CyberGuy

Is the Mhz specs on the Pocket PC equivalent to the laptop or desktop computer?


In other words, is 500 Mhz on the Pocket PC the same as 500 Mhz on the laptop or desktop computer? Is it like comparing apples and oranges?

lucky644

Originally Posted by CyberGuy

Is the Mhz specs on the Pocket PC equivalent to the laptop or desktop computer? In other words, is 500 Mhz on the Pocket PC the same as 500 Mhz on the laptop or desktop computer? Is it like comparing apples and oranges?

I presume no, just as comparing a 1ghz celeron to a 1ghz duron isn't accurate, so I think pocketpc's probably have their own 'category' as well.

Fortimir

Hz is Hz. It is the number of clock cycles a given processor can handle. That doesn't change across ANY processor. Now, some processors are simplified and have reduced instruction sets and just plain don't handle as much raw data... so although by science they are handling the same clock cycles, what they do is completely different.

__________________


R&R Music Central

lucky644

Originally Posted by Fortimir

Hz is Hz. It is the number of clock cycles a given processor can handle. That doesn't change across ANY processor. Now, some processors are simplified and have reduced instruction sets and just plain don't handle as much raw data... so although by science they are handling the same clock cycles, what they do is completely different.

This is completely, and totally untrue. Why do you think AMD has a different naming scheme? A 3000+ is equal to 3000MHz (compared to Intel) but in reality it is only 2160MHz.

All processers cannot be compared through MHz and MHz alone.

Fortimir

Originally Posted by [[LuCkY]]

This is completely, and totally untrue. Why do you think AMD has a different naming scheme? A 3000+ is equal to 3000MHz (compared to Intel) but in reality it is only 2160MHz. All processers cannot be compared through MHz and MHz alone.

I have a 3200+ and it is 2200 CLOCK CYCLES (double data-rated), which gives it the equivilent speed of around Intel 3Ghz. I said "Clock Cycles are Clock Cylces and cannot be compared, as for this exact reason."

A clock cycle is the same on every platform, but then you through in instruction sets and double-data rating, and hyper-threading... and you get different APPARENT speeds. clock cycles don't change though. just more information per cycle.

__________________


R&R Music Central

Hubtime

Originally Posted by Fortimir

A clock cycle is the same on every platform, but then you through in instruction sets and double-data rating, and hyper-threading... and you get different APPARENT speeds. clock cycles don't change though. just more information per cycle.

Yeah this is my understanding regarding the Speed of a processor. Not all calculations are based on the processing element but also other factors including data streams or hyper-threading, etc. If this understanding is wrong someone will educate us.

Even if you compare two of the same PC's you will see a Mhz speed difference between one with Hyperthreading and one without. Such was the case when I was checking on some Toshiba laptops over a year ago.

__________________
_____________________________
"He is I and I am Him"

Fortimir

It's all in the Front Side Bus, my children.

It's only partially how many clock cycles your processor can support. It's how much data in each cycle can be pushed at a time.


Imagine information being people in a city wanting to get around to different places. And imagine your Front Side Bus (FSB) being, well, busses. If a normal bus can hold 60 people sitting one to a seat... and you run 1 bus every 15 minutes... then that's 240 people per hour.

Let's double data-rate that... and we will keep the same clock cycle but sit two to a seat. Now you are still running 1 bus every 15 minutes, but now you are transporting 480 an hour.

Hyper-Threading? Now you are squeezing FOUR people into a seat and transporting 960 an hour.

But your clock speed didn't change... still just 1 bus every 15 minutes. That's why AMD can do more with less cycles.


133/100Mhz FSB for desktops is considered single data-rate.
266/200Mhz FSB for desktops is considered double-data-rate.
366Mhz FSB is for a lot of the 32-bit AMD Athlons.
400Mhz FSB is AMD's 3000+ and 3200+ as well as Intel's quad-data rate.
800Mhz is some crazy thing that Intel does on their highest-end Pentium 4s.


that's desktop, but I hope you guys get the idea. It's the size of the busses, how fast they are, and how much they can hold. NOT the quantity.

__________________


R&R Music Central

SonicJMC

Pocket PCs can do a LOT with the lower Mhz. I consider it comparion apples to zucini, forget the damn oranges. It seems to be that the whole thing is smaller. I can install an ASSLOAD of apps on a 256Mh card, yet 256Mb on my desktop is near useless for installing software. Same goes for processors. 400Mhz in my Toshiba is usable, but if I clocked my desktop down to 400, I'd be screaming lots of vulgar language at it.
Another example is my DVR. I know it's proc is slower than any PC I have in the house, I think it's slower than my PDA, yet it does it's thing exceptionally well.

geatches

Originally Posted by Fortimir

It's all in the Front Side Bus, my children. It's only partially how many clock cycles your processor can support. It's how much data in each cycle can be pushed at a time. Imagine information being people in a city wanting to get around to different places. And imagine your Front Side Bus (FSB) being, well, busses. If a normal bus can hold 60 people sitting one to a seat... and you run 1 bus every 15 minutes... then that's 240 people per hour. Let's double data-rate that... and we will keep the same clock cycle but sit two to a seat. Now you are still running 1 bus every 15 minutes, but now you are transporting 480 an hour. Hyper-Threading? Now you are squeezing FOUR people into a seat and transporting 960 an hour. But your clock speed didn't change... still just 1 bus every 15 minutes. That's why AMD can do more with less cycles. 133/100Mhz FSB for desktops is considered single data-rate. 266/200Mhz FSB for desktops is considered double-data-rate. 366Mhz FSB is for a lot of the 32-bit AMD Athlons. 400Mhz FSB is AMD's 3000+ and 3200+ as well as Intel's quad-data rate. 800Mhz is some crazy thing that Intel does on their highest-end Pentium 4s. that's desktop, but I hope you guys get the idea. It's the size of the busses, how fast they are, and how much they can hold. NOT the quantity.

