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

Apple Marketshare on the Rise

Status
Not open for further replies.
It does less work per clock cycle

"It does less work per clock cycle and thus needs to be clocked higher than the Athlon to achieve the same performance." The P4 actual Herzt are over stated. That's the real reason for the lack of preformance gain.

Thanks for your input Alex
 
Re: It does less work per clock cycle

Originally posted by Johnny7896
"It does less work per clock cycle and thus needs to be clocked higher than the Athlon to achieve the same performance." The P4 actual Herzt are over stated. That's the real reason for the lack of preformance gain.

Thanks for your input Alex
Click to expand...
Why are you thanking me? Can't you see I'm trying to start a flame war? Come on, insult my mother. I'm waiting... God, Macrumors sucks sometimes. 🙁
 
Groan....

Johnny7896:

"The P4 actual Herzt are over stated. That's the real reason for the lack of preformance gain."

Now you're just being thick-headed and annoying. Why in the world do you believe that? Why in the HELL do you think that a processor's performance is measured by clock speed? For crying out loud, even Apple insists that it is not so!

I cannot belive that you would dismiss Intel has liars on the possibly wrong or possibly misunderstood commentary of some professor. Yeah, he's right, the world is wrong. Yep.

And while we're at it, different ignorantly-named parts of Intel's 2.4ghz processor run at these various clock speeds from 1.4ghz to 1.0ghz, yet the chip is faster than almost anything else out there. Hmmm, maybe we should be even more impressed by the Pentium 4, since apparently even at such a low clock it is way faster than the G4! Sweet action!

Ugh. If you are this thick, it's not worth my time and I won't try to correct you further. Believe what you will.
 
These stories usually don't get thrown into the competitors face. Remember, the P1 error Apple or AMD should have jumped on that. But they didn't. Why??? They all play in the same sandbox. Also, all companies produce errors and mistakes. That can be used against them at anytime. I know Apple has and look how long was the mac line stuck at 500 MHZ. Then turn around and give extra 50 MHz. Thanks Motorola.

Boy, I tried to share a little helpful Pro Mac news and everyone seems angry.
Even if what I share is true. Maybe I'm on a PC board.

Drink from my water and yea shall never thirst again.
 
Like World com and Enron didn't over state their earnings. There was no way to prove that mathematically. Do you think Enron and World com turned themselves in?? Yeah...right. The P4 Hertz gain is not relative to the over all performance gain. I'm pointing this out. Your statements have no factual and measurable proof. Your going off of a stupid PC magazine review. Created from a writer that doesn't even know how to turn on a computer. I'm trying to give you that proof. Something that can be measured by people involved in the electronics industry.

Feel the love
 
your the dumb @ss

Originally posted by TeraRWM
Well Johnny7896 I certainly hope this is true, but wouldn't IBM and Moto do the same? If they didn't wouldn't they have already saturated the market with this information? Also in your story you said Intel added the two numbers (1.2Ghz clock speed and 1.0 Ghz co-processor) and said the two values together were 2.4Ghz.......how old are you?
Click to expand...

Jeeze, who the hell cares if he made a simple math error? You made
an error yourself by coming across like an @sshole just 'cause of a
simple mistake. This is the exact kind of little bratty or old and angry
behavior I get tired of here on these boards. Go beat off @sshole.
 
If someone ever invents a device that allows a person to give someone else a massive wedgie via the Internet, knowing only their IP address, I promise I'll be first in line to buy one.
 
Thanks beatle. I feel like a red headed step child.

I'll get bashed for a while. I feel it.

I can't wait to get the article.
 
Me too. you may be wrong...gloriously, indescribably, ineffably and even irreduceably(?) wrong, but I will support your right to be so to the bitter end.
If, on the other hand, you're right I want everyone to know I was with you all the way........ahem, cough, cough.
 
Thank you, thank you, thank you

It's 1:30 am on the east coast and this thread has been the funniest part of this long day. You each played your parts well and the show has been a great success.

Good night now.
 
🙄 Go Johny go...

Well, at least your comments are entertaining, in a way. I could have so much fun by submitting this thread to www.tech-report.com ... would you know that over there I am a Mac defender? (Under a different name.)

[Edit: I apparently cannot type correctly.]
 
