Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Changing Trends?
- Thread starter arn
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
anshelm, my facts *are* straight. In an earlier post I said my 400MHz system bus on my P4 system was described in the specs as a dual 100MHz double data rate bus. Just because there is a more complex explaination for how it all works under the hood does not mean that that dual DDR 100MHz bus doesn't kick the crap out of a single 133MHz bus. Same goes for DDR RAM; PC manufacturers moved to it because it's faster. Period. If all you're arguing is that my system bus is not *four times* as fast just because it's called "dual" and "double" data rate, no problem -- I hear you. But it is faster.
So, when Apple rambles on about the megahertz myth on their CPUs, they should at least be providing the rest of their architecture at performance levels equaling thier PC competitors. Especially since they charge a premium for it. (I'm happy to pay more for my Macs; I'm simply tired of paying more and getting much less performance.)
Yes, unforunately for Apple, right now "Reality Cheque" is correct about the P4's bus performance being higher (like I tried to explain, the bus *speed* is still 100MHz) 
But not by 4x, although that's what Intel would have you believe. (There are some peformance issues with the DDR part of things, so it doesn't get actual 200% performance.)
For those of you who would like to check out a simple article that mentions this, check out Tom's Hardware:
http://www4.tomshardware.com/blurb/00q4/001128/p4-03.html
(Technically, so people don't get confused when they hear "dual 100MHz double data rate bus", the P4 is actually TWO buses at 100MHz that are double pumped, but Intel intends for them to act as a 100 pumped 4, so that's why I explained it that way. Hope nobody got too confused!)
But not by 4x, although that's what Intel would have you believe. (There are some peformance issues with the DDR part of things, so it doesn't get actual 200% performance.)For those of you who would like to check out a simple article that mentions this, check out Tom's Hardware:
http://www4.tomshardware.com/blurb/00q4/001128/p4-03.html
(Technically, so people don't get confused when they hear "dual 100MHz double data rate bus", the P4 is actually TWO buses at 100MHz that are double pumped, but Intel intends for them to act as a 100 pumped 4, so that's why I explained it that way. Hope nobody got too confused!)
Reality Cheque, let's see if I can clear up the water here:
Apple's 133MHz system bus is actually FASTER then your Intel P4's 100MHz bus pumped 4.
A quad pumped 100MHz bus doesn't make things transfer at 400MHz (that's just Intel's markerting). It makes 4 times as much DATA pass through the bus, but still at the SAME SPEED as a 100MHz bus.
Let's say you are a coach for a track and field team. You have a team of four guys who can run at 20mph. You discover that the opposing team has someone who runs at 25mph. So, to make better marketing, you tell everyone your team can run at 80mph. It's a lie, of course, but your give the excuse that's a "quad pumped 20mph machine"!
Let me reiterate: Apple's bus IS faster, but it can only push 33% of the data that Intel's can!
If you need another source, once again browse to Tom's Hardware:
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/00q4/001120/p4-04.html
Bus performance on a 133MHz system is this: 1,066 MB/s (1GB/s). Bus performance on a 100MHz system quad pumped is this: 3,200 MB/s (3.2GB/s).
And for the last time: Intel's bus is NOT 400MHz! It DOES matter how things work on the inside! Let me explain for you: DDR SDRAM is NOT FASTER. It can only push more data at the same time. It has NOTHING to do with BUS SPEED, only bus WIDTH.
(And AMD is lying, too. It is a 100MHz or 133MHz system bus DOUBLE PUMPED. NOBODY has a faster system bus then Apple, just a larger "WIDTH"!)
*phew* Now with that said, does anyone have any questions? (I hope nobody minds my shouting, but I'm trying to fight Intel's and AMD's false marketing.)
Apple's 133MHz system bus is actually FASTER then your Intel P4's 100MHz bus pumped 4.
A quad pumped 100MHz bus doesn't make things transfer at 400MHz (that's just Intel's markerting). It makes 4 times as much DATA pass through the bus, but still at the SAME SPEED as a 100MHz bus.
Let's say you are a coach for a track and field team. You have a team of four guys who can run at 20mph. You discover that the opposing team has someone who runs at 25mph. So, to make better marketing, you tell everyone your team can run at 80mph. It's a lie, of course, but your give the excuse that's a "quad pumped 20mph machine"!
Let me reiterate: Apple's bus IS faster, but it can only push 33% of the data that Intel's can!
