Advanced Micro Devices Inc (AMD)

[chipguy]

OK, how 'bout this: MHz sucks tailpipes. QHz sucks tailpipes, but not as badly.

This only works if you buy into the premise that Intel misrepresents clock frequency
as a performance measurement. I think it is a mistake to buy into this AMD partison
style argument but even if you do then I still think QHz is even worse than MHz. Why?
Because neither represents performance accurately (a single number never can)
but at least MHz has a physical objective basis in reality while QHz is a completely
arbitrary and fictionalized value.

But I don't buy the charge that Intel misrepresents clock rate as a performance. Intel,
like most other microprocessor vendors, uses clock frequency as a unambiguous
and objective way to classify different speed of devices of a given processor model.
The fact that Intel clearly distinguishes performance from clock rate is demonstrated
by the large variety of benchmarking data that it typically releases when it introduces
a new speed grade of processor.