Consumer PCs have long abandoned the multi-GHz race for core count and NPU inflation.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [S] 7 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (3 children)

I think there are two parts to this. There are factors beyond clock rate; clock rate alone doesn't give a full picture. Going from say 166 MHz to 1 GHz brings radical performance improvements without too many drawbacks, once you go above 3-4 GHz, the marginal increase in clock rates becomes increasingly expensive in terms of heat management.

EDIT: Didn't realize there was difference between mHz and MHz.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 8 months ago* (2 children)

    Watch out for your prefixes, 166 mHz would be one operation every 6 seconds.
    I don't think there ever has been a CPU that slow ;-)

    (small letter "g" doesn't exist as a prefix, but could be easily confused as the unit gram-Hertz)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago

    I once made an incredibly limited cpu on paper, basically had the whole cpu in logic gate on a piece of paper. Tried to run the most basic programm on it by hand and i can assure you thet it was much slower than 166mhz XD

  • source
  • parent