Is it just me

Whe I see 800MHz at 4 cas.. i think 400 at 2cas (dayum fast)

Yup RW speeds went up... but they went up with sata 2 also....

Just like HDDs latencies are worse..

does ayone else get the idea that technology in some aspects has not really improved over the last 10 years as far as memory/storage..only been slowly released to the public for sustained economic growth?


Im reminscent of some becnhmarks I saw a couple years back.. .with LAtencies in the low 30s on 939 and in the 60s for ddr2 CPUs... evne htough teh ddr2 was apprachin 10G but only 5G in the opposite (read or write I forget...) DDR was even R and W...

So am I crazy? Is that why my 4600 x2 at stock felt better hen my e6300 at 3.5GHz?

No your not but the E6300 goes farther in the end.. I kinda see it like two cars in a race.. one might have more acceleration but the other has a higher top speed... or something like that

No. Memory and hard drives were a lot harder to develop. It is not a monopoly, but a competitive business where each company is trying to edge each other out in performance. They have no reason to hold back. Everything has been state of the art. With some things like where you see no performance increase, it is usually more profitable for the company because of higher yields or cheaper manufacturing costs. The stuff is cheaper than it used to be for the same performance. Take your tin foil off.

SeasonalEclipse said:

No your not but the E6300 goes farther in the end.. I kinda see it like two cars in a race.. one might have more acceleration but the other has a higher top speed... or something like that

Click to expand...

Yah.. it dont hurt that the conroe has more IPCs then the K8... that is another area where the HW companies are lying to us though... Its why I say that early gen chips are the best to get... they tell you where the product line will g0 to... or in the case of conroe... not even stop there... but keep going.....

939s hitting 3GHz was not hte rule but nice... they stopped in that range (had to die shrink to do it as stock though) Companies look to us to tell them where they are going to go with their products i think.....

So am I crazy? Is that why my 4600 x2 at stock felt better hen my e6300 at 3.5GHz?

Click to expand...

Have seen this mentioned a few times on other forums also, some ppl feel X2 was snappier. Could be the IMC, latencies are considerably better on AMDs, C2D relies heavily on its more efficient cache, on program start theres nothing usable there and then memory latency could make all thew difference?