what can't CPU manufacturers just number CPUs by some ACTUAL BENCHMARK?

[dpopiz]

these new numbering schemes are even more annoying that just GHz. now I know probably all major benchmarks currently out there are dependent on a lot of stuff besides CPU. but I'm sure it would be entirely feasible to make one that eliminates the other stuff enough to be useful. and also, I know some are faster for games, some for office, etc. but not THAT MUCH different.

There needs to be just a nice ROUGH benchmark that can be used on all CPUs and that's what CPU manufacturers should use to number their chips. yeah yeah I know not for the AT community, but FOR CONSUMERS. a lot of non-computer people are getting really pissed about all the different nearly meaningless numbering systems

 

[vshah]

bc there would then have to be a standard "benchmarking system" that would have to be overhauled every few years...perhaps

 

[EyeMWing]

"All the different nearly meaningless numbering systems"

You mean AMD's projections and Intel's GHz ratings? They actually line up fairly nicely (until you start playing with the 64bit chips, at which point Intel has nothing to compare against anyway)

 

[nakedfrog]

Whetstone/Dhrystone type of stuff?

 

[HardcoreRobot]

its just not that simple

 

[ActuaryTm]

Originally posted by: dpopiz
what can't CPU manufacturers just number CPUs by some ACTUAL BENCHMARK?

With English skills such as yours, you might consider working in the marketing department of one of the processor manufacturers.

Wait. Perhaps you already do.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
its just not that simple

True. I've heard tell that certain companies who shall remain nameless have, in the past, made specific modifications for the sole purpose of improving benchmark performance.

 

[mugs]

Because then they'd design processors specifically to score highly in those benchmarks, regardless of how well they measure real-world performance.

 

[her209]

No, they just need to capitalize everything.

 

[RaiderJ]

If you want a magic number, you'd have just as much success making one up yourself.

 

[jagec]

Because the different processors are better at different things. Benchmarks would invariably make one processor look worse than it really is. And if you did a multipart benchmark, how do you weigh the different aspects of performance?

 

[blakeatwork]

???

And not have any FUD from either side??? What would the CPU wars be without FUD???

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
True. I've heard tell that certain companies who shall remain nameless have, in the past, made specific modifications for the sole purpose of improving benchmark performance.

<cough> nVidia? </cough>

 

[ElFenix]

because the only benchmark that is worthwhile is the specific software you're running.

 

[cavemanmoron]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
because the only benchmark that is worthwhile is the specific software you're running.

 

[Phoenix86]

Mhz is truely on par with HP. Neither determine the speed of the product.

What would you have them use?

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: mugs
Because then they'd design processors specifically to score highly in those benchmarks, regardless of how well they measure real-world performance.

bingo

 

[silverpig]

*whispers*

It's a conspiracy by Anand to stay in business... if hardware was n00btastically easy, he'd be out of a job...

*runs*

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: silverpig
*whispers*

It's a conspiracy by Anand to stay in business... if hardware was n00btastically easy, he'd be out of a job...

*runs*

:thumbsup: :beer:
lmao