 |
| |
|
|
Asher
|
 |
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wiglaf
benchmarks? |
http://www6.tomshardware.com/mainbo...01/dual-07.html
quote:
there are no desktop, made for the home PCs that ship with more than one processor.
if you want to see if macs are faster than PCs, you use the two best in the home desktop market.
a 2.0 GHz P4 is cutting edge. as good as it gets.
a single 830 MHz chip is great for macs, but it isn't the best in its category.
a dual 800 MHz G4 processor is cutting edge. as good as it gets.
a dual P4 system is out of the picture - not in the right market.
a G4 server is out of the picture - not in the right market.
verry simple. |
It's not that simple.
First of all, the 'home' user doesn't need the insane Photoshop performance. Only workstation users would need that.
For that reason, you compare a workstation Mac (Dual 800) vs. Workstation PC (Dual 2.0GHz).
quote:
you're right, glonk, anything that gives the mac a chance is cruel and evil. really, you don't see any problem with putting the fastest damn PC out there up against a mid ranged mac? the dual 800 isn't a server, it's designed for home use. |
The Dual 800 is designed for power users and workstations. Apple is marketing it for consumers also because they simply can't clock the 867 any higher.
What you said is evil because a dual 800 is about the same price as a dual 2.0GHz, so why wouldn't you compare them?
You want to compare a $3500 Mac to a $1700 PC on the grounds that the Mac is also marketed to the desktop...
I have to go right now, but I had these in my bookmarks:
http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardwa...oo5_mac/3.shtml
It's over a year old, though. But it's still G4 vs. P3 (this is the P3, not the P4, mind you.)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wiglaf
|
 |
Cambridge
Dec 2000
time: 23:15
|
|
quote:
It's over a year old, though. But it's still G4 vs. P3 (this is the P3, not the P4, mind you.) |
I wanted dual G4 benchmarks 
quote:
http://www6.tomshardware.com/mainbo...01/dual-07.html |
that hardly tells me whether or not the mac's performance would increase or decrease in the techtv ramble, given that those are completely different processors doing completely different things.
quote:
It's not that simple.
First of all, the 'home' user doesn't need the insane Photoshop performance. Only workstation users would need that.
For that reason, you compare a workstation Mac (Dual 800) vs. Workstation PC (Dual 2.0GHz). |
your logic: it owns photoshop, it's a workstation.
the fastest mac owns photoshop, it's a workstation.
the dual 800 is no different from the 867 in that the design is for artsy stuff. why use the 733/867, or any mac, then?
quote:
What you said is evil because a dual 800 is about the same price as a dual 2.0GHz |
link?
quote:
so why wouldn't you compare them?
You want to compare a $3500 Mac to a $1700 PC on the grounds that the Mac is also marketed to the desktop... |
why recognize XP as an OS then? it merges the workstation/desktop market, and it's advertised for both.
OSX is only comparable to Windows 98. 
the price is what it boils down to, and yes it's extremely high , even though you have to keep in mind apple isn't the only place to buy mac hardware from.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wiglaf
I wanted dual G4 benchmarks |
You're the Mac zealot, go fetch. 
quote:
that hardly tells me whether or not the mac's performance would increase or decrease in the techtv ramble, given that those are completely different processors doing completely different things. |
How SMP (dual processors) work is a limitation to why some apps are better than others for it. No matter HOW the processor is designed, it won't be 100% efficient if you add another processor. In most apps, across all systems, it's about 20% faster per additional CPU. In things like Cinema4D and 3DStudio that percentage is much, much higher though.
quote:
your logic: it owns photoshop, it's a workstation.
the fastest mac owns photoshop, it's a workstation. |
That is correct: I'd place the dual G4 machines in the workstation category. That doesn't mean you cant' game on it (by any means), but just that it designed to be a powerhouse for apps that need it.
quote:
the dual 800 is no different from the 867 in that the design is for artsy stuff. why use the 733/867, or any mac, then? |
I have no idea, I can only speculate that Apple had some trouble getting it to syncronize at such a weird clockcycle (867) so stuck with the flat 800.
Go customize one on Dell.com yourself. (Hint: http://www.dell.com/us/en/bsd/produ...n_precn_530.htm)
quote:
why recognize XP as an OS then? it merges the workstation/desktop market, and it's advertised for both.
OSX is only comparable to Windows 98. |
Huh? There are two versions of XP: Home, and Professional.
