4 ms·
As I said, we aren't talking about hz, this is about cycle * hz. You aren't adding hz, you are adding cycles. I argued in my comment why I think this is ok.
by rm999 14y ago
As I said, we aren't talking about hz, this is about cycle * hz. You aren't adding hz, you are adding cycles. I argued in my comment why I think this is ok.
- archangel_one 14y agoThey didn't say "cycle * hz" in their blurb anywhere, so I wasn't talking about it. I'll grant that it's a more sensible way of describing what's going on (although I think "cycles per second" sounds a little more natural, despite being equivalent), but it's unfortunately not what they actually said.
- rm999 14y agoAs a unitless unit, when people talk about hz they almost never mean just hz. In the case of computing, "hz" is always shorthand for cycles per second e.g. a 2 Ghz computer is 2 billion cycles per second.