Talk:Megahertz myth

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search


Upon reading this article, I find that the top is missional, and the rest is general knowledge that you can read in a textbook – it even reads like a textbook too. The missional content doesn't even cite the sources of the crank idea and analyze the sources. This article has a long ways to go.—チーズバーガー • めん Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 02:46, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

This popped up in recent changes and I had a very similar thought 2 years later. The fact is that clock speed is a legitimate measurement of CPUs(and GPUs) and treating like the only thing that matters is kind of a simple error. Like thinking only megapixels matter for cameras or only horsepower matters for cars. It's a specific case of a general kind of mistake. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 23:23, 22 February 2019 (UTC)


Having an article that atleast tries to cut through the assorted ol' "more bits = looks better!"/"more gigs = runs faster!"/"more herz = a whole new experience!"-type computer myths is good, especially since a central theme of what we do as a skeptical resource is to provide consumer information (regardless of if people consume ideas or products, per se). So the goal of the article is worthy. This isn't a comment on the contents of the current article, which I've barely perused. But the idea is highly missional. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 03:05, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

An image we can use[edit]

Ta-daah! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 03:27, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Relevant?[edit] Reverend Black Percy (talk) 03:28, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Scrolling down to "The multi-core myth", it looks like it.—チーズバーガー • めん Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 04:02, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


This article is eccentric to RW's mission, as currently written, but with some cleanup, summarization, links, and snark it could be worthy of bronze. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 03:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Not to be confused with[edit]

This beastie. (talk) 08:54, 2 May 2017 (UTC)