'Home' is intended to replace Windows 9x for home users, Professional is intended for workstations and power users.
There's several variations of NT 5.1 (XP). In a few months, "Windows .NET Server" and "Windows .NET Advanced Server" and "Windows .NET Datacenter" will be shipping also. All NT 5.1
quote:
the price is what it boils down to, and yes it's extremely high , even though you have to keep in mind apple isn't the only place to buy mac hardware from. |
Apple regulates the market on it.
Last edited by Asher on 05-11-2001 at 07:29
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wiglaf
|
|
Cambridge
Dec 2000
time: 23:15
|
|
Glonk,
it's safe to say the fastest desktop mac (say what you want, it was designed for home use) is a faster setup than the fastest desktop PC. all this talk about the market it's in, what it's good at, etc, is irrelevant because it functions mainly as a home computer just like the single 867 when you get down to it.
the price is the only issue. obviously $3500 is a huge amount to shell out for a dual G4, and IMO it's grossly overpriced. so, when it comes to cost, the PC wins - no one has ever claimed otherwise.
when you look at things like cost, software availability, and hardware, you go PC. They're just better for that. but when you want cool designs , original and functional operating systems (OS9x is far more user friendly than Windows9x), and a rock solid setup in general, you go mac. I've never had a crash on 8.6 since I cleaned out some problem files. none at all, it's been running fine for several weeks now. windows 9x has blue screened me waay too many times.
ease of use goes to apple. value probably goes to the PC, but it still depends on what you use the thing for. games? no real contest, if you want the latest and greatest on release. but for the internet, essays , and incredible and stable software, the better product is mac.
quote:
I have no idea, I can only speculate that Apple had some trouble getting it to syncronize at such a weird clockcycle (867) so stuck with the flat 800. |
I was asking why the test used an 867, because those are made for artsy stuff too. reread my question.
dual P4s aren't meant for home use. they aren't desktops with some tweaks. they're geared only for workstations and servers, judging by dell.com. maybe I'm wrong, but I wouldn't buy one because it just isn't a desktop. a dual G4 is one just as much as the single G4 is.
Last edited by Wiglaf on 07-11-2001 at 02:31
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:15
|
|
dp
Last edited by Asher on 07-11-2001 at 03:15
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wiglaf
it's safe to say the fastest desktop mac (say what you want, it was designed for home use) is a faster setup than the fastest desktop PC. all this talk about the market it's in, what it's good at, etc, is irrelevant because it functions mainly as a home computer just like the single 867 when you get down to it. |
No no no -- That is not safe to say.
It may or may not be faster in Photoshop, because it's one of the only apps out there with real Altivec enhancements. Without Altivec, the G4 is no more than a glorified G3! And the G3 performed about on par with a Pentium II clock for clock.
Not to mention the fact that the vast majority of programs out there don't take advantage of a second processor (it needs to be designed to use it, having two doesn't automatically double your performance like you seem to believe).
quote:
the price is the only issue. obviously $3500 is a huge amount to shell out for a dual G4, and IMO it's grossly overpriced. so, when it comes to cost, the PC wins - no one has ever claimed otherwise. |
You keep saying "blahblah, the Mac is faster for home because the dual 800 is fast". You've shown no benchmarks with the Dual 800, first of all. Second of all, for the exact same price (give or take $100) you can get a dual 2.0GHz Pentium 4 Xeon with PC800 RDRAM (3.2GB/s vs the 1GB/s on the Mac...).
quote:
when you look at things like cost, software availability, and hardware, you go PC. They're just better for that. but when you want cool designs , original and functional operating systems (OS9x is far more user friendly than Windows9x), and a rock solid setup in general, you go mac. I've never had a crash on 8.6 since I cleaned out some problem files. none at all, it's been running fine for several weeks now. windows 9x has blue screened me waay too many times. |
I was playing with a buddy's G3 laptop the other day (it's running MacOS 8.6). He was playing Quake II, tried to go use the calculator for a second, and Quake II kept running on the middle of the screen. We couldn't kill it at all, we tried everything. His solution was to hit the reboot button.
MacOS prior to OS X is on par with Windows 9x. Don't even try to argue that MacOS 8/9 is a "superior" OS in any way, it's basically very identical to Win9x except with a different interface (which you claim is more friendly, I find most of it annoying -- personal preference I guess).
quote:
ease of use goes to apple. value probably goes to the PC, but it still depends on what you use the thing for. games? no real contest, if you want the latest and greatest on release. but for the internet, essays , and incredible and stable software, the better product is mac. |
Wiglaf, I'm beginning to think you keep repeating this to annoy me.
