And were stuck at 1Ghz


Choppaface

macrumors 65816
Jan 22, 2002
1,187
0
SFBA
if i remember right, jobs said that they were trying to catch up with intel mhz wise by the end of 2003

and by the way that the athlon XPs smoke the P4's, reaching 3 ghz isnt going to do everything its cracked up to
 

mac15

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Dec 29, 2001
3,100
0
Originally posted by Choppaface
if i remember right, jobs said that they were trying to catch up with intel mhz wise by the end of 2003

when did jobs say that, I don't remember him saying that
 

cb911

macrumors 601
Mar 12, 2002
4,122
3
BrisVegas, Australia
Apples going to catch up in 2003? that means the G5(?) will be at least 3GHz. maybe i should hold off buying the new 800MHz TiBooks and wait until the 3GHz G5s.:D
 

rainman::|:|

macrumors 603
Feb 2, 2002
5,442
2
iowa
normally i trust apple with this stuff... but i think Jobs is going to slowly up the speed, to sell more units... but he needs to bump the speed .5ghz at least, and soon...

whether it's G4 or G5 i don't care, but the speeds need to go up! imagine a 1.5 or 1.7 GHz PowerMac with a 400mhz bus... that would tide us over for a little while, at least... it'd make it seem less like the rest of the world has gotten way ahead of us...

:)
pnw
 

Falleron

macrumors 68000
Nov 22, 2001
1,609
0
UK
Jobs DID say that he had an agressive processor stategy this year! However, he did not say anything about closing the gap.
 

eyelikeart

Moderator emeritus
Jan 2, 2001
11,849
0
Metairie, LA
I thought for sure u would just add fuel to the already intensely burning fire with this thread mac15...

so we're supposed to be caught up by the end of 2003, huh?! seems a far cry from how soon it should be...

what processor do u guys think it's going to be with? Motorola? MIPS? IBM?

hmm...thought-provoking questions... ;)
 

Mr. Anderson

Moderator emeritus
Nov 1, 2001
22,408
0
VA
Even if it was catching up to the Pentium, it wouldn't mean getting upto 3 GHz. You're forgetting that the Mac processors are a little different, you know the whole thing about the MHz myth?

Anyway, this might all change because the future of the high end Apple processor, as far as I'm thinking, is not really known. Will it be the G5 from Motorola, an IBM chip or something else entirely different. The rumors have been flying and I'm just not sure what to think. I'm just going to have to wait and see
 

Mr. Anderson

Moderator emeritus
Nov 1, 2001
22,408
0
VA
Originally posted by Falleron
Jobs DID say that he had an agressive processor stategy this year! However, he did not say anything about closing the gap.
This could be an indication of a big change. Its kind of scary.

Great 'tar, BTW, I really like Falleron, you design it yourself?
 

Falleron

macrumors 68000
Nov 22, 2001
1,609
0
UK
Originally posted by dukestreet


This could be an indication of a big change. Its kind of scary.

Great 'tar, BTW, I really like Falleron, you design it yourself?
Yep, did it in Illustrator. It took me all of 2 mins to make! Glad you like it!
 

mcrain

macrumors 68000
Feb 8, 2002
1,791
11
Illinois
It is my understanding that both Intel and AMD will be releasing 64 bit processors under the names clawhammer and itanium or some cr*p like that.

Anyway, from what I've seen (and please understand that I haven't really researched this), the MHz of those chips will be dramatically smaller than the current iteration of chips, as they derive their speed through a different method than through only fast clock speeds.

If that is the case, then Apple has a very good chance of evening the gap between Intel, AMD and Apple, because the competition wouldn't be putting out 3GHz "grannies in the fast lanes," but would be putting out chips more akin to the ppc's.

At least, that's my take on what I've read so far.
 

coeus

macrumors member
Apr 3, 2002
32
0
albany, western australia
Why is everybody being a bit paranoid? Just coz Intel are around the 2.5 GHz mark and Apple is hanging around the 667 - 1000 MHz mark doesnt mean much.

Consumers know to look out for those things but thats what the Apple stores are for, to explain 800 MHz equals and Pentium in allmost every single way.

True, Apple do need keep the trend flowing with faster processors/proccessor upgrades. Maybe they should start considering IBMs chips instead of Motorolas.

Apple should skip a 64bit proccessor and jump into the deep end with 128bit proccessors. Intel & AMD would be loading in their pants. 128bit processors running at 1.5GHz would knock the socks of a 4GHz easily. but 1 issue remains - software. Maybe Apple could rewrite OSX in binary!
 

Backtothemac

macrumors 601
Jan 3, 2002
4,206
0
San Destin Florida
Yadda, Blah Blah Blah Yadda. Yada, Yadda, 3GHZ! Yadda Blah Blah, Steve Jobs, Blah Yadda.

One question. Will it run OS X? No. Then I don't care how fast it is. What really is the benifit of a 3GHZ PIV? So it can complete more crashes per hour than a 2GHZ PIV. Come on people there is a lot more than GHZ.
 

LethalWolfe

macrumors G3
Jan 11, 2002
9,372
119
Los Angeles
Originally posted by coeus
Consumers know to look out for those things but thats what the Apple stores are for, to explain 800 MHz equals and Pentium in allmost every single way.

And how many apple stores (we'll even include CompUSA) are there compared to stores that sell IBM compatible PCs? And if the average Joe thinks Macs are slower/inferior to PCs then why would he stop into an Apple store in the first place?

It's not the m/ghz gap that's bugging me, it's how long it takes Apple to get new hardware on the market. And the fact that Apple keeps everything under wraps doesn't help any...


Lethal