bkswaney
10-06-04, 12:34 AM
there are many more aspects to the "clockspeed" story.. Let me give a good example.. The Intel Pentium IV processor @ .13u clockspeeds ranging from 2.4Ghz up to 3.4Ghz.. when the 2.4Ghz were released there was no 3.4Ghz version. But by fixing stuff on the core design (revising) they could bump the speed higher and higher. the same story goes for AMD. their first .13u processors weren't as highly clocked as their latest .13u counterparts.
Low-K and stuff can boost performance without making big revisions. But the most gains can be found in the design. hell.. with your reasoning the Athlon64 wouldn't go past the 500Mhz barrier. But they do.. they reach as high as 2600Mhz (stock versions, not OC'd ones) that's 2100Mhz more.
But in the graphic card area there are no
years to revise cores.
There are whole new cores every 12 to 24 months.
NV and ATI cannot do like intel and amd does on cpu's.
Low-K and stuff can boost performance without making big revisions. But the most gains can be found in the design. hell.. with your reasoning the Athlon64 wouldn't go past the 500Mhz barrier. But they do.. they reach as high as 2600Mhz (stock versions, not OC'd ones) that's 2100Mhz more.
But in the graphic card area there are no
years to revise cores.
There are whole new cores every 12 to 24 months.
NV and ATI cannot do like intel and amd does on cpu's.