From: user@example.net   
      
   Nikos Chantziaras wrote:   
   > J.O. Aho wrote:   
   >> Going with two cores gives you a possibility to get a CPU with a   
   >> higher Hz, but at the same time the dual cores has older design, so   
   >> each Hz won't deliver as much power as on a CPu with a newer design.   
   >   
   > Uhm, no?  It's the *exact* same architecture.   
      
   The architecture is the same, keep in mind that a 32bit x86 CPU is the same   
   architecture as 8080, of course with the years there has been made improvement   
   to the CPU design and added on things. Running a 686 on 1MHz and a 8080 on   
   1MHz, the later will be outperformed.   
   Blindly looking at the MHz of a CPU is just plain stupid, Motorola, Freescale,   
   AMD are some of the companies which have tried to teach people this, but sadly   
   companies as Intel has managed to keep people believe in that the MHz is   
   everything, thats why Apple once in the time made the video "The MHz myth"   
   which in a simple way described why you can't trust the MHz as comparison   
   (they removed the video from their site when they jumped ship to intel).   
      
   There are differences between the dual core (older generation) and quad/tri   
   core (newer generation), so you can't just compare the MHz, you need to have   
   in mind the performance improvements in the new generation of the core,   
   specially in the 9x50 series (the 9x00 series had a flaw).   
      
   With newer versions of gcc you can build even more optimized binaries for the   
   quad/tri core CPUs, this can make the system even more responsive (keep in   
   mind that we humans may not notice the difference).   
      
   --   
      
      //Aho   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)