From: Pd on
Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote:

> Richard Tobin <richard(a)cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > In article <68c0vkF2qo636U1(a)mid.individual.net>,
> > Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote:
> > >Yes. When did we get 3.06 as a measurement.
> >
> > It's because they're multiples of 133MHz.
> >
> > 2.4 = 18x, 2.66 = 20x, 2.8 = 21x, 3.06 = 23x.
>
> Still, 3 would sound a lot better than 3.06

Yebbut, it's important to be able to say "the processor runs at *over* 3
GHz".

--
Pd
From: Woody on
Pd <peterd.news(a)gmail.invalid> wrote:

> Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Richard Tobin <richard(a)cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <68c0vkF2qo636U1(a)mid.individual.net>,
> > > Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote:
> > > >Yes. When did we get 3.06 as a measurement.
> > >
> > > It's because they're multiples of 133MHz.
> > >
> > > 2.4 = 18x, 2.66 = 20x, 2.8 = 21x, 3.06 = 23x.
> >
> > Still, 3 would sound a lot better than 3.06
>
> Yebbut, it's important to be able to say "the processor runs at *over* 3
> GHz".

I guess it probably does!

--
Woody

www.alienrat.com