Processor speed in ghz; the higher the faster. need a reply quick - Techist - Tech Forum

Go Back   Techist - Tech Forum > Computer Hardware > Monitors, Printers and Peripherals
Click Here to Login
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 10-24-2006, 03:20 PM   #1 (permalink)
True Techie
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Finland
Posts: 180
Arrow Processor speed in ghz; the higher the faster. need a reply quick

ok so on my lectures slides it says
Processor
-higher clock rate,
faster computer.
Unit MHz.

this is wrong. It all depends on the memory controler, and the amount of L2 cache it has, and also on the rated FSB, and how effecient the cpu is per turn.

Is my theory correct or???
__________________

__________________
Furby:
2500k @ 4.5Ghz max: 81C idle 33C
8 gigs ddr 3 Kingston Hyper x T1 @ 1600mhz
Asus P8P67Pro b3.1
Evga GeForce gtx 560 at 940mhz 1gbddr5
western digital black 1tb sata3
Viewsonic 22"
Windows 7 home premium 64bit
beluga is offline  
Old 10-24-2006, 03:36 PM   #2 (permalink)
Master Techie
 
baronvongogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: United Kingdom, Warrington
Posts: 2,756
Default

Depends how old the information the slides are based on.
__________________

__________________
baronvongogo is offline  
Old 10-24-2006, 03:56 PM   #3 (permalink)
True Techie
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Finland
Posts: 180
Default

well yea but i mean these days it shouldnt matter.... but when pentium 4 478 existed i did matter with intel... but amd beat them all the time with lower cores...
__________________
Furby:
2500k @ 4.5Ghz max: 81C idle 33C
8 gigs ddr 3 Kingston Hyper x T1 @ 1600mhz
Asus P8P67Pro b3.1
Evga GeForce gtx 560 at 940mhz 1gbddr5
western digital black 1tb sata3
Viewsonic 22"
Windows 7 home premium 64bit
beluga is offline  
Old 10-24-2006, 05:35 PM   #4 (permalink)
G33K P0W3R!!!!
 
bmxfreakrider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: HickTown, California (hesperia), and West Hollywood
Posts: 2,068
Default

ahh...let me get u a link

EDIT: here

just read that...ittl tell ya.
__________________
Listen to my music! and random/funny videos XD
Need a HDTV? Come find me at BestBuy #108 in Victorville XD
:D-----v Just pwnt my cpu, 900mhz OC v-----:D
bmxfreakrider is offline  
Old 10-24-2006, 11:48 PM   #5 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 602
Default

dude the speed relys on the ghz almost as much as the l2 cache the l2 cache is basically a memory module in the processor and basically remebers the processes you want to do and the ghzs speeds it along if the process is larger than the l2 cache it is transfered to the hardrive and will be acessed which takes a while so if your looking at buying a processor with higher ghz versus one with higher l2 then get the higher l2 almost always
keyser09 is offline  
Old 10-25-2006, 05:15 PM   #6 (permalink)
Wizard Techie
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 3,247
Default

if your just talking about the proc speed, and not system speed but just amount of cycles then yes, that is correct. However, if your talking not only cycles then you have to put into consideration the rest of the architecture.
__________________
If you argue with an idiot he will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

I am not a fast writer.
I am not a slow writer.
I am a half-fast writer.

-Robert Asprin
killians45 is offline  
Old 10-25-2006, 05:18 PM   #7 (permalink)
Memberbot
 
Elbatrop1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 4,057
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by keyser09
dude the speed relys on the ghz almost as much as the l2 cache the l2 cache is basically a memory module in the processor and basically remebers the processes you want to do and the ghzs speeds it along if the process is larger than the l2 cache it is transfered to the hardrive and will be acessed which takes a while so if your looking at buying a processor with higher ghz versus one with higher l2 then get the higher l2 almost always
Huh?

....

Anyways, read Nitestick's guide. It will tell all.
__________________

Intel E6750...........PSN: ELBATROP
XFX nForce 650i Ultra
Patriot PC2-6400 8GB (4x2GB)
eVGA 9800GT
36GB WD Raptor
120GB SG
1TB SG
Logitech X-530
Samsung SyncMaster 931c
Samsung SyncMaster 750s
Windows 7 Home Premium 64
Elbatrop1 is offline  
Old 10-25-2006, 06:26 PM   #8 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 5,191
Default

I guess if you are just talking about clock speed, then yes, the higher the faster...
The General is offline  
Old 10-25-2006, 07:14 PM   #9 (permalink)
Lord Techie
 
Nitestick's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: смерти для спаме
Posts: 8,473
Default

see the problem with the statement isn't that it's incorrect. it's that it doesn't give a context. sure a 2.4GHz Athlon 64 is faster than a 2.0GHz Athlon 64, it's also faster than a 3.4GHz Pentium 4. but i'm going to have to say that the statement is incorrect. Intel found in it's research with Netburst that the Prescott core did not scale well performance wise and the larger the clock rate the lower the performance boost over the previous clock rate. i guess it could be theorised at a point there would be little to no performance increase with clock speed anyway.

i would take the statement as being correct if in the context of comparing identical processor cores i.e. San Diego vs. San Diego etc.
__________________

Nitestick is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off




Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:10 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.