Until OS X, the Mac platform didn't have a real stable nor incredible OS. Snap out of it.
As for incredible and stable software: There's plenty of that on the PC. How many CAD programs are done on the Mac vs. PC Workstations now?
quote:
I was asking why the test used an 867, because those are made for artsy stuff too. reread my question. |
What exactly IS your question? "the dual 800 is no different from the 867 in that the design is for artsy stuff. why use the 733/867, or any mac, then?"
I don't know -- why are you asking me?
I'd never use the 733 nor the 867 G4. I'm happy with my PC processors.
quote:
dual P4s aren't meant for home use. they aren't desktops with some tweaks. they're geared only for workstations and servers, judging by dell.com. maybe I'm wrong, but I wouldn't buy one because it just isn't a desktop. a dual G4 is one just as much as the single G4 is. |
Wiglaf, that's some pretty piss-poor logic.
Really, it's frustrating to debate with someone with that kind of mindset.
You wouldn't use a dual processor P4 (which is about the same price as the dual processor G4) just because it's not marketed towards the 'desktop' but rather 'high end desktop (workstation)'?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wiglaf
|
|
Cambridge
Dec 2000
time: 23:15
|
|
quote:
I was playing with a buddy's G3 laptop the other day (it's running MacOS 8.6). He was playing Quake II, tried to go use the calculator for a second, and Quake II kept running on the middle of the screen. We couldn't kill it at all, we tried everything. His solution was to hit the reboot button.
MacOS prior to OS X is on par with Windows 9x. Don't even try to argue that MacOS 8/9 is a "superior" OS in any way, it's basically very identical to Win9x except with a different interface (which you claim is more friendly, I find most of it annoying -- personal preference I guess). |
first off, that's your friend's problem, jumping at the reboot so quickly. and I highly doubt that 8.6 is at fault in any way. really, how is that an OS screwup?
quote:
Wiglaf, that's some pretty piss-poor logic.
Really, it's frustrating to debate with someone with that kind of mindset.
You wouldn't use a dual processor P4 (which is about the same price as the dual processor G4) just because it's not marketed towards the 'desktop' but rather 'high end desktop (workstation)'? |
I skipped some of your earlier paragraphs mainly to sum it all up here.
powermac duals are so expensive it's pathetic. $3500 is far too much for any reasonable buyer to pay, for such little return in RAM, graphics, etc. the strength is very noticeable in the processor, although it's not needed if your focus is on games.
if you've been honest about some of the facts I have to rely on you for, then for that reason the test was fine in terms of the mac's speed. the P4 speed shouldn't be so high, though, for the same reason you get upset at a direct athlon/P4 comparison: one was released recently, and just months before the other would be updated. a 2.0 GHz PC was just released, a dual 800 G4 is pretty old now. in half a year, though, you'll be seeing superfast G5s, and by your same standard I could start comparing it directly to an aging, year old P4. only, since the mac won in this same tough scenario in techtv's test, the P4s chances aren't looking good if it actually gets put in the hotseat.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wiglaf
first off, that's your friend's problem, jumping at the reboot so quickly. and I highly doubt that 8.6 is at fault in any way. really, how is that an OS screwup? |
The poor fault tolerance, by chance?
Oh, btw, I was wrong. It's OS 9.1 (although his bootup screen says ChaOS 9.1).
quote:
powermac duals are so expensive it's pathetic. $3500 is far too much for any reasonable buyer to pay, for such little return in RAM, graphics, etc. the strength is very noticeable in the processor, although it's not needed if your focus is on games. |
So much for the designed-for-home-users argument, eh? 
quote:
if you've been honest about some of the facts I have to rely on you for, then for that reason the test was fine in terms of the mac's speed. the P4 speed shouldn't be so high, though, for the same reason you get upset at a direct athlon/P4 comparison: one was released recently, and just months before the other would be updated. a 2.0 GHz PC was just released, a dual 800 G4 is pretty old now. |
You're twisting things. I was not upset, I was explaining. And I was referring to the core itself. In that case, it was comparing an Athlon XP core (few days old) to the P4 core (year old). There's a new P4 core iteration due out in January.
