Here they are. These test look pretty unbiased.
http://www.macworld.com/2002/12/features/benchmark.html
http://www.macworld.com/2002/12/features/benchmark.html
Originally posted by Shadowfax
why the heck did they cut the L3 on the new dual 1 GHz? that doesn't sound like progress!
Originally posted by Shadowfax
why the heck did they cut the L3 on the new dual 1 GHz? that doesn't sound like progress!
QuickSilver Macs had DDR L3.Originally posted by Sun Baked
The DDR is more expensive than the SDR used in the previous machine, it is most likely one of the reasons Apple cut the size and why the upgrade company went with SDR instead.
Originally posted by RogueLdr
While it would be nice to still have the larger cache, cutting it seems to allow Apple to reduce the cost of the dual 1GHz PowerMac without hampering performance and at the same time enhancing the expandability of the machine.
From my point of view, the progress was made in that they bumped the speed from 933 to 1000. Plus they threw in another CPU for s&g's. That sounds like progress even without all of the other new stuff (i.e. GPU, DDR, 166 bus ...).Originally posted by Shadowfax
why the heck did they cut the L3 on the new dual 1 GHz? that doesn't sound like progress!
Originally posted by soilchmst
Here they are. These test look pretty unbiased.
http://www.macworld.com/2002/12/features/benchmark.html
Originally posted by Inhale420
they look unbiased because they're not being compared to pc's