you should expect a higher percentage gain from Intel, since they went from being the less efficient, slower processor to the more efficient, faster processor. Intel simply had more wrong with their old design than AMD. <br>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Jan 30, 2008 2:00 PM, John Drescher <<a href="mailto:drescherjm@gmail.com">drescherjm@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="Ih2E3d">> "While the comparison of different Intel processor generations<br>> revealed performance per watt improvements of over 400% if you compare<br>> the a 3 GHz Pentium 4 630 and a 3 GHz Core 2 Duo E6850, AMD only<br>
> managed to improve its performance per watt ratio by less than 60%<br>> (Phenom quad core compared to the Sempron single core). The<br>> performance per watt results will be more impressive if you run<br>> intensive workloads; thread-optimized applications will benefit even<br>
> more from multiple cores."<br>><br></div>There is a very good reason for the 400% improvement from the P4 and<br>core2. The P4 was a horribly inefficient design that sacrificed<br>performance to get the highest clock speed it could at the time of<br>
production because most consumers believed this was the only true<br>measure of performance.<br><font color="#888888"><br>John<br></font><div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c">_______________________________________________<br>
mythtv-users mailing list<br><a href="mailto:mythtv-users@mythtv.org">mythtv-users@mythtv.org</a><br><a href="http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users" target="_blank">http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>