In this case, the dual G4s are actually using a newer core than the P4, I believe. So that argument wouldn't cut it (When was the G4+ released, anyway?)
quote:
in half a year, though, you'll be seeing superfast G5s, and by your same standard I could start comparing it directly to an aging, year old P4. only, since the mac won in this same tough scenario in techtv's test, the P4s chances aren't looking good if it actually gets put in the hotseat. |
No, what you'd compare the G5s to would be the Northwood P4s. Probably clocking at 2.2->2.4GHz with 4.2GB/s RAM. That'll be a good fight, actually: I've heard the G5 is supposed to be very fast. Let's hope Motorolla got a clue this time and learned the secret to success is having it be able to scale worth a damn, unlike the G4.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wiglaf
|
|
Cambridge
Dec 2000
time: 23:15
|
|
quote:
The poor fault tolerance, by chance?
Oh, btw, I was wrong. It's OS 9.1 (although his bootup screen says ChaOS 9.1). |
I'd say it's quake II's problem, considering it's a four year old program that probably doesn't even have a quit button.
quote:
So much for the designed-for-home-users argument, eh? |
no, it's still designed for home users, it's just way overpriced. actually it's design is for artsy stuff as well, but the same applies to the 867, etc.
quote:
In this case, the dual G4s are actually using a newer core than the P4, I believe. So that argument wouldn't cut it (When was the G4+ released, anyway?) |
G4s were released IIRC (I'll check this out more later) in late 1999. In mid/late 2000 you started to see 733s. that makes this test horribly off the mark and unfair, since techtv compared a year (8-12 month) old mac to a just released 2.0 GHz P4...
quote:
No, what you'd compare the G5s to would be the Northwood P4s. Probably clocking at 2.2->2.4GHz with 4.2GB/s RAM. That'll be a good fight, actually: I've heard the G5 is supposed to be very fast. Let's hope Motorolla got a clue this time and learned the secret to success is having it be able to scale worth a damn, unlike the G4. |
nope, I'd do just what techtv did and compare the new G5 to a year old P4. what, you can do it for macs but not PCs?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wiglaf
I'd say it's quake II's problem, considering it's a four year old program that probably doesn't even have a quit button. |
If you wanna play that game, 99% of the crashes on Windows 9x are not Windows' fault. But the programs running...
quote:
G4s were released IIRC (I'll check this out more later) in late 1999. In mid/late 2000 you started to see 733s. that makes this test horribly off the mark and unfair, since techtv compared a year (8-12 month) old mac to a just released 2.0 GHz P4... |
That's not what I asked, Wiglaf.
The 733 and up G4s are actually G4+. Motorolla couldn't get the G4 itself to clock any higher, so they made the pipeline longer so it does less per clock and a bunch of other things. I believe it came out in late 2000, so that would make it the same age as the P4 core.
quote:
nope, I'd do just what techtv did and compare the new G5 to a year old P4. what, you can do it for macs but not PCs? |
You still don't seem to understand.
The 867MHz is a G4+, which is about the same age as the P4. The test is fair.
The G5 and the Northwood P4 will come out around the same time, so that's what you'd compare.
You're trying to bash the techtv article based on claims that are way off-base and inaccurate...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
King_Of_Hearts
|
|
Under the stars
Oct 2001
time: 00:15
|
|
What is DL????
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wiglaf
|
|
Cambridge
Dec 2000
time: 23:15
|
|
quote:
If you wanna play that game, 99% of the crashes on Windows 9x are not Windows' fault. But the programs running... |
since you tried to access the calculator from within a game that evidently couldn't minimize itself, I would think it's not an OS problem but a pretty big oversight in the coding. I can use a different program while running The Sims (summer 2000) on 8.6, so it's quake II's problem if 9.0.1 or whatever needs a reboot...
quote:
That's not what I asked, Wiglaf.
The 733 and up G4s are actually G4+. Motorolla couldn't get the G4 itself to clock any higher, so they made the pipeline longer so it does less per clock and a bunch of other things. I believe it came out in late 2000, so that would make it the same age as the P4 core. |
I need some links and proof, not what you think. what you just said has some pretty big weight in this arguement, please back it up.
quote:
You still don't seem to understand.
The 867MHz is a G4+, which is about the same age as the P4. The test is fair.
The G5 and the Northwood P4 will come out around the same time, so that's what you'd compare.
