or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Welcome to the Gigahertz Gap
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Welcome to the Gigahertz Gap

post #1 of 41
Thread Starter 
Some comments on my feelings about today's show...

I thought everything was teriffic - really beyond my expectations in every area except one: PowerMac. Why? If you're going for a 15" screen and you aren't planning on a PCI upgrade, the high-end iMac (800) saves you over $1000 compared to the 867 PowerMac, despite the Crystal Clear promo, and gives you 128MB more memory to boot.

The reality-distortion field created by these great new products has distracted us from our speed problem, but for how long? Intel and AMD announced 2.2 GHz today/tomorrow. I don't know about anyone else, but being stuck at 867MHz as our fastest chip...I no longer feel comfortable referring to this as a MHz gap. At a difference of almost 1.5GHz, this is certainly now a GHz Gap.

Apple needs to get out of this fast - with a large jump. Anything under 1.4GHz, at this point, leaves us in roughly the same situation we are today.

How soon can Apple close this gap?! Or can it?

-S
post #2 of 41
The Powermac will be upgraded soon enough.

When the new iBooks came out, they were better in many respect to the Powerbook, but Apple survived, and a few short months later, the TiBook came out.

SdC
My signature irritates people. However, my cat can still jump a watermelon, and the Apollo is the next chip coming to the Powermac line. Although, at this point, I'd believe that Cyrix is the next...
Reply
My signature irritates people. However, my cat can still jump a watermelon, and the Apollo is the next chip coming to the Powermac line. Although, at this point, I'd believe that Cyrix is the next...
Reply
post #3 of 41
Basically my next computer purchase will be a 1900+ Athlon XP based PC.

I will leave my DP G4 on desk until a real G5 comes out.....

After this show I start to feel regret about spending almost two thousand Canadian dollars on OSX and the native apps
Mac Pro 2.66, 5GB RAM, 250+120 HD, 23" Cinema Display
MacBook 1.83GHz, 2GB RAM
Reply
Mac Pro 2.66, 5GB RAM, 250+120 HD, 23" Cinema Display
MacBook 1.83GHz, 2GB RAM
Reply
post #4 of 41
[quote]Originally posted by Leonis:
<strong>Basically my next computer purchase will be a 1900+ Athlon XP based PC.

I will leave my DP G4 on desk until a real G5 comes out.....

After this show I start to feel regret about spending almost two thousand Canadian dollars on OSX and the native apps </strong><hr></blockquote>

Hey everyone,
It's what you can do, not how fast the processor spins. :confused: (sorry about the bad analogy)

Try to do anything that iMovie, iDVD, iPhoto or even iTunes can on you 2.2 GHz PC.
Sure I'd love if the mac was way faster, but that's not an option, and watching my iMovies, publishing web sites effortlessly and making DVDs is power that the other guys don't have.
If you're a pro and you can get the PC working as well as a Mac, then true, it may be rational to go Windows, but as a consumer the mac is now far and away the best computer available.

Let's wait a month to see what Apple has in store for the towers. They must have been working on a MHz strategy for quite some time now given Motorola's clear inability to keep up with Intel/AMD. If it's quad processors or another fabricator or a different fabrication process Apple will break out of this dilemma within the next 12 months. I'm impatient too, but that's got to be the reality.
post #5 of 41
Then Apple should reduce the price of the PowerMacs. At this point they are NOT A GOOD VALUE.

When will Apple finally change chip suppliers, when it's a terahertz gap?
just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
Reply
just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
Reply
post #6 of 41
Is there an expression for being over the moon, and in deepest truama at the same time?
post #7 of 41
[quote]Originally posted by rickag:
<strong>Then Apple should reduce the price of the PowerMacs.</strong><hr></blockquote>They did, it's called the iMac.

Seriously - instead of faster PowerMacs, you basically get cheaper ones. But they really need a PowerMac upgrade FAST. Sales are going to absolutely plummet.
post #8 of 41
[quote]Originally posted by SpiffyGuyC:
<strong>

I no longer feel comfortable referring to this as a MHz gap. At a difference of almost 1.5GHz, this is certainly a Gigaherts gap

-S</strong><hr></blockquote>

I agree completely.

