blackdynomitesnewbag t1_j44d4i1 wrote
Reply to comment by r_golan_trevize in Intel breaks the 6GHz barrier with $699 Core i9-13900KS processor by Avieshek
We could’ve gotten to 6GHz sooner by using deeper pipelines like the Pentium line, but it would’ve resulted in poorer performance. Clock cycles per second isn’t everything, what you do with those cycles is just as if not more important.
beefcat_ t1_j45666r wrote
Yeah, I remember when their Penryn-based chips came out and even with a single core they wiped the floor with my aging Pentium 4 at much lower clock speeds
Geek55 t1_j45u712 wrote
The Pentium 4s were basically a step backwards from the Pentium 3s architecturally but Intel wanted a big number to stick on the box.
BroMatterhorn t1_j49bajy wrote
It worked too. AMD was killing it back then, but people didn’t understand the lower number was still faster.
JukePlz t1_j46sj30 wrote
Modern processors also support more special purpose instruction sets, and a lot more instructions per cycle. So a newer processor at the same clock speed can still be a lot faster than a previous generation processor.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments