Hello, everyone! I’ve been doing some research into computer hardware lately, and one thing that I keep coming across is this idea that the speed of a processor, while important, isn’t the only thing that affects a computer’s overall performance. I’m having a bit of a hard time wrapping my head around this because I always thought that a faster processor meant a faster computer. Can anyone explain why this isn’t necessarily the case? I’m really interested to learn more about this!
In: 97
Take a look at the Nintendo Switch. The CPU is an ARM quad core processor operating at just a little more than 1 GHz. Apparently, one core of the CPU is dedicated to the OS.
Now let’s look at the XBox 360. The CPU uses the PowerPC architecture, and has three cores running at 3.2 GHz
The Switch has a number of games on it that were also available for the 360, but they usually run at a higher resolution or framerate (obviously, there are exceptions to this). The Switch does have a lot more RAM and a slightly better GPU, but even still the Switch is still able to “keep up” despite only playing with a total of 4 GHz as opposed to the 360’s total of 9.6 GHz. If CPU power was just about GHz, the XBox 360 would be easily twice as powerful as a Switch, when in reality the Switch is a bit more powerful due to the amount of RAM it has, but is otherwise kinda comparable to the 360.
In all honesty, two systems shouldn’t really be compared, but it is a good example of how different architectures and a decade of technological advancements is more important than how many GHz each machine has.
Latest Answers