You're trying to bash the techtv article based on claims that are way off-base and inaccurate... |
again, I can't be sure when the 867 came out (I'm still looking, but until then the best date I've gotten is mid 2000 for a 733). wasn't the 2.0 GHz P4 released this year?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wiglaf
since you tried to access the calculator from within a game that evidently couldn't minimize itself, I would think it's not an OS problem but a pretty big oversight in the coding. I can use a different program while running The Sims (summer 2000) on 8.6, so it's quake II's problem if 9.0.1 or whatever needs a reboot... |
In Windows, you can force anything to minimize whether it's designed to or not. You can also kill any process you want for it to stop (we couldn't kill Quake II).
quote:
I need some links and proof, not what you think. what you just said has some pretty big weight in this arguement, please back it up. |
Certainly. And I'll ask you to do the same from now on, the only link you've ever provided in this article was a trashy little comment thread by some inept Mac zealot.
http://www.aceshardware.com/read_news.jsp?id=20000320
http://www.jc-news.com/parse.cgi?pc...a/G4_plus/start
And I was wrong: It came out in early 2001. Which means that it's several months newer than the Pentium 4.
quote:
again, I can't be sure when the 867 came out (I'm still looking, but until then the best date I've gotten is mid 2000 for a 733). wasn't the 2.0 GHz P4 released this year? |
Again, you can't seem to figure out a difference in a 'core' and a 'speed'.
The P4 2GHz was released this year, but the core for it was released a year ago.
The G4+ core was released in January 2001, after the P4.
Unlike how things tend to work in the Mac world, PC processors get faster over a period of time. They don't just release 5 different speeds and have that last them for 3 years like Motorola did with the G4. Every month or two a faster clocked P4 and Athlon come out.
But in January this year, a new Pentium 4 core will be out. It'll be much faster, and clock higher too.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
King_Of_Hearts
|
|
Under the stars
Oct 2001
time: 00:15
|
|
The latest from the source who has brought us several previous anonymous reports on the G5 has sent in quite a whopper with details on numerous Apple fronts. Some of the details, particularly where they involve SGI, have been disputed by other sources, so as with all rumors, trust no one:
At Apple, we are quite pleased with the way the G5 has progressed. As of noon, we received version 0.7 of the G5. Altivec performance is now at par with equivalent clock speed 7460's. We spent a late night Friday night fitting prototypes with the new revision, and spent the day saturday doing various tests.
Yields are now just at the commercially acceptable level. Good news is that clock speeds have been improved to the point where 1.6 Ghz chips will be in adequate quantities. Another clock speed record was also set: 1 chip tested at 2.8 Ghz, 2 tested at 2.6 Ghz, 13 tested at 2.4 Ghz, 13 tested at 2.2Ghz, and 54 tested at 2Ghz. This shows that the G5 has tremendous potential at reaching high frequencies, being this early in its life. This is in sharp contrast to Intel's Itanium, which when I spoke to an Intel engineer at the semiconductor forum, they still are not getting sufficient yields above 800Mhz, an yields on current processors are very, very poor, hence the steep price of the Itanium. Mckinley is not faring too well either, progress has not been very good on increasing its clock speed for release sometime next year. The aim is to speed bump the G5 to between 2Ghz and 2.4 Ghz for Macworld New York. Above 1.6 Ghz, the G5 will be produced in 400Mhz increments.
Apple could theoretically sign off now, but Jon Rubinstein wants to go through one more revision. All the critical bugs have now been worked out, but there are a couple of minor optimizations that will go into revision 0.8, which is due within two weeks. Likely, these slight optimizations will result in version 0.8 being declared 1.0, and mass production will go on throughout December to get a critical volume of chips for a Mid-December production run of Power Mac G5's.
Anyone considering buying a G5 better be forwarned: the chip price may mean that Apple may not be able to offer G5 Power Macs for the same price as current G4 models. There has been talk between Steve Jobs, Jon Rubinstein, and Phil Schiller about possibly offering 7460 G4's at the low end in the professional models in two configurations, which would also appease Motorola. Apple would have five models of pro desktops until G5 prices fall low enough to warrant having them in the low-end pro models. There is talk of two 7460 G4 models, and 3 G5 models. Talk is that the low end G5 model will sell for slightly more than the current 867Mhz G4. The G5 towers will also sport the quicksilver enclosure initially, which will be changed at Macworld New York. People should understand that even though the G5 is considerably more expensive than the G4, it is a steal considering that we are getting at least 60% overall instructions per cycle than Intel's Itanium, and that it is a 64-bit processor. The 32 bit version of the G5 will be solely targeted towards embedded applications, as 32-bit addressing is no longer adequate for desktop applications.
