Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lt Major Burns MHZ myth sort of explained, i think. someone will no doubt correct me :P
Around the time of the 1ghz pentium, a 500mhz G4 was able to beat it. 2 500mhz g4's working together in a dual machine worked twice as fast as 1 1ghz pentium. but that was a few years back now.
the Mhz myth is still apparent, but the G5's aren't turning out to be the amazing pentium killer the G4 was in it's time. however, we turn to AMD for proof that the Mhz Myth still exists. their pentium thrashers often run at half the clock speed of their intel rivals, but beat them quite handsomly. AMD often hides this by calling their processors things like Athlon 3400 or something, when actually it';s running around 2ghz. |
Yeah, that's AMD's performance rating when compared to a Pentium 4. In other words, it's supposed to perform as well as a Pentium 4 running at 3.4 GHz. AMD used performance ratings before, but the current rating set is more up to par than the previous one was. I remember having an AMD 5x86 PR133 which only performed as well as a 75 MHz Pentium. When AMD announced that it would be using
PR ratings again on its Athlon XP and later chips, people were afraid of history repeating itself. Thankfully, this wasn't the case and now you actually see the matched performance.
This is also the reason why Intel decided to use the numbers it uses now (ex: Pentium M 755). This was to make it difficult for the consumer to tie AMD's performace rating to an Intel CPU. Not that this much to deter consumption of AMD chips over Intel's.