Apple desparately needs to put itself on the forefront of speed and technology again. Remember the days when the G3 was twice as fast as intel's PIII? Apple needs a 1.6ghz G5 in the next few months. Anything less, and we will still be playing catch up forever. No matter how cool apple's digital hub stratagey is (which I must say is pretty cool), It can't win if everyone knows that "macs are slow."

On a more positive note, I think the new imac rules, and it will be a success. And I do have hope for a G5 soon, apple isn't dumb(hopefully....)
post #9 of 41
[quote]Try to do anything that iMovie, iDVD, iPhoto or even iTunes can on you 2.2 GHz PC.<hr></blockquote>
Many of the people here complaining don't really give a hoot about iAnything. We use comps for a living and most of our apps are cross-platform. I have used Macs since the Mac II, and for the first time I am pricing an Athlon system. 800DP vs. 1.6GHZ DP. That's what the gap is right now, and its equals anywhere from a 50% to 200% reduction in rendering times. That's why people want faster machines--we get more work done.
four more beers, four more beers
Reply
four more beers, four more beers
Reply
post #10 of 41
[quote]Originally posted by vr6:
<strong>

Hey everyone,
It's what you can do, not how fast the processor spins. :confused: (sorry about the bad analogy)

Try to do anything that iMovie, iDVD, iPhoto or even iTunes can on you 2.2 GHz PC.
Sure I'd love if the mac was way faster, but that's not an option, and watching my iMovies, publishing web sites effortlessly and making DVDs is power that the other guys don't have.
If you're a pro and you can get the PC working as well as a Mac, then true, it may be rational to go Windows, but as a consumer the mac is now far and away the best computer available.

</strong><hr></blockquote>

Those ishits don't cut it for my works.

I am pretty sure that when my hardware purchase fund comes next week I will be buying TWO Athlon XP 1900+ PCs

Also if nothing happens on the so called pro-mac line up on March I will be selling all my mac software in order to get the PC versions of them. Serious.
Mac Pro 2.66, 5GB RAM, 250+120 HD, 23" Cinema Display
MacBook 1.83GHz, 2GB RAM
Reply
Mac Pro 2.66, 5GB RAM, 250+120 HD, 23" Cinema Display
MacBook 1.83GHz, 2GB RAM
Reply
post #11 of 41
I know how you feel Leonis. Once again, the PowerMac refresh is very disappointing...hell, it didn't even get refreshed! I truly believe anyone who buys a $2500 PowerMac right now is a moron.

What a difference...from 1.6GHz G5s to nothing. Heh...even the pessimists were expecting a 1GHz PowerMac.

Oh, and why not the AMD Athlon XP2000+ that was released today? Drool... :cool: :eek:
*Registered March 1, 1999*
Member #14
Reply
*Registered March 1, 1999*
Member #14
Reply
post #12 of 41
n/t
My signature irritates people. However, my cat can still jump a watermelon, and the Apollo is the next chip coming to the Powermac line. Although, at this point, I'd believe that Cyrix is the next...
Reply
My signature irritates people. However, my cat can still jump a watermelon, and the Apollo is the next chip coming to the Powermac line. Although, at this point, I'd believe that Cyrix is the next...
Reply
post #13 of 41
It's that damn Moore's law thing. Even a minor setback can become a major one in no time.

If the Ghz gap keeps widening I see two possible outcomes-

1. x86 chips become powerful enough to emulate Motorola chips at speeds that compete with the actual chips.

2. Apple has no choice but to switch to x86 and come up with some slick way of emulating a G4 environement for Carbon and Classic Aps.

I hope that Apple is at least researching #2, just in case.