The long awaited LCD iMac will also make its debut at Macworld San Francisco. It will be available at up to 1Ghz, 900Mhz being the scenario should yields of IBM's next generation G3's not be sufficient enough at 1Ghz.
Steve Jobs has very ambitious plans for Apple's processor strategy. He recently said "We've been stuck with the G4 for over two years, that's too long". His intentions are that the G5 have a life of 18 months in the Pro models. He wants the G6 to hit initial silicon between next December, and February 2003, and release it in mid-2003. Initially, the G6 will be fabbed with a 0.1 micron process moving to .07(.065) micron. It will be built upon the HIP 8.0 process, which is still not quite finalized. It will feature Altivec II, which promises to at least double performance of the current Altivec. Early estimates are that it will contain over 100 million gates. The G6 will be introduced at between 4.5 and 5Ghz and scale up to 10 Ghz.
This week Apple has committed itself to going beyond the G6 to build a G7, and maybe beyond. Apple is looking at Motorola's recently announced Gallium Arsenide technology to give this chip insanely high clock speeds. Talk is the G7 could go as high as 20 Ghz. The G7 would debut in early to mid 2005. This renewed hope with the PowerPc architecture is in light of the fact that Cisco Systems has committed to being a significant customer of G5's for their high-end routers, and Silicon Graphics being in the last stages of abandoning development on its R16000 and R18000 processors as a cost-cutting measure. It looks very likely it will sign a commitment with Apple, IBM and Motorola within a month. It has prototype G5 chips in a prototype workstation of theirs, and is hard at work developing Irix 7.0 for the G5.
In terms of future G5 development, work is well underway on the 8510, which is a low-power SOI LoK dielectric version of the G5. It is due out in late Q4 2002, and it will be an IBM product fabbed with its 0.1 micron process. Work is also progressing on the 8550, which is due out Q1 2003. It will be a 0.1 micron chip built upon SOI LO-K dielectric. It is a candidate to receive Altivec II if it is completed in time.
Relationships between Apple and Motorola as of late could very well be described as Jeckyll and Hyde. Just three weeks ago, Steve Jobs said "I am going to sue the ass of those guys at Motorola. At the last minute, they f*cked us up. They told us we would have 1Ghz G4's, and days before Macworld, the f*ckers told us there was a defect which would cause them to fail above 900Mhz." Days later, the relationship becomes cordial again when Motorola shows renewed interest when SGI and Cisco Systems start looking into the G5.
Very interesting....however, as we have mentioned previously, there have been several calls from the grapevine for us to be perhaps somewhat more conservative than this report might suggest with regard to G5 clock speeds in the year ahead, as well as with regard to a release date for the PowerMac G5. Whatever the case, time will no doubt tell the tale.  
MAC RULES!!!!!
P.S. this is not a DL (thx for the explanation Wiglaf)
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by King_Of_Hearts
I wonder how thick headed u r.... first of all Pentium processors and G4 processors r 2 TOTAL DIFFERENT THINGS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! as some already said a G4 867Mhz is ALMOST just as fast as a P4 2.0 Ghz can u imagine how much faster the new G5 will be???? and even when 80% of the article is bullshit somethings in there must be true else it has no use to publish it is there...
P.S it was just a joke about the thick headed thing... |
Yeah, no kidding? Thanks.
I already stated that I've heard the G5 will be pretty fast.
I've also alreadly clearly stated my understandings on the design and implementation of microprocessors, way more than anyone else in this thread.
My comment comes because Apple was making a double standard -- er...nevermind, if you didn't comprehend it the first time you won't a second time.
quote:
as for the 'all over the web' talk, I can't find anything about the P4 core's release date. btw, force quit usually works (although it can cause some problems later on in other applications) pretty well and fast on almost all my programs when I need to use it on OS8.6. good bet it's quake II screwing with you, not apple. |
Computers aren't really your bag, are they?
http://www.intel.com/pressroom/arch...es/dp112000.htm
And I understand that force quit "usually works" and that it was probably Q2's problem, but there is a certain thing called a "fault tolerance" which should allow your OS to kill anything running for any reason. Force Quit is not that option (in Unix, it's called "kill -9", In Win2K/XP, it's the "End Process" button)
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:15.
Apolyton Time is 00:15. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
05-11-2001 04:14
|