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

  • Rekall Incorporated@piefed.socialOPM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    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.

    • Multiplexer@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      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)

      • polotype@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 days 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