Received: from [202.164.100.133] by web52902.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 13 Oct 2004 05:10:50 BST Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 05:10:50 +0100 (BST) From: Ankit Jain Subject: Re: clock cycles To: Jim Nelson In-Reply-To: <416C4521.9010207@verizon.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Length: 872 First of all Thanks a lot for help see inline --- Jim Nelson wrote: > > > Not exactly. The processor speed is an indication > of how fast it can > carry out instructions, but on CISC (complex > instruction set computing) > computers (x86, x86-64) some instructions take more > than one clock cycle > to complete. Intel has pushed the clock speed (as > much for marketing as > for any other reason - AMD produces processors that > can do comparable > work at a lower clock speed) Sorry could not understand this. What is making AMD processors work faster than Intel processors at a lower clock cycle. also i want to know how to prove this that AMD 64 bit processors will work faster than Intel 32 bit processor even if they have clock cycles like 3.6 GHz.... >just about as far as it > can go - they are > having severe problems with manufaturing the 3.6 GHz > chips. > It is only an accurate speed comparison between > chips in the same > processor family - the last of the Pentium 3 chips > were actually faster > than the higher-clocked early Pentium 4 releases - > and it's been that Hows that? /is it due to higher clock cycles in P3 and less no. of transistor in early P4? Well definately PowerPC's are faster than Intel. i do agree. Some what i feel a day will come when CISC processors will find difficult to servive... Thanks again ANkit Jain ________________________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html