Originally Posted By: FiZRack
I think making a comparison based on features is one thing, because it allows someone who needs a quad-chorus the ability to make the right choice.

When a comparison is made on something as arbitrary as how many operations per second a processing unit can make vs. another it shows an attempt at undermining the value of an item without equal comparisons.

That is to say, I could build a multi effects device with dual quad Xeon cpu's and process enough instructions per second to land a space shuttle... but without quality algorithms, interfaces and end user experience, it's nothing but a pile of bolts and sheet metal.

I guess the point is, arguments of arbitrary foundation suggest desperation or lack of understanding.


I respectfully disagree, Fiz. I see nothing wrong with discussing the power of the processor inside a unit and comparing them. If one unit, for instance, has more processor power you could assume it has more room for growth. I mean say you have two similar computers. They both have the same quality software on them(which would be algorithms in modeler talk). So given that they run similar, how would you decide which to buy? Wouldn't you look at the internal hardware to see how much room for growth there is? Modelers ARE computers, so I believe this applies.