Nicely stated, even I understood it.

__________________
hx4705
1G CF Card
Franklin Covey PDA Binder

ShALLaX

Originally Posted by SonicJMC

Pocket PCs can do a LOT with the lower Mhz. I consider it comparion apples to zucini, forget the damn oranges. It seems to be that the whole thing is smaller. I can install an ASSLOAD of apps on a 256Mh card, yet 256Mb on my desktop is near useless for installing software. Same goes for processors. 400Mhz in my Toshiba is usable, but if I clocked my desktop down to 400, I'd be screaming lots of vulgar language at it. Another example is my DVR. I know it's proc is slower than any PC I have in the house, I think it's slower than my PDA, yet it does it's thing exceptionally well.

I disagree, I find ARM CPUs to be extremely sluggish. Imagine running Windows CE on a 624MHZ x86 with 64MB of ram (infact, thats almost exactly what an Xbox is -- AND the Xbox has a version of Windows CE out for it)... the x86 is far more responsive. However, I agree... cross arch comparisons are not fair based on just MHz/ bogomips.

imported_jb2001

^^^^there's always one ^^^^

__________________
HP Jornada 548 -> Toshiba e540 -> Dell Axim X5 (see my PDA) -> HP iPAQ HX4700 -> HTC Hermes (SPV M3100)
2 x 1Gb MMC, 1 x 4Gb CF, 1 x 2Gb MicroSD

IpaqHQ Forever.........

SonicJMC

Originally Posted by ShALLaX

I disagree, I find ARM CPUs to be extremely sluggish. Imagine running Windows CE on a 624MHZ x86 with 64MB of ram (infact, thats almost exactly what an Xbox is -- AND the Xbox has a version of Windows CE out for it)... the x86 is far more responsive. However, I agree... cross arch comparisons are not fair based on just MHz/ bogomips.

Yes, game systems can squeeze an enormous ammount of performance out of processors. I've been utterly amazed at the low clock speeds of game systems.

True

Let's all argue semantics (and have 75% argue with absolutely no knowledge or fact), instead of hitting the real answer here. For example, I could go off about how Fortimir is incorrect about his FSB theory and explanation of said theory (point to point systems do not use an "FSB," which is merely a link that archaic systems, most notibly x86 but other architectures as well, linked the processor to the north bridge, or more appropriately the memory controller). But I won't. I will answer the question at hand.

On direct PPC ports, whole system inclusive, I have noticed that my hx4700 is very slow compared to a desktop machine of equivalent clocked speed. Keep in mind the operating systems and other hardware are totally different and, for the most part, incompatible. Also keep in mind that most of these applications haven't really been optimized for ARM. It really depends on the application, and how well it is written to support said processor (in this case, XScale PXA270 ARM CPU). Some applications may excel above desktop equivalents. Others may not. As far as the applications that I use on MY hx4700, I find it quick enough. Video could use some help however, as it gets a bit jerky sometimes - maybe it is just due to network stack vs cpu load to use video (most of the time it is through network share). I really don't know.

For a rough overall comparison, I may say it is like a 350mhz Celeron with a TNT2 running Winblows, except a little less responsive. No numbers or graphs to back it up, just a quick guesstimate feeling to answer the question provided. However, keep in mind that you will be able to do a lot with this thing

ShALLaX

I would go with that... making sure to state its a 350MHz celeron with LOW available memory ...

I have a LOT of applications installed (mainly on the iPaq filestore), and when I go to the "programs" window, the icons take a LONG time to show and scrolling through them is a nightmare. Not sure if this is down to lack of free RAM or the icons taking a long time to cache from the iPaq FS (slow flashrom?).

I'm not terribly happy with the speed of the device in this respect... pondering the memory upgrade :\

True

ShALLaX, to preserve memory, I believe Windows Mobile does as little caching as possible, or ends up releasing caches. So, when you're going through your program list again, somtimes it has to recheck and make sure icons are valid each time, etc... I have no hard data to back this up, but it is what it feels like it is doing. Maybe I will do some reasearch on it. But regarding reading this icon information over flashrom / other external flash storage, will be a bit slow. This slowdown is noticable when checking for applications on my SD card.

More memory wouldn't help that. However, more memory would help everything else I too am still considering the upgrade... I don't know if I need it really, as with all the applications I use even with large amounts used by those applications I still have ~10mb free, it is kind of scary thinking that I only have that little bit of RAM free...