Will Apple turn to a AMD-style rating scheme?
Reply 21 of 29
June 11, 2002 7:55PM
[quote]Originally posted by Eugene:
At this rate, AMD will have a 2500+ (2 GHz) by 2003 and Intel will be at 3 GHz.
3400+ actually by '03 is the public roadmap
AMD will roll out the Hammer CPUs in the mean time and they're even slower clocked than that...</strong><hr></blockquote>
That remains to be seen
Reply 22 of 29
June 11, 2002 9:21PM
Well, Anandtech had no luck OC'ing the new Thoroughbred 1.8 GHz Athlon XP and AMD has only been able to muster a 133 MHz jump in the past 6 months. I think 200 additional MHz by the end of the year is certain, but beyond that not much more. Unless you're hinting at AMD retooling it's rating system, I don't see how AMD can go from a 333 PR deficit to a 400 PR lead. Intel's public roadmap doesn't list anything past present, and AMD's doesn't provide any numbers at all...
Reply 23 of 29
June 11, 2002 10:24PM
Well... regarding "real world" usage... for those that use their computer to simply browse the web and check e-mail.... or possibly open the occasional Word file or watch a DVD... the Mhz. race is really not that important... it's more of a status-symbol, isn't it...? I mean can you really justify spending top $$$ for a machine that will have a marginal increase in speed for the tasks you are performing...? As far as I;\\'m concerned... modem or broadband speed is a more important factor in your life at that point... not processor speed.
RE: The "Car" analogy... another thing to add is... Let's say a V8 is a Pentium box for around $800 and a 4-Cylinder is the Mac for around $1400... If that's all you went by... you'd say the PC is the better deal... right...? but, then you look at the spec's... the V8 car's weight is 3-times that of the 4-Cyl... the 4-Cyl delivers more horsepower (it's from a Lotus Turbo) and the 4-Cylinder is easier to drive with less maintenance cost.
I know we all agree to some extent that we need to bump our "car" up to a V6 or a V8... or dare I say a 12 (Jag)... It's just a shame that the two most common attributes to shop by, are (on the surface) Apple's weak links:
1) Initial Price
2) MHz (GHz) performance
All marketing asside... I still prefer to use a Mac... but if the gap in performance (be it perceived or real) keeps widening... it's going to be hard to take them seriously... again... I'm not talking about us "in-the-know" users... I'm talking the WinTel user that sees a 4.4GHz machine with monitor, printer, scanner, digital camera and mousepad for $899 at "PCs-R-Us"... compared to Apple's iMac which is UNDER 1GHz and OVER $1k... they think that the PC is "obviously" a better value.
Processor ratings (standardized or not) are only ONE aspect that really SHOULD be addressed during a major purchase like this... but in real life... people look at the price and that frickin' Processor speed.
* sigh *
Reply 24 of 29
June 12, 2002 7:07AM
The 'performance rating' scheme didn't hurt Cyrix that much (it was the fact that the company played mostly in the brutal low end of the market) and AMD isn't succeeding in spite of it; AMD was making good headway with the Athlon regardless.
Personally I don't believe the problem can be solved through new benchmarks or marketing initiatives, etc. Two decades' experience has taught the public to equate performance with clock speed only - at this point I wouldn't be surprised if people bought $1800 grapefruits should they be rated at 3500MHz...
The "performance rating" scheme is messy business and not effective enough to be worthwhile.
Reply 25 of 29
June 12, 2002 7:16AM
one common theme here is: Pentiums will get faster and faster, etc. It doesn't seem like intel has had any major speed boosts lately, and won't a major revision be in order so that they can keep their chips from dying from heat? from what i understand, the 2.4 is really pushing things in terms of heat...i'm feeling moore's law might quit applying, but hey, i'm probably wrong.
Reply 26 of 29
June 12, 2002 12:32PM
[quote]Originally posted by Eugene:
<strong>I don't see how AMD can go from a 333 PR deficit to a 400 PR lead. Intel's public roadmap doesn't list anything past present, and AMD's doesn't provide any numbers at all...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Like Jerry always says there are 3 good reasons: Hammer, Hammer, and Hammer. There is a roadmap that was presented at several conferences that lists model numbers in the future, i'll see if i can't find that when i get home.
Reply 27 of 29
June 12, 2002 2:38PM
[quote]Originally posted by Eskimo:
Like Jerry always says there are 3 good reasons: Hammer, Hammer, and Hammer. There is a roadmap that was presented at several conferences that lists model numbers in the future, i'll see if i can't find that when i get home.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ah, okay, as I expected. AMD's recentering the PR system.
Reply 28 of 29
there is no g5
June 12, 2002 5:39PM
Who cares? If you really believe that PC's are faster and better, then buy one.
Reply 29 of 29
June 12, 2002 9:19PM
Here is that roadmap I mentioned earlier Eugene. This is from the March 5th analysts conference and has been reused up till this march in public presentations. Of course things on roadmaps are always subject to change.