Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

iDerion

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Dec 16, 2010
4
0
Somewhere
Hey! uhm i feel stupid... But is 2.16 Ghz better then 2.4? Becuase Apple updated 2.1 Ghz to 2.16 once. But then updated 2.26 Ghz to 2.4 so im confused:confused:
 
Basically, cpu's aren't the bottleneck anymore. Hard drive speed among other things is what's slowing computers down. That's why when you upgrade to an SSD (solid state drive) the computer performance takes a leap forward.

Also, adding more cores speeds the computation power up even though the actual clock speed may be slower. Just think about it like a super fast worker working on an assembly line isn't going to be as fast as two/four normal workers.

Measuring speed by MHz was never a really good idea and it's gotten worse with current technology.
 
Hey! uhm i feel stupid... But is 2.16 Ghz better then 2.4? Becuase Apple updated 2.1 Ghz to 2.16 once. But then updated 2.26 Ghz to 2.4 so im confused:confused:

Extra cores do give you more of a boost than an increase in Ghz, but I also think you are reading those numbers wrong. When dealing with decimals, add zeros so that both numbers have the same amount of digits past the decimal. 2.26 Ghz is slower than 2.40Ghz just like 2.16Ghz is faster than 2.10Ghz. After the decimal point, the zeros are just "understood" to be there.
 
Extra cores do give you more of a boost than an increase in Ghz, but I also think you are reading those numbers wrong. When dealing with decimals, add zeros so that both numbers have the same amount of digits past the decimal. 2.26 Ghz is slower than 2.40Ghz just like 2.16Ghz is faster than 2.10Ghz.

OH OK! Thanks! Now it makes sense! Lol i feel like i shouldn't be in the 9th grade.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.