If you need another source, once again browse to Tom's Hardware:
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/00q4/001120/p4-04.html
Bus performance on a 133MHz system is this: 1,066 MB/s (1GB/s). Bus performance on a 100MHz system quad pumped is this: 3,200 MB/s (3.2GB/s).
And for the last time: Intel's bus is NOT 400MHz! It DOES matter how things work on the inside! Let me explain for you: DDR SDRAM is NOT FASTER. It can only push more data at the same time. It has NOTHING to do with BUS SPEED, only bus WIDTH.
(And AMD is lying, too. It is a 100MHz or 133MHz system bus DOUBLE PUMPED. NOBODY has a faster system bus then Apple, just a larger "WIDTH"!)
*phew* Now with that said, does anyone have any questions? (I hope nobody minds my shouting, but I'm trying to fight Intel's and AMD's false marketing.)
it's the thoughtput that counts....
Coming from the biological sciences, this thread has been very educational - thanks guys - great analogies anselm
I grasp that the speed of a 133 vs quad pump 100 is faster on a 133 but the movement of data - what matters to me as a computer user is thoughtput is the quad 100 (notice I didn't say 400 MHz )
I just got a new Sony MSX1 for my 17 year old today (yea, means I'm the rare 40 sumpin on here) we looked at Macs - mainly to humor me I think!!!!!
But the "but Dad, it burns CD, DVD plus it can catch and record radio and play and record TV and all my games like Acheron's call on play on Windows" was the deciding factor.
Now I don't expect most games to go Mac as much as XP - I understand business - the margins as slim and market share can make or break them - but why can't Apple even entertain other areas besides destop/laptops????
check out this:
http://www.carphonewarehouse.com/pogo/
neat little gaget - be nice if Apple could improve it like the iPod did for mp3 players.
also I found this series interesting today:
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/tc_special/apple.htm
so anybody want a better server platform from apple?
Coming from the biological sciences, this thread has been very educational - thanks guys - great analogies anselm
I grasp that the speed of a 133 vs quad pump 100 is faster on a 133 but the movement of data - what matters to me as a computer user is thoughtput is the quad 100 (notice I didn't say 400 MHz
)I just got a new Sony MSX1 for my 17 year old today (yea, means I'm the rare 40 sumpin on here) we looked at Macs - mainly to humor me I think!!!!!
But the "but Dad, it burns CD, DVD plus it can catch and record radio and play and record TV and all my games like Acheron's call on play on Windows" was the deciding factor.
Now I don't expect most games to go Mac as much as XP - I understand business - the margins as slim and market share can make or break them - but why can't Apple even entertain other areas besides destop/laptops????
check out this:
http://www.carphonewarehouse.com/pogo/
neat little gaget - be nice if Apple could improve it like the iPod did for mp3 players.
also I found this series interesting today:
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/tc_special/apple.htm
so anybody want a better server platform from apple?
Hi anshelm;
I get your point. I always did. You object to me using the term "faster" instead of something like "moving more data concurantly at a slower speed". No problem.
But data is not like the runners in your example; it would be more like buckets of water the runners were carrying: If you (the computer) needs to move 4 buckets of water (data), the single faster runner (the Apple bus) would need to run back and forth 4 times to accomplish that. The slower team of runners (the quad bus) could move all 4 at one time, but at a slower rate. Using an arbitrary distance of 1 mile, the team could move all 4 buckets of water (data) in 3 minutes (a single trip) while the faster single runner would take 9.6 minutes (4 trips at 2.4 seconds each, ignoring, of course, the return distance for each trip -- the analogy only goes so far).
Absolutely, the faster runner is just that: faster; but the slower team accomplishes the task in less time (also commonly know as doing something faster). It's a questions of semantics that I accept is important to you to get correct. But the bottom line is that the quad 100 bus in my Intel computer is better. I know it; every tech document I've ever read states it; and Apple doesn't dispute it (like they fight the "MHz myth").
So thanks for taking the time to explain the technical error I was making in describing why I want Apple to improve their architecture beyond just adding faster chips. I hope we're on the same page now. Cheers.
Here is a reality check from someone who also has a solid understanding of this subject: You are right about most of your data. But, you are wrong in your conclusion.
Let me put it this way: A freight train is a much faster way to move 100 tons of grain from New York to Portland, OR, than a Ferrarri. The train is faster in the context of the job at hand.
