Quarto: First of all, thanks from changing from attack to discuss mode.
Listen to yourself - you are not merely arguing that most people don't know the difference between these two processors, you are actually claiming that most people, given the answer, would be too stupid to understand it.
Yeah, bad choice of words on my part. What I meant to say was that when you introduce IPC to people they react like it's some completely new concept, and their entire perception of what makes a fast computer gets turned on it's head. I didn't mean to say that most people won't believe you (although in my experience, there are people like that), but at the moment I couldn't come up with the right words to express exactly what I meant.
And that's even more true in this case - if a customer is offered a choice between, say, a 2 GHz dual-core processor and a 3 GHz Pentium 4 processor, and the salesman tells him that the 2 GHz processor is better, the customer will most certainly ask why a slower processor is in fact better. And the salesman will manage to explain it, even if he's dealing with a complete retard - because if he doesn't, then he won't make a sale.
You're going off topic, as we are not talking about someone who is in the process of buying a computer, we are talking about someone who is reading the required specs of a game and seeing if his computer can run that game, but I'll indulge you anyway
Your example is somewhat valid, and I'm sure it has happened to some consumers, but the introduction of the model numbers really muddles things up. You don't hear a salesman calling a processor a "2.2GHz Athlon 64 X2"; he calls it the AthlonX2 4200+ or in the case of the C2D he calls it the E6700 (and why wouldn't he? the bigger number sounds better and it saves himself the hassle of explaining IPC in the first place!)
The thing is, if you could count on salespeople to explain the difference between processors and/or consumers comprehending the differences. AMD would have *never* had to incorporate model ratings into it's AthlonXP brand in the first place. I mean, you had 1.2GHz Athlons that humiliated Pentium 4 Williamites clocked over 400MHz faster, and the consumers still thought the Pentium 4's were faster based off of clockspeed alone. Now that both companies use model numbers, the consumers have become somewhat more enlightened but also more confused. On the one hand, you have Intel that uses an arbitrary letters and numbers that don't say at first glance anything about the processor, and you have AMD who uses an eligible "equivalent to this MHz+" rating that has quickly spun out of control, and you also have the clock frequencies themselves. This mess of numbers has forced some consumers to find out for themselves which processor is better, but for many consumers has made buying computers even more confusing, so that they are forced to say to the salesman, "I want a computer to do X, Y, and Z, what do you got?" and base their purchasing decision off of that.
An argument is a discussion involving differing viewpoints. This is certainly an argument.
I think 'argument' also implies that the discussion is somewhat heated. For example, I wouldn't call the first few posts an argument, but Quarto and I are most definitely arguing
.