--
"Evolution is not random. Mutation is random, but natural selection is entirely non-random. Evolution doesn't predict that all the complexity of life just came together randomly. "

Reply

--
"Evolution is not random. Mutation is random, but natural selection is entirely non-random. Evolution doesn't predict that all the complexity of life just came together randomly. "

Reply
post #14 of 41
Apple must be embarrased about its current line up of G4 Towers. The good people at Apple are not working for nothing, they have a fast chip coming from their help with MOT. Apple will please all you pro people at the next expo in march or maybe
earlier.
post #15 of 41
I said Apple would be lucky to show a GHz G4 and now there's nothing at all. I was right. BUT THEN OS X is the default so that means your G4 will run even slower. In a way G4s are slower now than they were yesterday.

Apple's going backwards.
post #16 of 41
OK so there's no new towers -YET. But did anyone here seriously thing G5's were ready yet?

Now the G4 iMacs are out they will do the job they were designed for, which is convert Wintel home users and convince 1st time buyers to choose Apple.

Obviously the current towers represent bad value now, so what can Apple do without a working G5?
I reckon a Dual 700 G4 will become the bottom end, dual 867 mid range, and possibly a dual or quad 900 for the top end.
==================================
"It's Happening. Fact."

Ilann Hepworth.
Reply
==================================
"It's Happening. Fact."

Ilann Hepworth.
Reply
post #17 of 41
After this lesson I learn not to hope for anything even they hype.
Mac Pro 2.66, 5GB RAM, 250+120 HD, 23" Cinema Display
MacBook 1.83GHz, 2GB RAM
Reply
Mac Pro 2.66, 5GB RAM, 250+120 HD, 23" Cinema Display
MacBook 1.83GHz, 2GB RAM
Reply
post #18 of 41
Hey Leonis, can you list all the software titles you're gonna want to sell once you go XP? I might be interested.
post #19 of 41
[quote]Originally posted by Gilsch:
<strong>Hey Leonis, can you list all the software titles you're gonna want to sell once you go XP? I might be interested.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I will do cross platform upgrade so I don't need to sell any of them with the exception of Final Cut Pro 3
Mac Pro 2.66, 5GB RAM, 250+120 HD, 23" Cinema Display
MacBook 1.83GHz, 2GB RAM
Reply
Mac Pro 2.66, 5GB RAM, 250+120 HD, 23" Cinema Display
MacBook 1.83GHz, 2GB RAM
Reply
post #20 of 41
You people who are switching to Wintels...do you really need that extra MHz, or is it just that you want to feel like your computer is the fastest available. I mean, what is it you DO, that dual 800 Powermac G4 isn't fast enough for you? Please, I'd really like to know what these powermacs are so slow at.

I predict that by MWNY, we'll see:

Apollo G4 in Titanium, iMac, at speeds around 1 GHz.

G5 Powermacs, up to 1.6 GHz.

That's what I figure. Maybe that's too optimistic, but I think Apple knows the precariousness of their position right now, and they are doing everything they can to deliver on MHz. I think we are in the calm before the storm.

And I think that for those of you who switch to Wintel, in a few months you'll be sorry that you spent all that money on Wintel software, when G5s are hammering the pentiums and athlons.
post #21 of 41
[quote]Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg:
<strong>You people who are switching to Wintels...do you really need that extra MHz,</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yes.

You don't need that 'extra speed' doesn't mean others don't need that too.

If you go to my other topics in the general discussion section you will understand why I am so mad and frustrated.