And, I don't care whether you dwell on the MHz, the bus width, or the number of times data moves per cycle. DDR memory is faster than PC133, and RAMBUS is faster than DDR. If you had a 2048 bit wide bus operating at 66 MHz, it would be faster than anything we have today if you are speaking in the context of the job memory exists to accomplish.
Also, you have made one glaring technical error. RAMBUS does in fact use a 100 MHz clock crystal to keep itself timed. However, it does operate at 400 MHz. Hz is a rating of how many times per second something happens. The clock runs at 100 MHz on RAMBUS. However, the memory operates four times per clock cycle. Thus, the memory is in fact operating at 400 MHz, being kept in time by a 100 MHz clock.
Since we are into analogies today, lets look at it this way... A drummer is tapping his beat to 2/4 time. 1 - 2- 1 - 2, etc. But, he goes into a drum roll, hitting the snare 4 times for every tap of his foot. Now, the time didn't get any faster. It is still 2/4 time, and his foot is still tapping twice per measure. But he is playing faster. He is hitting the drum 8 times per measure. If one measure lasts one second, the song's timing is operating at 2 Hz. However, the drumming is operating at 8 Hz, guided by a 2 Hz clock.
That, my friends, is the real deal.
Cheers!
My point, as Reality Cheque pointed out, was that we were refering to *bus speed*. Not the actual performance, but the term *bus speed*. Apple's is a faster MHz (which is used to refer to the *clock cycles per second*, not how much you DO during clock cycle... it has never been used to mean how much you DO during clock cycle).
The line you quoted was incorrectly stated on my part and I am sorry I misled your interpretation. That should have read: "Apple's 133MHz system bus [speed] is actually FASTER then your Intel P4's 100MHz bus ["speed" is infered here] pumped 4. "
Datawise the Intel is faster. And yes, your analogy is better then mine!
The line you quoted was incorrectly stated on my part and I am sorry I misled your interpretation. That should have read: "Apple's 133MHz system bus [speed] is actually FASTER then your Intel P4's 100MHz bus ["speed" is infered here] pumped 4. "
Datawise the Intel is faster. And yes, your analogy is better then mine!
To put it simply: Hertz (Hz) is the measurement of a FREQUENCY of one cycle per second ( http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=hertz ). To say Intel's quad pumped 100MHz system bus is 400MHz is actually a glaring techincal error on your part. Hertz HAS a definition (It is a unit of measure in the SI. It was not invented by computer companies!).
I am frustrated by the misuse of terms by AMD and Intel. Their *bus speeds* are slower, but they have more throughput. So, because people are trained to look at bus speed and not bus performance, they try to reinvent what the word "hertz" is. The MHz is only equal to the clock cycle. The bus BANDWIDTH is increased (by 4). Not it's technical SPEED.
(You do transfer more FASTER by using Intel's bus, just to reiterate)
Hope that clears what I am trying to say!
(Edit: Before anyone misunderstands, "frequency" used here means frequency of the peaks, not frequency of "something". This is an actual technical term with a rigid definition being misused by Intel and AMD.)
I am frustrated by the misuse of terms by AMD and Intel. Their *bus speeds* are slower, but they have more throughput. So, because people are trained to look at bus speed and not bus performance, they try to reinvent what the word "hertz" is. The MHz is only equal to the clock cycle. The bus BANDWIDTH is increased (by 4). Not it's technical SPEED.
(You do transfer more FASTER by using Intel's bus, just to reiterate)
Hope that clears what I am trying to say!
(Edit: Before anyone misunderstands, "frequency" used here means frequency of the peaks, not frequency of "something". This is an actual technical term with a rigid definition being misused by Intel and AMD.)
Anyway.....
back to the original thread topic.....
So what will sell in 2002?
Apple claims that 40% of people buying in their stores are non-Mac or first time Mac owners. When you compare the population of the US vs the number of computers owned in households their are many homes for Apple to conquer.
In the original post, the point was people who buy are buying more memory and bigger hard drives (duh cheap as both have gotten - why not)
The dvd burners are puzzling - unless it's like a few of my friends who got one mainly because:
1. It's how most new ones are configured.
2. They thought they could copy DVD movies with it.
(Of course, since the bought the DVD and owned it, they should be able to copy it - but that's another, much longer thread in itself )
So, with cheaper hardware and more capable hardware it means it all boils down to - SOFTWARE.
