Got it from a Dutch geek site: http://www.tweakers.net/nieuws/25174
Seems like a perfect year for Apple to really catch up! Come on 970!
Seems like a perfect year for Apple to really catch up! Come on 970!
Originally posted by iJon
wow, now we have one year to get 2.25 ghz added. although i really dont care because i compare my computers on productivity instead of speed but i do feel intel has everyone beat for a while now. im not gonna get too excited. luckily amd and ibm can bonk heads and come out with a processor that can go in out macs.
iJon
Originally posted by will
I think you'll find that Mhz for Mhz the 970 is about 70% faster than a P4, so a 1.8Ghz 970 can hold its own against a 3Ghz P4.
400 MHz in a year is a little over 10%. If Apple did that everybody would be throwing a fit. The simple fact is right now the PIV really can't be scaled.Originally posted by mac15
I don't see how you can there stuck, sure its a slower year for intel but they are still far infront of any other of the chip makers , not that this matters or contributes to the megahertz myth. But they don't seem stuck to me
Originally posted by Telomar
400 MHz in a year is a little over 10%. If Apple did that everybody would be throwing a fit. The simple fact is right now the PIV really can't be scaled.
Originally posted by will
I think you'll find that Mhz for Mhz the 970 is about 70% faster than a P4, so a 1.8Ghz 970 can hold its own against a 3Ghz P4.
Originally posted by irmongoose
where'd you get that info?
irmongoose
Originally posted by jrv3034
Yeah, but the problem is that the 3Ghz P4 is available NOW, as opposed to the 970, which MIGHT become available towards the END OF THE YEAR.
Originally posted by will
You are right, but we have to compare the PPC 970 with something. Assuming Intel are at 3.5 GHz at end of year, and Apple are using 1.8Ghz PPC 970s then there will only be a small performace gap on single CPU machines, and assuming Apple continue to ship dual machines for their pro line (and hopefully add a quad CPU machine) then performace really won't be an issue. The PPC 970 is also a really nice modern design which should ramp up nicely and it's 64 bit
Originally posted by peter2002
Nobody will catch Intel. They have more $ than anybody and the rule of business is whoever has the most $ always wins.
You are right, but we have to compare the PPC 970 with something. Assuming Intel are at 3.5 GHz at end of year, and Apple are using 1.8Ghz PPC 970s then there will only be a small performace gap on single CPU machines, and assuming Apple continue to ship dual machines for their pro line (and hopefully add a quad CPU machine) then performace really won't be an issue. The PPC 970 is also a really nice modern design which should ramp up nicely and it's 64 bit
Originally posted by MrMacman
As I have stated in (countless threads) Intel will not (and for the most part) cannot releas chips with a higher processor speeds.
As I have posted even though Intel has a 3.6 GHZ chip doesn't mean they are gonna realease it, because of countless reasons.
With these higher processor speeds heat becomes a great factor, sure in the good old days fans were great, but now water cooling is better.
But for these chips, water cooling isn't even an option. These are so hot that they need to be kept (very) frozen.
(Check Tom's Hardware)
Sure Intel will only release chips that go .5-.6 GHZ higher but thay only means we really need to take the uper hand.
Originally posted by yosoyjay
If they did do this how in the hell could they sell Itanium 2 chips that run at 900Mhz & 1Ghz?
Originally posted by hvfsl
The reason why games do not run well on Macs is because they are heavily optimised for x86 and programers do not bother to optimise games as much for the PPC. Linux on x86 is actually about 20% faster in games over Windows, so Macs should be faster at games if they switch to x86 chips.