4x2.2 = 8.8Steel wrote:
why quad 2.2 or 2.6 if dual is 3.0?
seems two large beat 4 small, no?
http://andymerrett.co.uk/wp-content/upl … estion.gif
2x3 = 6
....................................................
2x3 = 6
....................................................
If only it worked that way. Sadly, you can't just multiply up the clock speeds like that. So, for example, comparing like with like - 4x3.0 is not twice as powerful as 2x3.0 - it all depends on the application - in some cases a Quad is more than twice as powerful as the same speed Dual (a lot more, in fact) and in some cases it's just the same.Funky_Finny wrote:
4x2.2 = 8.8Steel wrote:
why quad 2.2 or 2.6 if dual is 3.0?
seems two large beat 4 small, no?
http://andymerrett.co.uk/wp-content/upl … estion.gif
2x3 = 6
You can't do it like that! Goddammit, you're the fifth, THE FIFTH person I've had to tell that today, TODAY!!!Funky_Finny wrote:
4x2.2 = 8.8Steel wrote:
why quad 2.2 or 2.6 if dual is 3.0?
seems two large beat 4 small, no?
http://andymerrett.co.uk/wp-content/upl … estion.gif
2x3 = 6
....................................................
And I HAVE told YOU before!
The idea of any hi-fi system is to reproduce the source material as faithfully as possible, and to deliberately add distortion to everything you hear (due to amplifier deficiencies) because it sounds 'nice' is simply not high fidelity. If that is what you want to hear then there is no problem with that, but by adding so much additional material (by way of harmonics and intermodulation) you have a tailored sound system, not a hi-fi. - Rod Elliot, ESP