> none of those numbers fully describe the performance of a CPU, but idk why you would be "skeptical" of frequency numbers in particular Because I have seen qu

> none of those numbers fully describe the performance of a CPU, but idk why you would be "skeptical" of frequency numbers in particular Because I have seen quite a few consumers get guided too much by the "more frequency, more better" motto. Moreover, it doesn't stop there. I have seen papers where the only thing cited is the frequency of the processors, and no other reference to the manufacturer/architecture/version of the processors used. > IPC itself is somewhat arbitrary. in the real world, IPC constantly varies with the mix of instructions, cache-friendliness of the program/data, memory performance, etc. Absolutely, I would also be skeptical of an "IPC" metric. Performance is the only thing that counts.