For those who said Apple uses the highest clock chips they can

tigerwoods99

I found a MacConnection catalog from when the beige G3s came out and Mac OS 8.5. The original iMac is in the catalog. There were 5 models of the G3, G3/266 desktop, G3/266 desktop, G3/300 desktop, G3/300 minitower, and G3/333 minitower. That means Apple's top clock speed was 333 MHz at this time on the G3s. Looking in the back I find newertechnology Maxpowr G3 upgrades at speeds of up to 400 MHz. Higher than Apple's clock speeds.

eman

Interesting.

trumptman

This use to be quite common. The answer was that Apple needed a certain quantity of chips before they could release a machine with them versus the acceleration guys needing just small lots.



So Apple might say to Motorola, so you have 400 mhz chips, cool, we need about 400,000 of them for this quarter.



Accelerations guys... ummm... we need... 1000....





Apple must have worked out an agreement with Moto since then because none of the upgrades available for quite a while have been above 500 mhz. They are just now getting to 1 ghz now that Apple has been there for several months.



Using this reasoning is of course depressing because it means that if there really were 1.4 ghz chips or more available, upgrade companies would be offering them and Apple wouldn't.



So since no one is offering it, it must not exist.



<img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />



Nick

stoo

Similarly, Power Computing always seemed to have top end machines a speed grade higher then Apple's.

spart

I don't doubt that Apple could be shipping 1.3GHz chips right now.



Problem is, the high end would be a single chip and not a dual. We had this before with the Dual 800 and single 867...I don't think Apple will do this again unless they absolutely must...



You must also remember that Apple will release an update when it is convienient for Apple. They aren't some two-bit outfit releasing hacked together boxes by the dozens. There is some quality control there.

dallenb

A quick question for an Apple newb. Currently the best Apple offers is a 800Mhz. PC's are currently at almost 3Ghz. I am confused how apple can compete with their chips being fully 1/3 (almost 1/4 at this rate) clock speed of a PC. I had thought that the G3, and G4 were multipliers, rounded down after a fashion. Like the new iBook I am getting is a G3 700, which would be the equivalent of like a 1.5Ghz or 1.7Ghz PC.



I have read articles claiming that a G4 800Mhz is faster than like a 2.0Ghz PC.



Anyone that can shed some light on this for me?

ghost_user_name

[quote]Originally posted by Dallenb:

<strong>Currently the best Apple offers is a 800Mhz.</strong><hr></blockquote>Where on earth did you hear that?



Apple offers dual 1.25 GHz PowerMacs.



<a href="http://www.apple.com/powermac/"; target="_blank">http://www.apple.com/powermac/</a>;



As for why the G4 does more calculations per tick than a P4, well, I'll leave the details to the hardware pros.



In short, it's more efficient and thus doesn't have to run as fast to do the same work. This is where the whole "MHz Myth" comes from. Apple is not the only one trying to fight the MHz Myth. AMD fights it a bit too, as their chips are clocked slower than some P4s but do just as well if not better. Some reports say that even Intel is going to have to fight the MHz Myth because the next major chip (P5?) from them will likely have to be clocked much slower than the P4 is going now.

uberinstaller

Brad is right... and makes a great point. The MHz myth is going to start biting PC chip makers in the butt just like it has done Apple/Moto. When Intel releases a P5 @ 2 GHz, people are going to say "what is going on here?" and then we are going to hear all about pipleline stages, the nature of clock speeds, etc from PC people for a change.



Good point, Brad. :cool:



There comes a point where an instant response is instant response, where 5Ghz and 50 Ghz will feel no different to the end user in most applications. At that point, what will be the new benchmark?



<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />

willoughby

[quote]Originally posted by UberInstaller:

<strong> At that point, what will be the new benchmark?</strong><hr></blockquote>



How many "speed holes" the front of your tower has.

brianmacos

So the point is MHZ and GHZ don't mean any thing its how you design the system it self. my G3 700mhz feels about the same speed as my old 1ghz p3... so that is a good example. Apple doesn't need a 2.4 ghz machine to do what it can already do at a dual 1.25ghz. I would rather have a dual 1.25ghz over a stand alone 2.4 ghz any day.

hmurchison

Megahertz is possible the WORST way to measure processors that don't use the same architecture.



It only measures the cycles of the chip itself yet mentions nothing of the actions that occur during those cycles...as Brad mentioned above



Intel gambled on the P4 and won this battle but the War still looms. I still can't believe that people fall for the Mhz myths but then again people generally purchase machines every 3-4 years and aren't alway on the Tech uptake.

ghost_user_name

[quote]Originally posted by hmurchison:

<strong>Intel gambled on the P4 and won this battle but the War still looms.</strong><hr></blockquote>What's interesting is to recall that Intel's P4 initially **underperformed** next to the PIII. That's right kids, when testing a PIII and P4 of equal clock speeds, the PIII performed better.



More evidence for the MHz myth...

uberinstaller

Well, if it IS speed holes, mine will certainly win, judging from the fact that I have been drilling holes all over the case to let the eeeeeevil demons out that are screaming at full blast inside (the fans)



I think I am going to like my WhiffleMac.





EweBer

matsu

The first P4's were not so great. 1.4 to 1.6 were about equal to P3 1Ghz, actually slower in some applications and slightly faster in others. But ever since the 2.2 Intel has made significant adjustments. The 2.4 and 2.53 are screamers and nothing for either AIM or AMD competes.