Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Intel wises up

I looked at the title of this thread and thought "not likely!" 😀

Anyway, someone else has already posted a similar discussion, albeit not linking to the same article.
 
i think thats good and bad...

think of people going into best buy...

"here we have the 2.4ghz celeron processor computer, or the 2.4ghz pentium processor"

"gee henry, the celeron is $300 cheaper, and it sounds fast enough, lets get that"
 
While I think the idea in general can be good, I think the direct taking of "300, 500 & 700" is incredibly lame. They could atleast come up with their own names for the lines. And what's up with the Megahertz mith? I think its more deceptive when you sel say an AMD 2500, but only runs at 1.7GHz or something like that.
 
Koodauw said:
While I think the idea in general can be good, I think the direct taking of "300, 500 & 700" is incredibly lame. They could atleast come up with their own names for the lines. And what's up with the Megahertz mith? I think its more deceptive when you sel say an AMD 2500, but only runs at 1.7GHz or something like that.
Click to expand...

Is it really deceptive if it beats the pants off a 2.5+ Ghz CPU tho? And most test of AMD's CPUs have shown them to be faster than the Pentium chip their speed rating was comparing them against by some rather nice margins, so I think the fact that a 1.7 Ghz chip could cream a 2.5 Ghz one is a pretty good showing of the Mhz myth.

Of course before the G5 we had a hard time showing this in practice using a Power Mac, but the times they are a changing! After all, would you consider it deceptive if Apple labeled the Dual 2Ghz PMG5 "Dual G5 3000+" when it routinely beats the pants off of Dual Xeon stations?
 
Koodauw said:
While I think the idea in general can be good, I think the direct taking of "300, 500 & 700" is incredibly lame. They could atleast come up with their own names for the lines. And what's up with the Megahertz mith? I think its more deceptive when you sel say an AMD 2500, but only runs at 1.7GHz or something like that.
Click to expand...

that's why AMD calls it "2500." it is implied that it will run comparably to Intel chips running at 2.5 GHz, but AMD is not labeling the chip as 2.5 GHz. it's arguably sneaky but it's something they had to do in order to combat intel's even more sneaky tactics of pushing the clockspeed for the sake of clockspeed. now even intel is paying for it because centrinos are clocked lower but still runs very fast.
 
I think it's funny how the article treats Intel's desion as revolutionary, when in fact they're just copying other chip manufacturers way of marketing chips.
 
Rincewind42 said:
Is it really deceptive if it beats the pants off a 2.5+ Ghz CPU tho? And most test of AMD's CPUs have shown them to be faster than the Pentium chip their speed rating was comparing them against by some rather nice margins, so I think the fact that a 1.7 Ghz chip could cream a 2.5 Ghz one is a pretty good showing of the Mhz myth.

Of course before the G5 we had a hard time showing this in practice using a Power Mac, but the times they are a changing! After all, would you consider it deceptive if Apple labeled the Dual 2Ghz PMG5 "Dual G5 3000+" when it routinely beats the pants off of Dual Xeon stations?
Click to expand...

God point(s).

same to you jxyamma
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back