I can’t believe people still look at Hz and think it’s a sole metric that can be used for performance.
Do you think they look at the 2005 Pentium 4’s 3.8GHz and assume it’s only slightly worse than what Nvidia will put on the market?
Comment on NVIDIA could enter the desktop CPU market with performance equal to AMD and Intel
markz@suppo.fi 3 weeks agoI don’t think it should even be comparable between totally different architectures.
Peffse@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
BoxOfFeet@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
I’d take one of those. My P4 is only 3.0 GHz.
obbeel@lemmy.eco.br 3 weeks ago
I’m hopeful ARM will follow more the licensing path than the going full Android path. I think stronger ARM computers, built at the ISA level by any company are also stronger RISCV computers. Builders like Rockchip (China) show that ARM and RISCV computers will bring alternatives to people, possibly with smaller fabs or on demand.
eleitl@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
Truly open/libre systems will have to be RISCV. They don’t have to be the fastest.
Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
Yeah, we’ve been through this exact same game with multiple iterations of Intel and AMD chips. When AMD first started doing consumer CPUs they badged them according to their equivalent Intel clock speed because one to one comparisons were misleading.
What’s the L1 and L2 cache? What are the bus speeds? How many cores and how are they architectured? Multi-threading? How many steps is the instruction cycle? There are so many factors beyond just clock speed that play into real world performance.