or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by theapplegenius

It's a general purpose chip in the same way that an Itanium is a general purpose chip. You know what I mean. It wouldn't end up in a Power Mac G6.
The POWER6 isn't a general use processor like the G5 was. You'd never see it in an Apple desktop anyway. It is very good at one thing, but not at lots of different code. 4.7GHz would seem slow.
That screams defective video card. The core is overheating for one reason or another. Ask Apple if you can just bring the video card in.
http://www.e3internet.com/domain-registration/
I don't care about iChat. Gimme video support in Adium!
Haven't we learned that clockspeed doesn't equal performance?
This is starting to become a running joke. I think they're doing it on purpose.
The engineers at Intel knew there would be problems. Netburst was the bastard child of marketers who had no idea what went into chip design.And for you to say that AMD's core design "isn't that good", you should stop acting like you know about core design, because that's entirely untrue.
That's not true (MacSuperiority, this is my opinion, as your post *is* true but with an added bit of speculation). There was a Core Solo (one core), a Core Duo (two cores), Core 2 Duo (two cores) and a Core 2 Quad (two cores). The Core 1 line was pretty much the Core marchatecture but w/o the L2 and VT tech. There wasn't much of a difference and Intel couldn't make a huge "Core X Duo" marketing push then change the name for the Core 2 chips because it was a different...
If there won't be a Core 3, then what's the differentiation between the lower speed/performance Core 2 parts and the new Penryn line cores? I think Core 3 sounds logical.
New Posts  All Forums: