gigahertz

CPU frequency ranges from 3.1 gigahertz to 4.0 gigahertz.

DNA's resonant frequency is in the gigahertz range, so you won't be able to hear it anyway.

They found that although the door shuts the magnetron off, a whiff of gigahertz radiation could escape.

The number of gigahertz is irrelevant these days - unless you're doing heavy computation or playing games.

Real CPUs work fine at gigahertz rates which are right at the limit of speed of light for their size.

Processors did not run at gigahertz speeds back then and a large disk was 2Gb.

Even with all of our gigahertz and gigabytes, we misty-eyed nostalgics know that it could have been so much better, more elegant.

Well, the gigahertz race has been over for a while.

So in a hypothetic 5 gigahertz CPU, there couldn't be a path through the wires/transistors longer than 5.99584916 – otherwise, the end result couldn't be correctly determined.

The entire combined might of the 21st century computing industry has managed to make the dominant application platform provide a tolerably good application experience on a dual-core multi-gigahertz machine.

I've completed many multi-gigahertz product designs during my career.

Radio frequencies below the gigahertz or high megahertz region will not interfere with the Pi as the wavelength of these is too long to effectively couple into the short circuit board traces.

I think the point is not necessarily that "text editors intrinsically require gigabytes of RAM and gigahertz CPUs", but that they have "insane" latency requirements.

But the misconception that simply "higher clock == fast CPU" is so old it's referred to as the "megahertz myth", since it predates gigahertz.

I say this largely because measuring a processor by it's gigahertz isn't the most definitive measure of a "better" or "faster" processor.

> I think the point is not necessarily that "text editors intrinsically require gigabytes of RAM and gigahertz CPUs", but that they have "insane" latency requirements.