User titles ... reduce chip sets used, adding M1/M2/M3 chips ..

[mtbdudex]

Subject: User titles ... condensing the chip sets used, adding Mac Silicon chips ..

Where's the M1/M2/M3 and their chip variants in the list?
The i3/i5/i7 not worthy?
Is having the 6502/6502a homage to the early Apple computers?
fwiw, I programmed assy coding in 1983 on the 6502 in my college engineer class.

How do user titles work?

User titles are based on post counts: Newbie => 0 - 29 posts Member => 30 posts Regular => 100 posts (minimum required to post in the Politics, Religion, Social Issues forum) 6502 => 2...

macrumors.zendesk.com

User titles are based on post counts:

• Newbie => 0 - 29 posts
• Member => 30 posts
• Regular => 100 posts (minimum required to post in the Political News forum)
• 6502 => 250 posts (minimum required for access to the Marketplace forum)
• 6502a => 500 posts
• 65816 => 1,000 posts
• 65832 => 1,500 posts
• 68000 => 1,505 posts
• 68010 => 2,000 posts
• 68020 => 2,005 posts
• 68030 => 2,500 posts
• 68040 => 3,000 posts
• 601 => 4,000 posts
• 603 => 5,000 posts
• 604 => 6,500 posts
• G3 => 8,000 posts
• G4 => 10,000 posts
• G5 => 12,000 posts

 

[jav6454]

There already is a thread about this Click Me!

 

[Scepticalscribe]

There already is a thread about this Click Me!

Yes, it is a topic that appears every few months.

Thanks for the reminder and link.

 

[mtbdudex]

There already is a thread about this Click Me!

Well, that thread kinda shows what it is. I did scroll down but that was not evident in what I saw.

I’m proposing to totally redo the rank names, the #posts to get higher name, etc.
Very different topic.

Need to face reality, up to 5-7 years ago forums were frequented .. now many are going away. So much other social content to occupy one’s time.

I’d be curious to see year over year the avg qty of posts members make.
Even broken out by newbies (1 year or less), 2-5 year members, and +5 year members.

This is 15 years ago data ..

 

[jav6454]

The Top 50 is still done... yes people come and go. MR has revised user titles to say the least. Right now, I believe we go up to Ivy Bridge.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

The Top 50 is still done... yes people come and go. MR has revised user titles to say the least. Right now, I believe we go up to Ivy Bridge.

Actually, (speaking - or, rather, writing - as an Ivy Bridge), I believe that we may go all the way to Haswell.

 

[jav6454]

Actually, (speaking - or, rather, writing - as an Ivy Bridge), I believe that we may go all the way to Haswell.

That is true, but I haven't seen a Haswell as of yet.

 

[Apple_Robert]

That is true, but I haven't seen a Haswell as of yet.

Maflynn is Haswell rank.

https://forums.macrumors.com/members/?key=most_messages

 

[jav6454]

Maflynn is Haswell rank.

https://forums.macrumors.com/members/?key=most_messages

It seems the threshold for Haswell the breakpoint is around 70k posts.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

That is true, but I haven't seen a Haswell as of yet.

To the best of my knowledge, the (sole) venerable holder of the Haswell rank title on these threads is the inestimable @maflynn.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

It seems the threshold for Haswell the breakpoint is around 70k posts.

Actually, I must confess that I have absolutely no idea where it lies, but, I suspect that the number of posts required to acquire it may be a little less than 70,000 posts.

 

[S.B.G]

Here is a suggested new tier list.

Title	Post Count Range
Motorola 6502	0–49
Motorola 68000	50–199
PowerPC G3	200–499
PowerPC G4	500–999
PowerPC G5	1,000–1,999
Intel Core Duo	2,000–3,499
Intel Core i5	3,500–4,999
Intel Core i7	5,000–6,999
Intel Core i9	7,000–9,999
Apple A4	10,000–12,999
Apple A7	13,000–15,999
Apple A10 Fusion	16,000–19,999
Apple A12 Bionic	20,000–24,999
Apple A14 Bionic	25,000–29,999
Apple M1	30,000–39,999
Apple M2	40,000–49,999
Apple M3	50,000–59,999
Apple M3 Pro	60,000–69,999
Apple M3 Max	70,000–79,999
Apple M4	80,000–89,999
Apple M4 Pro	90,000–94,999
Apple M4 Ultra	95,000–100,000

 

[Just_Kevin]

TIL what those items under people’s name stand for. Can’t say it makes much of a difference to me.

 

[CharlesShaw]

TIL what those items under people’s name stand for. Can’t say it makes much of a difference to me.

What's the most interesting to me is what's already in the profile: when they joined and the number of posts. I've seen newbie status on members who joined ten years ago but rarely post.

 

[laptech]

What's the most interesting to me is what's already in the profile: when they joined and the number of posts. I've seen newbie status on members who joined ten years ago but rarely post.

So true. It is useful to click on the arrow under a members name because sometimes you read a post and you say to yourself 'is that person for real, did they just post that?' and then you see it's a newbie with only one post against their name. I did this recently on a name and it showed the person had joined in 2013 and has less than 30 posts to their name, hence why they have the newbie title still.

