Originally posted by: SaintGeorge
And btw If you think a 3.0L V-6 can beat a 6.0L V-8, you are very mistaken my boy.
There are plenty of examples of 3 litre engine's outclassing 6 litre's, many in fact.
Just look at some of the engines that come from Porch, Ferrari, Mcalren and Lambourghini's workshops. Incredible performance from relatively small cylinders on some of their cars. And the point was to demonstrate how clock speed in mhz isn't a good measure of performance anymore between two different processors, just like a litre of Ferrari engine space five times as fast as some big crappy low tech V8 that relies on size instead of technology and build quality for power.
I distain from your use of the term "boy" when referring to me after speaking of the above argument. You clearly have very little knowledge or car mechanics if you think engine size the main measure of perofrmance in a cars engine, there are so many other factors that determine an engines performance it'd take a day to write them all out. You speak is if all engines with the same cc's and number of cylinders are exactly the same. Really think a 3 litre engine on a ford will give the same performance as a 3 litre engine on a Porche 911 Turbo's? I realise the cost of each is different but thats irrelevant to my statement that some 3L engines can outperform some 6L engines.
And yes there are several models of Porches 911 Turbo with 3 litre engines in them.
So many thing's can increase a car peformance rather than just its engine size, composite valve springs, twin or quad valves on each cylinder, turbos especially and, high performance air filters, high performance exhaust and extraction systems, fuel injection mechanicsm's and distributed cylinder carborettors and even cylinder individual carborettors are to name but a few.
I never said the fastest 3.0 litre V6 is faster than the fastest 6.0 litre V8. Just that some 3 litre engines can be faster than some 6 litre V8's which is perfectly true.
I say again this is to demonstrate how comparing of direct clock speeds in mhz isn't a fair comparison between P4's and XP's. Everyone knows that Athlons XP processors are faster at the same clock speeds than P4's mhz for mhz.
Do you really belive that the 2.53ghz will come down to $210 on 25th August, losing over half its value? I don't think so. 2.26's are set to go to around about the $200 mark so your living in fantasy land there. And the XP is faster than the 2.26 is most situations:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1635&p=10
AMD simply wouldn't be allowed to quote their PR speeds (XP3400+ or whatever) higher than they were. They'd be sued in five minutes, thats why they are so modest with their current XP ratings so there no threat of legal action about them "misleading" people.
AMD XP rating was a clever idea, because they needed something to quickly show the average uninformed joe that their XP2000 processor is as fast as a 2ghz. It'd take a while to tell someone that knows nothing of computers and cpu's which the average buyer doesn't, that AMD's XP processor is the same speed even though its clock slower than equivalent P4's.
I'm sure someone who knows a little a bout cars will back me up on the engine side of thing's, any car mechanics here?
AMD will never be allowed to quote its processors are being faster than they are, so they wouldn't even think about it. Consumer association's would be onto them instantly.
And that concludes my rant.
Mark