*spawn Twice as fast / twice faster

[gl33k]

1.6 times faster = 1 + 1*1.6 = 260% of 1

1.6 times as fast = 1*1.6 = 160% of 1

Substitute "100%" or "160%" in place of of "1.6 times" to hear it better.

Hence the phrase "twice as fast" - meaning x*2 = 200% of x.
Also, hence the phrase "10% (for, example) faster" - meaning x + x*.1 - meaning 110% of x.

People who say things like "Two times faster" when they mean "twice as fast" are speaking incorrectly.

Edit: Shit, there's a whole new page explaining this already. Will click next, next time.

this debate is absolutly fraking hilarious ! economist attempt to know if they should buy title or something ???

 

[paawl]

I'm sorry to all the posters who think otherwise, but common usage in American English (and all British English I've ever seen, but I won't speak for my colleagues across the pond) scientific and engineering publications is:

x times faster == x times as fast
100*x percent faster == (x+1) times faster == (x+1) times as fast

x times faster != (x+1) times as fast

I challenge anyone to find more than a handful of contrary examples by a native English speaker in a peer-reviewed publication; alternatively, you may supply a definitive reference (eg, IEEE style guidelines) that claims the contrary.

"Math and logic" have nothing to do with it--it's English.

 

[Colourless]

10% faster = 1 + 10%
10% as fast as = 1 * 10% = really f'ing slow

 

[almighty]

Why is everyone making this complicated?

If a 4870 is '1'

And a 4870x2 is '2'

Then a 5870 is '1.6'

 

[zed]

FWIW
times is another word for multiple i.e. * == times

 

[Arwin]

Guys, you wouldn't believe it, but most linguists have fully taken the empirical approach. They no longer write prescriptive grammar, but descriptive grammar. Whatever use is common enough, will become canon. That's why a lot of these kinds of debates can these days be solved by Google - do a search, and whichever way of using things comes up more wins.

In this case though, what's even more interesting is that every ffing hit returned gives you the same discussion as this thread is currently having.

And of course in the context of GPU evolution, 60% is already quite a lot, and probably best case scenario I'll wager?

 

[paawl]

To support Awrin's point, see:

http://www.themathpage.com/arith/ratio-and-proportion_1.htm#more

This quote is particularly enlightening.

As Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage puts it:
"The question to be asked ... is not whether it makes sense mathematically, but whether it makes sense linguistically — that is, whether people understand what it means. ... The 'ambiguity' of times more is imaginary: in the world of actual speech and writing, the meaning of times more is clear and unequivocal. It is an idiom that has existed in our language for more than four centuries, and there is no real reason to avoid its use."

 

[zed]

Just to clarify so ppl do start answering 110km/hr is 0.1 times faster than 100km/hr in their tests only to get a big red cross through the answer

I believe part of the problem arises due to some ppl here not being native english speakers.

Take the sentence
'Give Harry 150% of the pie'
Nothing wrong with it gramatically but its illogical as in nonsense.

the same as saying

a half times faster
0.75 times faster or even
one times faster

even saying them a native speaker can tell they feel wrong, due to the first part contradicting the word faster.
What you should say is prolly
50% faster
1.75 times faster
twice as fast

 

[Kaotik]

Just to clarify so ppl do start answering 110km/hr is 0.1 times faster than 100km/hr in their tests only to get a big red cross through the answer

I believe part of the problem arises due to some ppl here not being native english speakers.

Take the sentence
'Give Harry 150% of the pie'
Nothing wrong with it gramatically but its illogical as in nonsense.

the same as saying

a half times faster
0.75 times faster or even
one times faster

even saying them a native speaker can tell they feel wrong, due to the first part contradicting the word faster.
What you should say is prolly
50% faster
1.75 times faster
twice as fast

The 1.75 times faster doens't fit there, the other 2 work fine, but the middle should be 75% faster

 

[paawl]

The 1.75 times faster doens't fit there, the other 2 work fine, but the middle should be 75% faster

In common English, "75% faster" and "1.75 times faster" mean the same thing. Did you read the quote from Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage that I provided above?

If you want even more evidence, citing both Webster and Oxford, see the following nice writeup in the Boston Globe:

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/10/21/do_the_math/

The evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idiomatic usage. The only surprise to me is how old these idioms are (more than 200 years old!).

 

[Chris123234]

Regardless of how ignorant people commonly misuse phrases (Or how lazy dictionaries want to be), the English structure supersedes idiocy, AFAIC.

Two times (Twice) as fast =/= Two times faster.