For those who said Apple uses the highest clock chips they can
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.
Comments
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
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.
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?
<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.
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]" />
<strong> At that point, what will be the new benchmark?</strong><hr></blockquote>
How many "speed holes" the front of your tower has.
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.
<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...
I think I am going to like my WhiffleMac.
EweBer