p4 to reach 5 ghz by first half of 2003
This is really starting to beacome embarrising.
3 ghz by end of year with hyperthreading
<a href="http://www.wininformant.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=26616"; target="_blank">http://www.wininformant.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=26616</a>;
3 ghz by end of year with hyperthreading
<a href="http://www.wininformant.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=26616"; target="_blank">http://www.wininformant.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=26616</a>;
Comments
come on people, who the frick cares. If you want the 5ghz go switch, otherwise grow up.
<strong>oh no, not 5ghz!?! life isn't fair, that's it, I'm hanging myself, goodbye cruel slow apple world
come on people, who the frick cares. If you want the 5ghz go switch, otherwise grow up.</strong><hr></blockquote>
yawn.. your response is as tired as the topic.
[ 09-13-2002: Message edited by: applenut ]</p>
Bottom line, regardless of real world performance, MHZ do matter from a marketing perspective, and if Apple wants to expand market share, they must provide products at least on par with Wintel, even if their systems are more expensive.
As it stands right now:
Itanium 2 = 8 stages = 1 GHz (shipping soon)
G4+ = 7 stages = 1.25 GHz (shipping soon)
UltraSPARC III = 9 stages = 1.05 GHz
Athlon XP = 10 or 11 stages = 2.133 GHz (shipping soon)
Pentium 4 = 20 stages = 2.8 GHz
[ 09-13-2002: Message edited by: Eugene ]</p>
Better products/companies have met their demise over less concrete disadvantages than that. If you don't think this can seriously hurt Apple, then you're just sticking your head in the sand.
<strong>who the frick cares. If you want the 5ghz go switch, otherwise grow up.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why should you or anyone care? Because in order for you to continue using your Mac and OS XXX from Apple, Apple has to remain in business. In order for Apple to remain in business, they have to compete against the 5GHz PCs of the world.
As the gap continues to widen, you'll start to be able to do things with a PC that you can't with a Mac. This will cause more and more people to switch from the Mac to the PC. If Apple's installed base shrinks to the point where they continue to lose money quarter after quarter, they'll go out of business. Perhaps some other company (IBM?) would scoop up the remains and continue to support OS XXX. Perhaps not. All bets would be off.
You personally may think the possibility of that happening is remote. Others do not. And, rumors aside, all the evidence points in a bad direction.
Frankly I'm disappointed. All I hear is what amounts to conjecture. Intel demos a processor and now to hear PC users talk ..it may as well be available right now. Just as AGP 8x is(yeah on what %5 of motherboards
Ship it and then I'll worry.
<strong>Granted, I realize the mhz is not the only measure of performance, but at this point I simply refuse to believe that a 1.25 G4 can meet or beat a p4 3ghz.</strong><hr></blockquote>
A 1.25GHz G4 doesn't have to meet or beat a 3GHz P4.
Now, if two of them fail to, then we have a serious problem. Of course, there will be areas where one really fast chip is better than two fast ones, but the reverse will also be true. And then there are the sudden bursts of astonishing power that AltiVec is capable of, although those will matter more to serious number crunchers than to general users. Well, except for DVD encoding and the like.
<strong>
yawn.. your response is as tired as the topic.
[ 09-13-2002: Message edited by: applenut ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
haha and yours isn't I suppose? <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
<strong>
Why should you or anyone care? Because in order for you to continue using your Mac and OS XXX from Apple, Apple has to remain in business. In order for Apple to remain in business, they have to compete against the 5GHz PCs of the world.
As the gap continues to widen, you'll start to be able to do things with a PC that you can't with a Mac. This will cause more and more people to switch from the Mac to the PC. If Apple's installed base shrinks to the point where they continue to lose money quarter after quarter, they'll go out of business. Perhaps some other company (IBM?) would scoop up the remains and continue to support OS XXX. Perhaps not. All bets would be off.
You personally may think the possibility of that happening is remote. Others do not. And, rumors aside, all the evidence points in a bad direction.</strong><hr></blockquote>
My saracstic point was that we all know where intel is and stands on their chip progress. We also all know where Apple stands in their posistion which is they will release what can when they can. I personally will use macs as long as they are made pretty much. So when i see a "OMG Intel breaks 500ghz!!" I could really care less what intel does as I could care less about Intel.
As for the pointing to a basd direction, I personally believe otehrwise. I've been told about good things for Apple this time next year. So believe the rumors if you want, we all love specualting about our favorite fruit, I just think the "Intel hits 40terhertz next week" is played.
<strong>
haha and yours isn't I suppose? <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
wow. takes a real man to come back with the same thing.. congratulations... you are pathetic!
Hey guys screw PC's we're here to talk about Macs. When I need a bunch of megahertz and companies with Big Brother mentalities I'll go Wintel. Right now I'm interested in where Apple is headed.
This is on current hardware.
If anyone here were to try and install XP on whatever machine was available when the Bondi Blue iMac was released, I have a feeling the whole machine would implode.
XP SP1 was just released. The first bug fix and the system requirements for it increased. This means that it's running even slower than than it was a month ago.
OS X has increased in speed significantly over the past 18 months. I think some people forget what parts of a computer are actually important. The hardware is definitely the lesser half.
<strong>Intel doesn't need Itanium, they can push Pentium seemingly at will...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Please, not only is Itanium 2 a monster chip that blows away the P4, it's much, much easier to hawk a workstation/enterprise oriented processor to the consumer than it is to try to pawn a P4 to the enterprise/workstation market.
Intel knows its shit, and ditching x86 in IA-64 is a calculated move.
This is the reason why the tech industry is in a slump. There is absolutely no innovation. Faster, faster, faster, cheaper, cheaper, cheaper. Wintel laptops still have floppy drives to take up space and add weight. They still have parrallel ports! They still require antennaes for wireless networking! They dim half-way when you unplug them!
There is so much wrong with the other side of the tech industry, it's not even funny. Perhaps they should get their collective asses together and actual come up with a half-f**king-decent product before they make their processor any faster, any hotter, and any more of a drain on power.
Tech news just isn't interesting anymore, and companies like Intel are the reason.
<strong>
Please, not only is Itanium 2 a monster chip that blows away the P4, it's much, much easier to hawk a workstation/enterprise oriented processor to the consumer than it is to try to pawn a P4 to the enterprise/workstation market.
Intel knows its shit, and ditching x86 in IA-64 is a calculated move.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You'll hear little disagreement from me, but my gist was a little unclear. Intel doen't need to go to Itanium in the same way that AIM really NEEDS a next gen CPU and to a lesser extent AMD needs the hammer. They're fabbing is just ridiculously good. They could probably churn out competitive Pentiums well after their competitors turn out their next gen chips.
That will allow them to sell IA32 and IA64 simulataneously, and probably get a ridiculous premium for their IA64 chips. However, x86 has prodigious inertia and even Intel has 'considered' an X86-64bit option. However, Intel and M$ are now making very nice on M$'s diabolical Palladium initiative. Probably enough to sway full IA64 support from M$ at the expense of optimum 64bit-X86. Of AMD and Intel, one will end up copying the other's next gen line-up (eventually), most likely Intel will lead again. M$ will hedge against both because they can afford it, but long term compliance will require one of the two to change its strategy in the long run.
In the meantime Intel is secure in the knowledge that it can sell you the absolute fastest x86-IA32 for a huge library of installed applications and make a lot of money doing it -- while the next gen sorts itself out.
PS. edit: I'm sure Motorola will during that time make some of the fastest chips available... for cell phones and calculators <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
[ 09-14-2002: Message edited by: Matsu ]</p>