[ 01-07-2002: Message edited by: Leonis ]</p>
Mac Pro 2.66, 5GB RAM, 250+120 HD, 23" Cinema Display
MacBook 1.83GHz, 2GB RAM
Reply
Mac Pro 2.66, 5GB RAM, 250+120 HD, 23" Cinema Display
MacBook 1.83GHz, 2GB RAM
Reply
post #22 of 41
Two Points.
First, the Crystal Clear Savings promotion on Powermacs and displays runs out at the end of this month so that could indicate a timeframe for new Powermacs to be released.
Second, is that I am actually incouraged that there was no "refreshing" of the Powermacs now. It seems to me that if there was a long lead time to the really new machines everyone is hoping for with G5s or at least Apollo G4s, faster memory and bus speed, etc then Apple would have at least upped the Mhz of the current lineup. The fact they did nothing seems to indicated they have a major upgrade in store, and relatively soon. They may have not had enough chips to announce now, and/or they did not want to distract from the new iMac.
Seems to me if you can't appreciate what the whole make experience means, then you should just migrate to Windoze. I haven't seen it mentioned much here, but Apple has really made a major shift in the way it operates. Before we appreciated the synergy and ease of use of Macs because Apple made both the hardware and the OS...now it is also making some great software that only works on Macs. Yes, before they had Appleworks and Framemaker, etc, but these do nothing all that different then windows apps. Now if they would just make an iBrowser, most consumer users would have the apps they use most of the time coming from Apple!
post #23 of 41
Well if this is the best Apple can offer i too think its time to sell up all my powermacs and setup some dual Athlon machines running Avid DV xpress.

The line between a nicer OS on slow machines compared to a less than ideal OS on MUCH faster machines must be drawn here.

Athlons running Pro Tools run 3x more proccessing plugins in realtime compared to the fastest Mac's, Athlon machines render nearly 3x faster video in Avid DV Xpress.

A sad day for Apple's power users.

Ketracel
post #24 of 41
You know Junkyard Dawg, and this is a first! I really hope you're right.

[ 01-07-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #25 of 41
Yeah the major shift here is Apple seems far to concerned with wasting resources developing free consumer software to apease miss and mr imac user.

Really the big news here was iPhoto and iMac's....woopdy ferkin doo.

The user experience is a valid point, but it seems no longer worth the sacrafice.

Im the last one to say this but Apple has lost it. I witnessed countless mac fans sell up in favor of AMD systems after Mac World NY failed to deliver. MWSF has also failed to deliver. After a little time with XP, i have to say it has come a long way and i dare say, is a pleasure to use.
post #26 of 41
Apple didn't even touch the powermacs. This means they are due for an update, soon.

[quote]
You don't need that 'extra speed' doesn't mean others don't need that too.

If you go to my other topics in the general discussion section you will understand why I am so mad and frustrated.
<hr></blockquote>

Clearly, just because I don't need the speed I don't think that others don't need it. I'm just weary of people who carp on and on about how slow Powermacs are, when they don't even need the power.

I wasn't trying to say that you don't need it, I was really curious, about what you did that needed so much power. Now that you told me I have a better understanding of what Powermacs are slow at. Thanks.
post #27 of 41
The gap is only important to power users. The power users are only a portion of Apple's sales. This show they went after the procumer with iMac and iBooks.

As one of the anylisists on TechTV said
" the mehz war is over. No one cares about what faster than what, now they look at what the computer can do for them". Enter the iMac which can do everything that was showcased today. That's what poeple will be looking at and will help Apple. The mhz doesn't matter as much to Joe Consumer as it once did.

As for us power users, you think Apple re made the iMac, slapped in a G4 and made it a baby tower for less then a tower just to speed bump the towers a couple of notches?

Relax.
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
post #28 of 41
I'm tired of it also. No they don't need the speed really. However, if you're a customer in the store and all your PC buddys lead you to believe the only thing that matters is speed ( if you are Joe consumer ) that's what you're going to buy. If they do that enough Apple's market share will have to read with a magnifying glass. I'm sorry to say but, we live in the age of speed and Apple has let too many years slip by without properly addressing this " we will close the Mghz gap ".

Well?

Apple has to show that to the average consumer they are a viable alternative to what everybody else has. You can't do that with design alone. As long as you hand the PC side that argument in their favor they will use it to their marketing advantage.

[ 01-08-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #29 of 41
Ok, then it comes down to the wow factor. The faster then I will need ugly boring box over there, or the sweet fast enough iMac does does everything or the new towers ( applies once new towers are released )

Even if Apple was at 1.6ghz+ we'd still face as many obsticals, that willnever change. If we had a 3ghz tower it would be "but i can't run blah blah on the mac".

Deal with it.
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
post #30 of 41
If Apple had a 3 GHz Powermac they would be selling a hell of a lot more than they do now!

