz P4 does not run at 2.8 GHz or that it does not offer 6 times the performance of a 500 MHz PIII?
Quote:
Originally posted by Chronus
6*500 is 3000, ie, six times the performance of the Pentium III at 500 MHz should be equivalent to a Pentium at 3 000 MHz. The fact that they managed to have that kind of performance at 2.8 GHz is of great significance to them. Is it any wonder that most analysts say that INTEL still speaks and thinks in terms of "MHz wins all"? If they present such a reasoning ("2.80 GHz delivers six times the [...] performance gain of [...] the Intel® Pentium® III processor at 500 MHz"), then they must think that way.
Not one in that quote did Intel say "MHz wins all". What they said was a currently shipping chip outperforms a previous chip by 6X, nothing else. You read the nonexistent clock rate is all important stuff into it all by yourself.
BTW, it is easily demonstrable that clock rate is far and a away the most important factor in performance when you look at the big picture as this quote does. So, in this case clock rate would indeed be highly important, and deserves to be mentioned.
Quote:
Originally posted by Chronus
" Surpassing the 3 GHz mark, the Intel® Pentium® 4 processor at 3.06 GHz offers higher levels of performance, creativity and productivity.
Based on Intel® NetBurst™ microarchitecture, the Pentium 4 processor offers higher-performance processing than ever before. Built with Intel's 0.13-micron technology, the Pentium 4 processor delivers significant performance gains for use in home computing, business solutions and all your processing needs.",
Again what part of that do you disagree with. The chip does run at 3.06 GHz, and most people agree it is the best performing chip available.
Quote:
Originally posted by Chronus
"I was using a 2100+ Athlon XP*. I thought it was giving me good game performance and that I was playing to the best of my ability. But then I received the Pentium 4 processor from Intel. Playing UT2003* with that processor was a completely different definition of smooth. Imagine no choppiness whatsoever. Imagine playing these games at the speeds they were meant to be played. Intel has made this possible. ",
and
"Several friends have asked me which kind of computer they should buy: AMD processor-based or Pentium 4 processor-based. I've told them I own both, but that my main computer is now the Pentium 4 processor machine, and it looks to be that way for a long time to come. "
I personally do not like anecdotal evidence, but testimonial is a well established sales technique that many companies use. This certainly does not support your claim that Intel pushes clock rate as the only thing that matters.
Quote:
Originally posted by Chronus
You should really think twice before you post anything like this. You dislike people who post things with nothing to back them up. So do I. Whatever I post, I try to make it based on facts or links or articles or TV appearances.
Chronus
I'm trying to get you to think a little before you post things that are unsubstantiated and largely false. Historically, designing for clock rate is the best way to achieve performance, and if you look at the big picture clock rate is in fact the best proxy for performance there is. It is only when you start to make small comparisons across different architectures that clock rate as a proxy for performance breaks down.
This is why most processor companies put clock rate front and center in their processor designations. It is simply to important to ignore, but I have NEVER seen or heard an Intel rep claim it is the only thing that matters, despite your claims that they do it all the time. In most cases therefor I must believe it is your misinterpretation of statements made by Intel that are at the root of this claim.
