WoW 9.6ghz CPU

[excalibur2]

No one bought it, and to Ebay's shame they didn't stop the auction after complaints.

[Fraz]

That's nothing - I used to have a Athlon 2500 Barton that could do 8GHz on only one core...

I imagine you could sell that Athlon for a nice wodge of cash on Ebay

[Dreaming]

thing it, much as we mock.......


......there's SOME merit to just multiplying like that


if each core is capable of a certain number of calculations (on paper), and you hae X cores, then, on paper, it DOES simply come out to "multiply these numbers together"

the fact that most user apps on the desktop won't attain the direct speedup is the apps' fault, not the cpu

I disagree, because the clock speed is defined as how many cycles are performed per second. Adding cores increases the computational power by a factor of 2 or 4 (or less depending on the application) but it's still running at so many cycles per second.

It's ahrd to think of another example, the only one I'm thinking of is a car. Imagine having two engines in a car. Each engine can push the thing at 100mph. Having two engines (although stupid), does not equal 200mph. It might increase the performance but you can't simply add because the base speed does not change, it just does more.

Or at least that's how I see it...

[directhex]

I disagree, because the clock speed is defined as how many cycles are performed per second. Adding cores increases the computational power by a factor of 2 or 4 (or less depending on the application) but it's still running at so many cycles per second.

It's ahrd to think of another example, the only one I'm thinking of is a car. Imagine having two engines in a car. Each engine can push the thing at 100mph. Having two engines (although stupid), does not equal 200mph. It might increase the performance but you can't simply add because the base speed does not change, it just does more.

Or at least that's how I see it...

and you're right, of course. it's simply not 9.6ghz, and things don't work that way

but to many intents and purposes, it *does* have 4x the performance of a single-core equivalent. if you're used to dealing purely in GHz rather than a more accurate measure (GFLOPs), then the flat multiplication might make sense to you.

after all, strictly speaking, a 9.6GHz core2 solo (if they existed) would get the same performance as the 4-core 2.4GHz core2 quad we're talking about - in theoretical pure non-cache-&-memory bound apps like monte carlo simulations

[Jay]

I have put complaints into eBay about this type of thing as its against the law to advertise it like that. But they don't care.