OS X continues to improve - having hacked around with Linux some - i'd like to see Apple make setting up a Web Server, SQL Database, DNS server and LDAP server as easy as iPhoto, iMovie and iDVD.
back to the original thread topic.....
So what will sell in 2002?
Apple claims that 40% of people buying in their stores are non-Mac or first time Mac owners. When you compare the population of the US vs the number of computers owned in households their are many homes for Apple to conquer.
In the original post, the point was people who buy are buying more memory and bigger hard drives (duh cheap as both have gotten - why not)
The dvd burners are puzzling - unless it's like a few of my friends who got one mainly because:
1. It's how most new ones are configured.
2. They thought they could copy DVD movies with it.
(Of course, since the bought the DVD and owned it, they should be able to copy it - but that's another, much longer thread in itself
)So, with cheaper hardware and more capable hardware it means it all boils down to - SOFTWARE.
OS X continues to improve - having hacked around with Linux some - i'd like to see Apple make setting up a Web Server, SQL Database, DNS server and LDAP server as easy as iPhoto, iMovie and iDVD.
anshelm..
bust out with some more anaglogies if you can...
like for piping..or whatever else you can think of . Thanks for the ones so far.
bust out with some more anaglogies if you can...
like for piping..or whatever else you can think of . Thanks for the ones so far.
The trend ISN"T that people are buying higher end machines. It's that the consumer is now more educated and is fed up with buying half-**** systems from Compaq that suck donkey balls. They figure if they're gonna get a machine, it's worth it to at least have it work right.
People got burned a lot. Nowadays, they're a lot more cautious.
People got burned a lot. Nowadays, they're a lot more cautious.
I wouldn't say that people are getting smarter (about components in the computer, not companies... people are definitely getting smarter about who they BUY from)... or buying more "high-end" machines...
The problem with the article is that it is considering the middle-end machines as "high-end". Are more people buying more Athlon XP 2000+ or Intel Pentium 4 2.2GHz machines? No. Are they buying machines with 512MB to 1GB of memory? No. Are they buying machines with hard drives that are 100GB to 160GB? No. (And they do exist for those who don't know, check out Maxtor's site).
The basic misunderstanding of the article is that 256MB of memory is "high-end" (it's not at all) and that 60GB to 80Gb is "high-end" (far from it).
You can't use yesterday's standards of "high-end" and claim that people are buying more "high-end" machines today. With every new hard drive and processor that was better then the last, the bar of "high-end" goes up. People are buying the same range of computers that they usually do, it's just that those computers were considered "high-end" more recently then in the past.
(To krossfyter: Why don't I start a thread about explaining computer concepts in analogies? It wouldn't keep interfering with other topics' posts...)
The problem with the article is that it is considering the middle-end machines as "high-end". Are more people buying more Athlon XP 2000+ or Intel Pentium 4 2.2GHz machines? No. Are they buying machines with 512MB to 1GB of memory? No. Are they buying machines with hard drives that are 100GB to 160GB? No. (And they do exist for those who don't know, check out Maxtor's site).
The basic misunderstanding of the article is that 256MB of memory is "high-end" (it's not at all) and that 60GB to 80Gb is "high-end" (far from it).
You can't use yesterday's standards of "high-end" and claim that people are buying more "high-end" machines today. With every new hard drive and processor that was better then the last, the bar of "high-end" goes up. People are buying the same range of computers that they usually do, it's just that those computers were considered "high-end" more recently then in the past.
(To krossfyter: Why don't I start a thread about explaining computer concepts in analogies? It wouldn't keep interfering with other topics' posts...)
strategy
I think that if Apple releases machines with clock speeds comparable to that of PCs all hte stupid PC buyers that are like "Ohhhhh, 2 GHZ, Wow!" are oing to flock to the mac that has always been superior and flood the "Macintosh population" with ignorance, I knida like been one of the intelligent few that own a Mac. No offense to the intelligent PC users out there, if you read this hopefully though you've seen the light, and plan on buying a Mac next time around.
