> >I know that , you know that... but... >Tell that to a newbie in the world of computers that wants to buy >a PC for >internet and games, and thinks that is a complicated TV. You must >convince me >that this user will NOT take acount of the big number of >phenomenal speed in >the advertising pamphlet.
But that is the whole point.. If a newbie see's that a P4 has 3006 MHZ clock speed, and the top of the range AMD has a clock speed of about 2200 MHZ, they will wrongly think that the P4 is by far the faster CPU, and we know that is simply not true.. Remember that the reason that the P4 started at 1.4 gig back in the days when the PIII was only at 1100mhz was because at the same clock speed, the PIII seriously outperformed the P4 as well. The only reason Intel went to the P4 was marketing, they knew they could not clock the PIII much faster and it was on a roughly even footing with the AMD chip at the time, by giving the P3 a lobotomy they created the P4, which since it was missing much of the hardware of the PIII was able to clock much faster.. even though it did alot less per clock cycle.. but that doesnt' matter cos it was a "Marketing decision" and up till now "MHZ RULES BABY" so they used it.. the fact that its really bullshit has never stopped anyone from doing this sort of thing before.. and this is no exception. So if newbies compare the real clock speeds of P4 and XP, they will wrongly assume they are not in the same league.. Hense the speed "rating" instead of the clock speed.. now at least newbies can choose a CPU knowing roughly how it will perform compared to the others. Technically, the AMD rating is not compared to the P4, its compared to the Athlon 1.. the first athlon.. AMD made that point just after they started the ratings scheme. rgds Franki
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
