8/13    First Apple fought the MHz Myth, now its AMD's turn:
        <DEAD>netscape.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,5095403,00.html<DEAD>
        \_ Unfortunately, most people in this country have never taken a
           class like CS 152 and just can't grasp this concept. As a
           result most people believe that a chip with higher clock speeds
           is automatically faster than one with a lower frequency. What's
           worse is that Steve Jobs actually said something right for once
           making the "MHz myth" less credible.
           \_ People who care about cars know the difference between HP
              and torque. People who care about computers will understand
              the important criteria for CPUs. Don't sweat it.
        \_ not to be jaded, but, whoop-pe-de-doo-dah
        \_ You dont need to take cs152.  You just need to understand that
           AMD Athlons or IBM/Motorola PPC's get more done each cycle than
           an Intel Pentium-whatever.  It can use less cycles to get the
           same amount of work done, and by using less cycles, use less
           an Intel Pentium-whatever.  It can use fewer cycles to get the
           same amount of work done, and by using fewer cycles, use less
           power -- saving the environment, increasing the lifetime of the
           chip, and saving the skin of your lap from being burned off by
           a wasteful overheated CPU.
           \_ That's 'fewer' cycles, you dumbass.  Geez, no wonder they
              make engineers take E190.
              \_ The name is Dumass.
              \_ fine so I wrote this w/o the morning caffeine.  does more
                 with less work.  more efficient.  good enough peon?
        \_ My Celeron 400MHz at home is almost twice as slow as my P-II
           350MHz at my previous job.  Why can't AMD run an ad to say that MHz
           is just like RPM on a car engine, that it's not the RPM that counts
           but how fast a car can go at the given RPM that counts?  One engine
           rev on a 6-cyliner can move the car more inches than one engine rev
           on a 4-cyl, so a 6-cyl car can be going faster than a 4-cyl car at
           a particular moment even though the RPM on the 4-cyl is higher at
           that time.  One difference between CPUs and engines is that CPUs
           runs at a constant clock rate, so the ad may need to compare the car
           speeds with the engines at their red lines, assuming that they can
           find two cars that are capable to reach their red lines at their
           top gears and the red line on the 6-cyl is lower than that on the
           4-cyl.  --- yuen
           \_ Have you used both CPUs on -identically- configured systems?
              \_ No.  --- yuen
           \_ People have been suggesting this very idea to sjobs@apple.com
              for several years. I think the main problem with it is that
              the average pc buyer has no idea what RPMs are. The only possible
              good that will come of this idea (if implemented) is that people
              will want cars with more RPMs and Honda stock holders will benefit.
              \_ Oh, I forgot that most people drive automatic these days.
                 --- yuen
                 \_ "Making life more difficult is always better!"(tm)
                    \_ That's why they invented computers, man.
           \_ My Celeron 300 (oc'd to 450) is faster than my PII 400Mhz...