That doesn't even make sense. C'mon, if Apple had the upper hand in speed, then gamers would be interested, more professionals would be interested, even geeks would be thinking about Macs. The performance gap hurts Apple, seriously.
post #31 of 41
I don't think that means as much as some people make it out to be. Apple had the fastest machine not 10 years ago and it did shit for their market share. We don't have the luxury of 2 COMPITENT chip makers fighting over speeds for our platform, we will never catch up or keep a steady pace mhz wise. We don't need to, because we all the know the argument. We need fast enough machines with the wow factor and excellent features that run the mac os the way it was meant to be.

Don't get me worng, I'm waiting to buy th fastest thing Apple releases whenver they relase it! But, I think the mhz whine is getting played and old. Lets focus on the positive things our favorite fruit is doing
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
post #32 of 41
"We don't have the luxury of 2 COMPITENT chip makers fighting over speeds for our platform"

While this is true, the fact that Motorola's main interest BY A LONG SHOT, is embedded processors. Embedded processors today make less than adequate desktop processors. While Apple can not move to the X86 processor, much of the technology in AMD's chips could be used in a processor designed for OS X. The core for the X86 chips is RISC, meaining uniform instruction size, just like the Power PC.

Apple really needs to get away from Motorola as their supplier. I don't know how, but holy crap, a 1.5 GHz gap is embarrassing. Adobe has optimized their software for, what is it called, SSE, which I guess isn't a efficient as Altivec, but for how long?? Things don't remain static, SSE instruction sets and chip design will progress and any advantage Altivec has will or has become mute.

I don't know, but AMD may not even be interested in Apple's business, but we do know Motorola isn't. Talk about a rock and a hard place.
just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
Reply
just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
Reply
post #33 of 41
[quote]Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg:
<strong>If Apple had a 3 GHz Powermac they would be selling a hell of a lot more than they do now!

That doesn't even make sense. C'mon, if Apple had the upper hand in speed, then gamers would be interested, more professionals would be interested, even geeks would be thinking about Macs. The performance gap hurts Apple, seriously.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I really do think that even IF Apple had 3Ghz, that would not convert large numbers of people.

Face it, Windows is SOOOO much of a stronghold, they'd have to completely stop releasing new OS updates and stop making new hardware for 10 years for Apple to catch up, marketshare wise.
Nov 98 - Earliest Registered User on record
Jan 02 - Earliest iPad prediction
Reply
Nov 98 - Earliest Registered User on record
Jan 02 - Earliest iPad prediction
Reply
post #34 of 41
[quote]Originally posted by JRC:
<strong>

I really do think that even IF Apple had 3Ghz, that would not convert large numbers of people.

Face it, Windows is SOOOO much of a stronghold, they'd have to completely stop releasing new OS updates and stop making new hardware for 10 years for Apple to catch up, marketshare wise.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It would convert all the professional users in video graphism and multimedia. Busisness men won't care and nor the gamers (much less number of games : and if you love games you should better buy an X box)
post #35 of 41
I was working at an store that sold apples whne the first PC's came out, I saw whole departments at ford and chrysler dump their apples and order PC's that no one had even seen at that point. Our parent company sold 6,000 PC's before anyone even knew what they would look like. The market share that is open to Apple is at max, about 20%. And I really wish Leonis would just buy his PC and get on with it. He's been headed that way so long, time to fish or cut bait.
post #36 of 41
[quote]Originally posted by rickag:
<strong>"We don't have the luxury of 2 COMPITENT chip makers fighting over speeds for our platform"

While this is true, the fact that Motorola's main interest BY A LONG SHOT, is embedded processors. Embedded processors today make less than adequate desktop processors. While Apple can not move to the X86 processor, much of the technology in AMD's chips could be used in a processor designed for OS X. The core for the X86 chips is RISC, meaining uniform instruction size, just like the Power PC.