 

[Just_Kevin]

What is most important is the quality of posts, not the quantity. That’s harder to track. Some forums try to apply a reputation score of sorts.

Edit, I forgot this forum does try to track that.

 

[CharlesShaw]

...is the quality of posts, not the quantity. That’s harder to track.

Since all the posts show up in search engines, perhaps AI will soon be able to (if it can't already) provide a summary of a member's reliability by doing its own fact-checking and taking into account the replies from other members.

And maybe we will finally learn which size of iPad is the best.

 

[fatTribble]

What is most important is the quality of posts, not the quantity. That’s harder to track. Some forums try to apply a reputation score of sorts.

Edit, I forgot this forum does try to track that.

As someone who posts large quantities of low quality posts, I’m offended by this.
/s
🤭

 

[eyoungren]

Since all the posts show up in search engines, perhaps AI will soon be able to (if it can't already) provide a summary of a member's reliability by doing its own fact-checking and taking into account the replies from other members.

And maybe we will finally learn which size of iPad is the best.

I think that can largely be inferred by a user's reaction score: https://forums.macrumors.com/members/?key=highest_reaction_score

You will notice on this list that the majority of the users on it are not high posting members. But the reactions to what they've posted can often far exceed even the members with the highest post counts.

 

[Applewatch42]

Here is a suggested new tier list.

Title	Post Count Range
Motorola 6502	0–49
Motorola 68000	50–199
PowerPC G3	200–499
PowerPC G4	500–999
PowerPC G5	1,000–1,999
Intel Core Duo	2,000–3,499
Intel Core i5	3,500–4,999
Intel Core i7	5,000–6,999
Intel Core i9	7,000–9,999
Apple A4	10,000–12,999
Apple A7	13,000–15,999
Apple A10 Fusion	16,000–19,999
Apple A12 Bionic	20,000–24,999
Apple A14 Bionic	25,000–29,999
Apple M1	30,000–39,999
Apple M2	40,000–49,999
Apple M3	50,000–59,999
Apple M3 Pro	60,000–69,999
Apple M3 Max	70,000–79,999
Apple M4	80,000–89,999
Apple M4 Pro	90,000–94,999
Apple M4 Ultra	95,000–100,000

I agree

 

[DaveEcc]

Seems I'm 5 posts away from earning a CPU, so I may as well comment on the most recent suggested table.

• Why are the more advanced 68Ks missing?
• There's no way i9 should go from 7000-9999. It's a few percent better than an i7, and thus it should have a narrow range that's just a few extra percent points higher... 7000-7499
• It's not clear why M1 and M2 don't get Pro, Max, or Ultra
• Also unclear why M3 lacks an Ultra, when it exists
• Unclear why M4 gets an Ultra when it doesn't exist
• Then to add to the confusion, if we're bothering with Pro/Max/Ultras, then should we rank them appropriately? Since they're all essentially identical in single core, are we ranking by multicore, or GPU?
• Surely the M3 Max is better than a base M4? Won't that get confusing? Sorting out which benchmark to use to settle the rankings will start fights, and still end up confusing.
• Better to just go by pure generations... but if we're going by generations, why are so many A generations missing?
• What will be done when an A chip is ranked higher than M1? Retroactively adjust the rankings? Or do we cut off A series chip once the M arrives?
• If we stop a prior series when a new chip arrives, does that mean the A chips should have prevented i9 from making an appearance, since the first i9 was the same year as A11?
• Should we not have a comprehensive list of chips, but instead a set of representative chips based on the years they were active?
  • 6502=1976-1983.
  • 68K=1984-1993.
  • PPC=1994-2005.
  • Intel=2006-2019.
  • MSeries=2020-
• Early iPhone used Samsung CPUs... do we ignore those, and only consider Apple's CPUs, ie: iPhone 5's A6?
  • If we count Samsung, and iPhone starts in 2007, does that mean the Intel era only counts for 2006? Does that imply shouldn't have core i5, i7, or i9 at all, since that naming didn't come into effect until later?
  • If we don't count Samsung, does the iPhone starting the A series in 2012 mean we cut the Intel Era short, and/or trim the i9?

 

[Applewatch42]

I know that they do on April 1st, but when will the other user titles get updated, for instance 6502-60840 could be Intel chips, and 601-604 could be M1-M3, and G3-G5 be M1-M3 Pro chips. Just a suggestion

 

[eyoungren]

My understanding is that it is a linear progression from the first Mac's chip. I'm not even in M1 territory and I've been here for 14+ years.

 

[theluggage]

Motorola 6502

0–49

Correction: MOS 6502.

Removing the 68020 etc. also chops out a large chunk of history... The Mac II was a big deal!

...also, as long as the site is still called Macrumors, I don't think the A-series chips only ever used in iPhones belong there, although you could make a case for the A12Z (29,900 - 29,999). We'll see if the A18 MBA rumor pans out...

Or, maybe just don't overthink a bit of fun that may encourage people to look up a bit of computing history...?