What I find the most amusing part about all this is Johnny7896 is going off what one professor and what one article says. And of course I and the rest of the Tech community are going off what we all know.

Johnny7896+1 professor+1 article vs. >20,000,000 (mostly educated, but none the less somehow intelligent) people.

Personally the odds of not knowing this throughout the >20,000,000 people tech community is pretty friggin' low.

I'm sorry but...no. Although I'm only a simple C++/Cocoa/HTML programmer I know that if Intel were making chips that were 1.0Ghz in speed and had 20 pipeline stages they wouldn't have over 80% of the home PC chip market.

BTW, If you look at the history of Intel's (I'm actually fighting for Intel?!? OMG the world is comming to an end!) microprocessor line you would see a logical progression to where they arrived today. THE END

(You know though I'm still hoping I'm wrong and Apple will saturate the market with this info as part of their new "switch" campaign. 🙂 )
 
Re: Re: P4 clock speed.

Originally posted by Eliot

being one of the oldest members here has given me the luxury of being gloriously indifferent to anything you infants can dish out.
Click to expand...

I assume you mean oldest as in age and not as in poting the logngest, and either way, I agree, personal attacks have o place here (Although, I did erlier today call Beatle888 a snob, but frankly, he was being one, I shouldn't have reduced myself to such classlessness
 
*sigh*

You are all being trolled. Even if it isn't intentional on the part of johnny873789134 it is quite obvious he has *no* idea he knows what he is talking about.

What's your profs name? What class does he teach? Why isn't this information being spread to the world? Why the conspiracy? Etc...

These are the questions *you* guys should be asking yourself if you even remotely believe this claim. Next thing you know some of you guys will go on about the accuracy of MOSRs rumors.
 
no clock at all

ok. nice going so far. but what if i tell you that some unit within the p4 operate at no clock at all? this is not new ARM had a whole processor design called amulett (or so). and other parts (stages) of the pipeline within the p4 are what intel calls double pumped (means: 2.4 GHz x 2 = 4,8GHz). this is called "superscalar" (don't know the exact english spelling).
 
I think you should give johnny a break and wait and see

Here's a link to a page that shows how badly a 2Ghz Pentium 4 does against a 1.2Ghz Pentium 3 to keep you amused while you wait.

It proves several things, one sisoft sandra has artificially higher MIPS scores than the original benchmarks the pentium 4 had, I remember reading that the original 1.4 Ghz Pentium 4 had an IPC of about 1.6, as soon as the sisoft sandra results started appearing on sites, the result went up to 1.8.

Even with this in mind, the Pentium 3 has got a higher IPC (0.5 extra) than the G4, runs on the same 133Mhz FSB and SDRAM and still manages to beat a pentium 4 with a higher clock speed running on a 100 Mhz FSB quad pumped to 400Mhz. I havn't seen any sites comparing the pentium 3 tulalin to the new pentium 4 chips with the larger L2 cache and 133Mhz FSB yet but you can bet it makes little difference.

Personally speaking I'm looking forward to monday, It could be a good read.
 
Originally posted by TeraRWM
Well Johnny7896 I certainly hope this is true, but wouldn't IBM and Moto do the same? If they didn't wouldn't they have already saturated the market with this information? Also in your story you said Intel added the two numbers (1.2Ghz clock speed and 1.0 Ghz co-processor) and said the two values together were 2.4Ghz.......how old are you?
Click to expand...



I don't get it. He said: main cpu at 1.4 and co-processor at 1.0.
Add those 2 up and I see 2.4..............
And he admits he made a mistake? what mistake lol
 
Okay, so where is the 'market share' thread?

😀

I'm trying to up Apple's market share myself. 🙂

Couple of friends are interested, since they saw my iBook. But that means little, actually. They just never seem to get around to actually buying a computer, let alone a Mac. One can only hope they follow through one day.

If they do, I'll up Apple's market share by anywhere from 1 to 5 people. Oddly enough, they all want LCD iMacs. 🙂
 
Only 3.5% ???

I always thought Apple had a market-share of 5% in the US... Well, then I don't wonder anymore, that they are desperate like hell to sell some more Macs! 3.5% is close to not counting anymore for a platform.

I am curious what the MW will bring us.

It was not 95 to go, it was 97 to go... that makes a difference of 40% ....

Oh, well...

groovebuster
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back