Alright, obviously you could, on a whim, liquify me with your immense knowledge of processors. I had browsed through about 20 different sites, just looking for a simple way to, in least terms possible, help explain why operating frequencies between AMD and Intel aren't the best way to compare performance. The constant comparison that I found was "AMD, 9 operations per clock cycle, Intel, 6 operations per clock cycle." They are not my direct words, but a constant comparison that I found on 90% of the websites that I read. I'm not going to continue to argue because, stubborn as I may be, I'm not stupid. I admit, you know much more about this than I do, but I don't think that one (obviously 'one' who knows their stuff) can actually (thoroughly) answer a question about AMD to Intel performance comparison without confusing very nearly everybody that reads it. There's just too much involved. By simplifying it, you can give someone a general idea, even though this is at the cost of accuracy. I didn't simplify it (I don't even understand the unsimplified version), all I did was pass on the simplified version that is largely accepted.
__________________
My little machine:
S423 Pentium 4 1.3Ghz, 4x256 16-bit RIMM RAM, 32MB TNT2 video card. I think it may be time to upgrade...
The upgrade! My machine will soon be a 939 X2 4000+, 4x512 DDR400, and an 8600GTS.
|