Why AMD-MHz doesn't equal Intel-MHz

[Labyrrinth]

A great and easy-to-understand explanation on why and how an AMD 2.8 Ghz is faster than an Intel 4.0Ghz processor

Click here (http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2005Dec/bch20051215033811.htm)

[Tiesiaan]

Very useful information, helpful next time I think about getting a new one for my comp.

[Orlun]

Thanks Laby. That matches pretty much how I saw the situation.

Not to be too much of an Intel defender here but I think it is important to note that Intel has shown that it learned it's lesson on this. From what little I know, they've given up netburst in favor of producting pentium M derivates based upon a similar pipe as AMD. Combine that with their lead in shifting to 65nm (smaller=faster+lower power & heat) fabrication methods and I think we will start to see more parity in the next few years.

The one caviate to this is that Intel isn't marketing to the gamer like AMD is. AMD has built a loyal following with gamers and has expanded on that to promote other markets. Intel would be wise to use its enourmous capital to develope a few AMD destroying gaming winners before it looses even more market share.

What could bring Intel back is equal to better performance combined with cooler temps and cheaper costs.

[Loampounder]

Because MHz is really just a measurement of time and, as we all know, time is relative. Tada!

[Skarlath]

Why don't the companies combine workload and speed to create a new stat to stamp all over their products. Perhaps worload*speed=productivity. That would avoid a lot of confusion.

Oh wait, that would mean Intel wouldn't look super-duper to uneducated folk, and AMD wouldn't have bragging rights about their smaller numbers being better than Intel's larger ones.

/sigh.

[Slide]

They should all quote their chips power in MIPS.

Oh wait, thats a meaningless number also.