I think that if Apple releases machines with clock speeds comparable to that of PCs all hte stupid PC buyers that are like "Ohhhhh, 2 GHZ, Wow!" are oing to flock to the mac that has always been superior and flood the "Macintosh population" with ignorance, I knida like been one of the intelligent few that own a Mac. No offense to the intelligent PC users out there, if you read this hopefully though you've seen the light, and plan on buying a Mac next time around.
how the hell did mac get stuck with the behind in numbers with mhz but not in speed? how the hell did that happen? i dont get it.
ex: 800mhz mac = 1.2ghz peecee (something like that)
how the hell did this happen?
ex: 800mhz mac = 1.2ghz peecee (something like that)
how the hell did this happen?
A long, long time ago. In a galaxy far, far away. Apple was the first to push a computer past the 300 MHz mark.... (PM 6500/300)...
I thought all the factory workers got laid off...
Geez...
And I thought it was because the market for lower-end machines is still paying for the ones they bought on easy credit 2 Christmas's ago.
Wait until Mom and Dad get hired back on at the factory when orders pick up. Then, maybe we'll see a rise in low-end computer sales again.
Geez...
And I thought it was because the market for lower-end machines is still paying for the ones they bought on easy credit 2 Christmas's ago.
Wait until Mom and Dad get hired back on at the factory when orders pick up. Then, maybe we'll see a rise in low-end computer sales again.
So what we're really waiting for is Apple to launch a "true" 400mhz bus, which would be quad. Using intel terms that would be... 1600mhz of throuput!!! Wow.
I'll always remember the days when Apple and the PowerPC toasted intel in public at macworld! What goes around comes around! What we need now, is something soooo supirior, so advanced, it would wow the pants of any Peecee computer, like...
"The new Powermac G5, Starting at 5 ghz"! If that could be unvieled again, we could flock back ignorant consumers, educate them about the myth, and gain market share!
Always remember, Apple was the first one to reach a "gigaflop". Now they have reached 15 gigaflops. Maybe they should use a Gigaflop rating instead of a Mhz one!
I'll always remember the days when Apple and the PowerPC toasted intel in public at macworld! What goes around comes around! What we need now, is something soooo supirior, so advanced, it would wow the pants of any Peecee computer, like...
"The new Powermac G5, Starting at 5 ghz"! If that could be unvieled again, we could flock back ignorant consumers, educate them about the myth, and gain market share!
Always remember, Apple was the first one to reach a "gigaflop". Now they have reached 15 gigaflops. Maybe they should use a Gigaflop rating instead of a Mhz one!
I am a Mac fan, but I have to correct part of that before I answer... The Mac is behind in both MHz and speed right now. It is just not as far behind as the numbers make it look.
Anyway, MHz just indicates how many times per second the processor does some work. It says nothing about how much work it does each time.
It is kind of like knowing how many times the delivery truck comes without knowing how much stuff it delivers. One company is saying "We can make 300 trips a year." Another is saying "We can make 200 trips per year, but we carry twice as much per trip."
Obviously, the slower delivery company in this case is delivering more stuff. That is like Apple compared to Intel. But, Intel started going so much faster, that even though it does much less work per time, it still is getting more done computationally these days. AMD is another story... They are about as efficient as Motorolla, and also run at 1.6 GHz, making them both way faster and way more productive on a purely computationally level.
This says nothing about the efficiency of the OS, which more than makes up for the difference for most Mac fans.
If your question was about, how did Apple's chips (Motorolla) get so far behind in MHz, it is because making chips is an extremely difficult thing to do. Why did the Chicago Bulls dominate basketball for so long? Because they worked hard, had talent, and got lucky.
Motorolla may be working hard and may have talent, but perhaps they just havent gotten some of the breaks they need. It will see-saw the other way eventually, or maybe IBM will come up with something that moves the B3, G4, G5 line forward.
There is also some decision making going on about stratagy for advancing the chips... Intel for example sacrificed a lot of efficiency to come up with the P4 design that can run at such high MHz. They made choices that made a P4 chip much less efficient than the PIII. A 1.5 GHz P4 chip is about as fast as a 1.0 GHz PIII chip.
But, the PIII chip can't be made to run at more than about 1.2 GHz without a lot of expense and effort. The P4 can easily run at 2.2 GHz these days. So by being less efficient but having a higher potential MHz, the P4 is actually made faster than the PIII.
Motorolla seems to have taken the approach of increasing efficiency and speed. Most engineers will tell you that this is the better way to go from a scientific standpoint. But if consumers continue to focus only on MHz, this will be a markeing nightmare.