Apple really needs to get away from Motorola as their supplier. I don't know how, but holy crap, a 1.5 GHz gap is embarrassing. Adobe has optimized their software for, what is it called, SSE, which I guess isn't a efficient as Altivec, but for how long?? Things don't remain static, SSE instruction sets and chip design will progress and any advantage Altivec has will or has become mute.

I don't know, but AMD may not even be interested in Apple's business, but we do know Motorola isn't. Talk about a rock and a hard place.</strong><hr></blockquote>


You hit the nail mostly on the head. Except x86 was, is and always has been a CISC design. One of it's biggest annoyances is it's variable instruction size. And why exactly is it that Apple can't move to x86? It would take a MASSIVE contract to get AMD or Intel to develop a custom chip for the Mac, I think that is extrodinarily unlikely.

[ 01-08-2002: Message edited by: PCMan ]</p>
post #37 of 41
[quote]Originally posted by PCMan:
<strong>


You hit the nail mostly on the head. Except x86 was, is and always has been a CISC design. One of it's biggest annoyances is it's variable instruction size. And why exactly is it that Apple can't move to x86? It would take a MASSIVE contract to get AMD or Intel to develop a custom chip for the Mac, I think that is extrodinarily unlikely.

[ 01-08-2002: Message edited by: PCMan ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

PCMan you are a negativity spreader! The G4 beats the pants off of any app in say a month when the new BEASTS are released. Suck it.
post #38 of 41
[quote]Originally posted by Macintosh:
<strong>

The G4 beats the pants off of any app in say a month when the new BEASTS are released. Suck it.</strong><hr></blockquote>

But the question is: "Are we going to see this in our lifetime?"

[ 01-08-2002: Message edited by: Leonis ]</p>
Mac Pro 2.66, 5GB RAM, 250+120 HD, 23" Cinema Display
MacBook 1.83GHz, 2GB RAM
Reply
Mac Pro 2.66, 5GB RAM, 250+120 HD, 23" Cinema Display
MacBook 1.83GHz, 2GB RAM
Reply
post #39 of 41
[quote]Originally posted by Leonis:
<strong>

But the question is: "Are we going to see this in our lifetime?"

[ 01-08-2002: Message edited by: Leonis ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

Just by your fücking pc and be on with it. Do your cross platform upgrade and get off the boards. By the way what is it that you do that 867 G4 can't do. Shit or get off the pot.

[ 01-08-2002: Message edited by: spicoli ]</p>
"I don't think I'm ever going to find Jesus Christ, So I'd rather spend my cash on vice."
--The Twelve Steps by Spiritualized
Reply
"I don't think I'm ever going to find Jesus Christ, So I'd rather spend my cash on vice."
--The Twelve Steps by Spiritualized
Reply
post #40 of 41
Moral is at new low, and Apple needs to preannounce the new G5 as soon as possible. (This is my personal feeling). I've been using Macs since 1991. In that time I owned a Mac Classic and an iMac400dv. I'm NOT a power user, and I too am DISAPPOINTED. As an AVERAGE consumer, I can't say that there is a single product available today that I would buy from Apple. I know first hand what a shity graphics card can do to your gaming experience, and the fact that Apple leaves no choice in that department, is a serious problem with regards to its consumer product(s). (The new/old iMac). Second, I've played around with the G4 towers with osX installed, and even with all the supposed optimization for the altivec engine, the user experience is still sluggish at best. I will not buy a G4 machine period. osX is the future, but sadly even with a 1 GHz G4, I doubt the user experience will be much improved. From what I read this has to do with the bottleneck in the memory subsystems, and something which supposedly will only get solved with the arrival the G5 and its new motherboard design. (If the speculation is true). Furthermore, Apple needs to seriously address the perception that people have, by offering dual and even quad processor machine, that together add to, or exceed the MHz speed of comparatively priced Wintel boxes. Mac users, have always been at a disadvantage when it comes to choice of software, and this is something that most macaddicts, such as myself, have come to accept. OsX can maybe change that, but Apple needs to grow its market share, and theres no way they will do it with INFERIOR hardware. Absolutely no way!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Welcome to the Gigahertz Gap