No more 4ghz chip from intel

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by howard, Oct 15, 2004.

  1. howard macrumors 68020

    howard

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2002
    #1
    http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2004-10/15/content_2095470.htm

    looks like the competition is finally doing what apple has been trying to do, find more efficient ways of speeding up chips rather than putting all your eggs in the clock speed basket.

    I think this change will be good for the industry... and kinda bad currently for Intel, until they can get the message to the general public that changes they way they market chips. Interesting, that they have gone from 3 ghz to what now 3.6 or 3.8 in like 2 years? thats pretty vague...if anyone knows the facts it would be interesting to see how they've scaled in the last few years.
     
  2. michaelrjohnson macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2000
    Location:
    54140
    #2
    I just read that article before visiting MR. I have to say, it would appear that Intel is in it deep. They keep cancelling forecasts, foreshadowing missed deadlines, etc. Perhaps we'll see AMD try and take advantage of this situation. Interesting indeed.
     
  3. Timelessblur macrumors 65816

    Timelessblur

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2004
    #3
    personly I think apple got cought up in the Mhz races (3ghz chips promise that never came) For the most part I think everyone is starting learn from AMD and following there line. First compainy with the 64 bit chip, first to annonce dual core and will have the first dual cores out. They gave up on speed a long time ago. They just had there chip names to show what there evenlent match their chips where from the intel line
     
  4. johnnyjibbs macrumors 68030

    johnnyjibbs

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2003
    Location:
    London, UK
    #4
    Yes, Intel has now got to try to convince Joe Bloggs on the street that megahertz/gigahertz isn't everything. People have always judged computer speed on the MHz rating of a chip. Even if there's a lot more technology inside a 3.6GHz P4 compared with a 3.2GHz P4, people don't expect it to be much different. That's why they had to come up with all this other namery like "Hyperthreading" and the likes.
     
  5. Makosuke macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2001
    Location:
    The Cool Part of CA, USA
    #5
    I find this a hilarious case of getting what you deserve.

    Intel, thanks to the fact that they had an architecture that scaled pretty well to high clock rates (regardless of speed), has spent the last several years and lord knows how much money trying to convince the average computer buyer that "MHz Matters"(tm). Worked great so long as they could keep deepening those pipelines and upping those clockspeeds, actual performance be damned.

    But now, their archetecture has finally run out of steam and they've hit the point where they have to do what everybody else already did: switch from a high clock speed but somewhat oldfashioned architecture to one that is more modern and efficient per clock, like what they already did with the Itanic line.

    Uh-oh... time to try and undo years of their own marketing hype, not to mention play right into the hands of their competitors, who've been marching past them in terms of chip features (64 bit, etc) instead of beating the dead MHz horse. Take away those big GHz numbers on the P4 that they've taught everybody are so cool, and suddenly their chips don't look any more impressive than AMD's or IBM's.

    HA!
     
  6. Mechcozmo macrumors 603

    Mechcozmo

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2004
    #6
    RISC, anyone?
    RISC, btw, stands for Reduced Instruction Set Chip...that is the essence of a PowerPC chip. So Intel will now need to undo those people that say "I want a 3.5 Ghz computer with a gigahertz of hard disk space and a gigahertz of memory...." :eek:

    Apple I think needs to hit 3 Ghz soon, but then just get me a 256-bit dual core G6 and I will be happy...oh, and it needs a 5 hour battery life, to be extended to 30 hours when in ultra-low-power mode. :rolleyes: I can dream, right?
     
  7. comictimes macrumors 6502a

    comictimes

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2004
    Location:
    Berkeley, California
    #7
    I know that this is kinda off-topic, but I don't want to make an entirely new thread about it. I was having a discussion with a friend today, and does anyone know whether a 1.4ghz pentium M would be faster or slower than my computer, a 1.25ghz G4? I'm just kinda curious, cause I don't know too much about this stuff...
     
  8. saabmp3 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2002
    Location:
    Tacoma, WA
    #8
    Other namery like hyperthreading.... Do you even know what hyperthreading is? It's basically creating a virtual second processor on the core, close to dual core, but not totally there yet. I've programmed for it and it smokes.

    I like Intel as a company, they're leading the pack right now (always have) with the tech for the high end market place (which is what the low end market place gets eventually). On the other hand, I own alot of AMD processors which come with a good price.

    Your opening a can of worms that has no defenitive answer. There's so much more to look at besides speed, and ontop of that your going to inherit the OSX vs. WIN XP debates with this question.


    BEN
     
  9. johnnyjibbs macrumors 68030

    johnnyjibbs

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2003
    Location:
    London, UK
    #9
    Yes, I know roughly what it is, but I was merely stating the marketing on it. Intel has been trying to do new things with their chips recently to boost performance instead if boosting clockspeed, but my point is that most people won't notice these under-the-hood improvements because the average person wouldn't realise a 3.2GHz P4 with Hyperthreading is way better than a 3.2GHz P4 without (for Intel has past told them that GHz is everything).
     

Share This Page