View Full Version : Threat to Apple's speed superiority?
Jun 11, 2001, 10:49 AM
I was checking around on a few sites, and I heard that Intel was planning to release a 2.2 GHZ P4, and if I recall correctly, when Steve Jobs introduced the 733 G4, he ran it against the top P4 at the time. When the tests were done, he put the G4 733 into pentium megahertz and came up with a number around 2.2 GHZ. What do you think this means in the terms of new Apple processor developments and speed increases? What do you think that Apple will come up with?
Jun 18, 2001, 02:31 PM
I expect to see some more mHz at MacWorld in July I have seen some benchmark testing that was being done months ago on a prototype dual 966 G4... so I wouldnt worrie about mac superiority. For now. When OS X starts shipping installed to take full advantage of dual procesors, and with motherbords that support DDR memory .... Proformance will jump big time.
Jun 25, 2001, 03:35 AM
it's too early to upgrade the speed on apple's processors. they are still blowing out all the competition (ie-anything microsoft using).the 733s are just too efficient
and besides, i use both types of computer and i know that the P4s cannot handle speeds past about 1.7ghz-intel needs a whole new line of processor to get close.
Jul 15, 2001, 10:35 PM
Apple Has to break the 1ghz mark on the entire range of G4 or G5 Towers by the end of this year because intel will keep on pushing ahead.
You can tell a Person anything, but if they See 2200 Mhz and 733mhz for the same price and they have no clue about computers, Not even a good sales person could save them from buying Intel.
If anything Apple Should release the computers with an IBM Mhz Number..
So eg Release the 733 Mhz with a Intel index of 2.2gigahurtz.
Apple just doesn't provide the public or resellers with information to show the Power of the G4 processors in comparrison.
OR they could just do what Intel does and make up number on processors to make people spend more money.. I found this out on my very old Pentium 100 system when I found the surface had been REPAINTED. It flaked away to show it was actually a REMARKED 75 Megahurtz processor (which was much cheaper at the time of purchase)
I rang intel, and they tottally denied it and said "Call Consumer affairs" (Australian Goverment body to handle industry complaints) and hung up on me
Jul 16, 2001, 11:57 AM
You should call consumer Afairs... that is a big deal!!!
Jul 18, 2001, 03:30 AM
There is a big difference in archetecture between the G4 and P4. See...Mhz is the number of cycles (how quickly something can get pushed through) which Intel has that. The difference is that G4s are much more effecient, processing 128 bits of info per cycle (with the velocity-engine) vs. the P4's 64 bit processing. The thing is that if an operation only requires 32 or 64 bits at a time to complete, P4 has the high advantage because that has taken up one cycle and not used 64 bits of capability, but if it is a processor intensive task such as graphics, a G4 will do much more in one cycle (effectively doubling the processor's speed). There are other factors to figure in such as the number of instructions built into the processor which help the processor more efficently process (G4 has the advantage here, too). Apple's G4 processors are 2.2Ghz only when matched with a P4 on a 128 bit cycle for the P4 has to break up the cycle. On easier, less processor intensive tasks like gaming and casual usage, the P4 has the noticeable advantage. The P4 will preform better on the required graphics acceleration of WinXP window moving and resizing than the G4 on OSX and the P4 will be able to provide less staggering of some applications while others are in operation.
I am sorry if I am not the most clear on this...it is 3:30AM and I am about to pass out....have fun and I hope I have at least somewhat enlightened some of you. If you want more clarity...e-mail me at Arthur_bogard@hotmail.com
The once and forever king!
Jul 18, 2001, 04:55 AM
Oh, he's gonna sleep through the keynote..... ;)
Jul 18, 2001, 06:36 PM
Yeah....I did miss the keynote.....but still...I wanted to gett my point accross in this. I can always watch it later.
Jul 19, 2001, 11:28 AM
apple has posted an explanation
it shows how much faster the new processors are
Jul 19, 2001, 03:21 PM
this is a good subject to talk about, but ive heard it all before and im a bit bored with the pentium Vs mac debate. Y dont apple compare athlons to macs?
Both intel and apple give biast tests, im sticking with mac cos even the bad designs r sexy.
Anyway who would win in a fight? steve jobs or bill gates?
or is that a really immature and pointless discussion topic? (i think it might be)
Jul 22, 2001, 01:30 PM
I was not trying to add to the debate, but pointed to things in which P4s were better and G4s were better. I agree that to an extent the debate is getting old. I just live with the fact that P4s have their advantages and G4s have theirs. I also believe the reason that AMD's processors are not part of the debating is because they are still relatively new to the rivalry and Intel represents everything bad (windows) and Apple represents everything good (MacOS) (I am just kidding here). AMD is one of the processors that I am going to have to research a little bit, but they are still rather small in comparison to Intel's market on the Windows platform, and Apple (IBM and Motorola) has no real rivalry on the Mac platform. I hope to help out some more in the future with some insight into the subject.
Jul 24, 2001, 03:51 PM
u didnt answer my fight question?, personally i reckon jobs wud win.