Talk:Megahertz myth

message: The real myth is this article -- GHz is the primary performance guide even with duo cores since the processors on large multiprocesser computers can only be managed well at a 2:1 ratio.  So it takes a quad core to equal the processing speed of two individual computers.  And you still might not see much performance boost as software is mostly written to perfom serially.  One educator comparing his old single core to his new dual core running at the same rate said it seemed the same, only graphics ran faster.  Agreed, certian processor details like processor cycles to complete key instructions have significant performance impact but lacking a table of those, the GHz rate is the only way to buy new computers.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.139.220.8 (talk) 11:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? All the benchmark reports and technical papers discussing large multiprocessor computers have roughly 65 to 80 percent performance improvements for every additional processor. Additionally, just becuase the software is badly designed or not optimised for multicore processors does not mean that multicore processors (or any processor exploiting other methods to achieve high performance) are bad and that GHz is the only factor in performance. Rilak (talk) 06:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Too many variables, just google for some system shootouts. Izzat source enough, or do you want me to dig about in my old mags from 1997? ...dave souza 17:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Benchmarks

message: It says, "AMD introducing model numbers giving a notional clock speed based on comparative performance to overcome a perceived deficiency in their actual clock speed."  yet I have never seen anything official regarding to this.  I think this too is a myth created by AMD fanboys, as the only reliable information about this notion that I have heard is that the numbers were created specifically for marketing purposes only and nothing to do with the actual performance of the AthlonXP.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.74.48.25 (talk) 18:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It always depends on what benchmarks you use, but in most benchmarks I have seen, the Athlon XP 2000+ actually outperformed the Pentium 4 with 2 GHz. Yes, high clockrates and long pipelinses were the way to go for Intelk at the time they intruduced the Netburst-architechture and I am sure they did some research before they made this decision, but not because of real performance, but because of marketing. Marketing research is also a kind of research. --MrBurns (talk) 20:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: AMD CPU numbers

message: Although the article is fairly well written, there does seem to be a slight amount of bias for the PowerPC processors.  Perhaps someone could reword it to remove the bias while still maintaining the factuality? Paul Cyr 18:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Further detailed factuality added to achieve NPOV. Note that the points made are taken from the linked articles, and the "megahertz myth" keynote can be viewed as a 17.1 Mb movie download from the linked source. ...dave souza 00:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Hi 73.170.79.95, nice to hear you're an old-school Apple Apologist. Really rather of historical interest and of course the processors were by IBM, but the point about comparing different chips by clock speed is timeless. . . dave souza, talk 17:08, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: The section of the history of the myth is far too cluttered.  I think the main problem with it is that it gives a blow by blow account of the usage of the term, when it should simply say how the myth started. (comment by Paul Cyr)
:Point noted, in my opinion the background is important to understanding the myth, but I'll look at tidying up this section. ....dave souza 19:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: To counter the PowerPC bias, perhaps a section or statement should be added regarding apple's change to using Intel processors in place of the PowerPC. 69.68.125.6 (talk) 05:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's already there: Megahertz myth#The myth becomes counterproductive. .. dave souza, talk 11:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not any more. The entire section "The myth becomes counterproductive" was deleted in a "removed unreferenced material" edit (). Is there anything that should be restored? --DavidCary (talk) 17:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed "Irony" Section

message: It is so lame to have an article like this with no references to actual ways of measuring performance.
-69.87.204.26 (talk) 01:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: . The first paragraph now links to benchmark and computer performance, which in turn link to notable ways of measuring performance. --DavidCary (talk) 17:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Performance measurement 

message: I removed a dead link to a page at jmusheneaux dot com. It wasn't available on the Internet Archive, and the description wasn't clear what it was.
Ken (talk) 03:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed a dead link 

message: The article currently over-belabors how poorly designed multithreaded software or single-threaded software can never take full advantage of multicore CPUs so it is not reasonable to say a CPUs speed is somehow proportional to the clock speed time the number of cores. Well, all things being equal, that's EXACTLY what the relative speed of two otherwise similar CPUs actually is. If one has amazingly designed multithreaded software and it's run on a single or dual core CPU it's not going to magically start running faster and vice versa. The inherent capability of the CPU is what is at issue in discussions of the "megahertz myth", not what lipstick covered pig piece of software someone might decide to run (or code) on it.
I don't really want to rewrite that section, but I wanted to point that out.
198.81.129.186 (talk) 20:59, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Software Red Herring 

message: This entire section needs to be removed, or completely rewritten. Almost all of the concepts conveyed in the section are completely wrong. This is not how multithreading works whatsoever. One thread runs on one core, no amount of instruction scheduling will change that.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.224.221 (talk) 11:35, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern adaptations of the myth