People people, we've all learnt that frequencies aren't the best way to gauge performance no more.. have we learnt nothing from the debacle known as Netburst and the Megahertz Myth?
AMD had the right idea with their low frequency, low staged yet wide pipelined Athlon X2s and it took the smarts of a small Intel Jewish team in Haifa, Isreal to put Intel back into the fray with the Pentium Ms which became.... the Conroe and they haven't looked back since then...
True. I looked at this rule after posting. I always thought of it as a general computer term. things doubling was the standard for lots of things for a while.
In general RAM capacity, RAM speed, CPU speed, Bus speeds and HD capacity all followed this rule. Whenever anything was upgraded, it was usually double the previous years speed or capacity. Computing in general always seemed to follow the rule. Even going from single core to dual to quad. all are attempts to upgrade and all were in doubles.
I know there has been a CPU that was clock around the 10Ghz mark but I cant remember where I saw it, If i find it ill post it.
To the OP I would say this.
In business, it's best to underestimate and then over-deliver, than to overestimate and under-deliver. If you do the former of the two, that falls into what I call "Mr. Scott's Law" or simply "Scotty's Law". It states that you don't really tell people how long or how much you can do, but give them an underestimate that way when you pull it off in less time and with more than they asked for, you look like a miracle worker."
Quote
