Naming Conventions...
I wasn't sure if this would be the appropriate place for this, but...
AMD has used different naming conventions on their processors for well over 18 months. Instead of doing the MHZ measurement they have wised up and instead refer to their cpu's "horsepower" if you will. This includes normal bus speed, cache, mhz, etc. Rarely do they consider mhz though, since a barton 3200+ is slower than a thouroghbread 3200+ as far as mhz. But its faster over all because of the extra cache.
Intel has finally switched naming conventions also.
http://www.reed-electronics.com/elec...ticle/CA404807
Wouldn't it be in apple's best interest to switch their conventions also? Instead of focusing so hard on clock speed they should focus on the power of the chip comparing it to older chips.
I believe it would be more appealing to the consumer no matter what the mhz is. Ignorant people would read in an article that the Serval (g5) 9299 is really fast. They wouldn't know the mhz right away, nor care eventually. The price on Apple computers would be a lot easier to swallow...
What do you guys think?
AMD has used different naming conventions on their processors for well over 18 months. Instead of doing the MHZ measurement they have wised up and instead refer to their cpu's "horsepower" if you will. This includes normal bus speed, cache, mhz, etc. Rarely do they consider mhz though, since a barton 3200+ is slower than a thouroghbread 3200+ as far as mhz. But its faster over all because of the extra cache.
Intel has finally switched naming conventions also.
http://www.reed-electronics.com/elec...ticle/CA404807
Wouldn't it be in apple's best interest to switch their conventions also? Instead of focusing so hard on clock speed they should focus on the power of the chip comparing it to older chips.
I believe it would be more appealing to the consumer no matter what the mhz is. Ignorant people would read in an article that the Serval (g5) 9299 is really fast. They wouldn't know the mhz right away, nor care eventually. The price on Apple computers would be a lot easier to swallow...
What do you guys think?
Comments
Originally posted by emig647
I wasn't sure if this would be the appropriate place for this, but...
AMD has used different naming conventions on their processors for well over 18 months. Instead of doing the MHZ measurement they have wised up and instead refer to their cpu's "horsepower" if you will. This includes normal bus speed, cache, mhz, etc. Rarely do they consider mhz though, since a barton 3200+ is slower than a thouroghbread 3200+ as far as mhz. But its faster over all because of the extra cache.
Intel has finally switched naming conventions also.
http://www.reed-electronics.com/elec...ticle/CA404807
Wouldn't it be in apple's best interest to switch their conventions also? Instead of focusing so hard on clock speed they should focus on the power of the chip comparing it to older chips.
I believe it would be more appealing to the consumer no matter what the mhz is. Ignorant people would read in an article that the Serval (g5) 9299 is really fast. They wouldn't know the mhz right away, nor care eventually. The price on Apple computers would be a lot easier to swallow...
What do you guys think?
I think too many people would complain if Apple started doing this.
And you have to realize that Mr. Average Joe computer buyer doesn't know much about computers, except that Mhz = Good (although we all know that isn't always the case). He sees the Pentium 4 based computers at either 1, 2 or 3 "horse power", than the PowerMacs at 3.5ghz (looking into the future here people, don't crucify me
Just like in the past, when a consumer saw the Mac G4 @ 1 ghz and the P4 based box @ 2.7, he went for the P4. Did that make it that much faster? No. We all know that computer speed is based on pipeline stages, bus speeds, memory speed and bandwidth, system architecture...stuff like that. But you start talking that way to Joe Six Pack, and he won't know what to do with it all. He'll nod his head and say "mhmm..." but in his mind he'll be saying, "Bus speed...wtf do I care how fast my kid's school bus goes? All I wanna do is buy a computer."
In short, bigger is better, for the average consumer. Macs are finally catching up, and AMD/Intel are running scared.
Originally posted by DMBand0026
In short, bigger is better, for the average consumer. Macs are finally catching up, and AMD/Intel are running scared.
Sorry to disappoint you, but AMD & Intel don't care what clock rate Apple machines are running at. AMD switched schemes because they looked bad next to Intel's high clock rates, and Intel is switching because they finally realized that they can't keep raising their clock rates -- it is the wrong solution to the problem. Intel's Pentium-M and Itanium designs operate at much lower clock rates than the Pentium4 line, but aren't nearly as slow as that would otherwise imply (quite the opposite, the Itanium is very fast). I would not be surprised if Intel's next high performance design is actually still in the ~3-4 GHz area.
Originally posted by Programmer
Sorry to disappoint you, but AMD & Intel don't care what clock rate Apple machines are running at. AMD switched schemes because they looked bad next to Intel's high clock rates, and Intel is switching because they finally realized that they can't keep raising their clock rates -- it is the wrong solution to the problem. Intel's Pentium-M and Itanium designs operate at much lower clock rates than the Pentium4 line, but aren't nearly as slow as that would otherwise imply (quite the opposite, the Itanium is very fast). I would not be surprised if Intel's next high performance design is actually still in the ~3-4 GHz area.
Well put. Clock rate is only a small percentage of the problem. If they keep raising that and don't raise anything else, speed won't improve as drastically.
Originally posted by sworthy
why don't we use gigaflops, isn't it an accurate measure across both platforms?
it should be I guess.... maybe a little too accurate.
but a good idea indeed.
back off topic in reply to what another guy said: "...he'll jump all over the Mac."
I never could believe that there are people who seriously think that when Apple overtakes the pc world on clockrate everybody in the pc world are suddenly gonna buy macs i.s.o PCs, I mean, you must be joking....
Originally posted by sworthy
why don't we use gigaflops, isn't it an accurate measure across both platforms?
I think this is debateable too. GFlops measure a processor's calculating capabilities, but finished calculations have to be written back in memory or hard drive or other device in usable time. If they remain for too much in CPU, they are useless (not really, but you get the idea).
Originally posted by ~ufo~
it should be I guess.... maybe a little too accurate.
but a good idea indeed.
back off topic in reply to what another guy said: "...he'll jump all over the Mac."
I never could believe that there are people who seriously think that when Apple overtakes the pc world on clockrate everybody in the pc world are suddenly gonna buy macs i.s.o PCs, I mean, you must be joking....
Why not? Price would finally be justified to the average consumer. What reason would they have not to? Ok price is a little higher, sure you can't run EVERY app out there... but you will be able to run MOST windows apps via vpc... so whats the big deal?
Originally posted by ~ufo~
[snip]
I never could believe that there are people who seriously think that when Apple overtakes the pc world on clockrate everybody in the pc world are suddenly gonna buy macs i.s.o PCs, I mean, you must be joking....
Allow me to clarify...
I didn't say there would be a mass exodus to the Mac side, however, I know it would attract more people. The kind of people that when they are out computer shopping always say, "those things look cool, but I can get one of these things that says 3.4 gigaflops, or hurts, or whatever it is, or one of those nice looking ones that says dual 3.5 gigawhatsits. I'm not sure what dual means, but it sounds better." He'll ask the salesman who will in turn give him some crap about system architecture. The dude's brain will fall asleep because he has already decided that dual 3.5 is better than 3.4.
I know this won't be the case 100% of the time, but I can see Apple taking back a few percentage points in market share.
And back to what programmer said...you are correct. I forgot to mention that the reason they were considering going to different ratings was because they hit a wall...for the time being at least. We'll see what happens though, as much as I don't want to see it, I can see Intel bouncing back and getting above 3.6...which is where they seem to be stuck now.
With so many new technologies (SATA II, PCI-E, Hypertransport 2, 90nm CPU's) slowly emerging this year (slower than most expected), 2004 seems to be the year of waiting. 2005 seems to be in-line to be the year of huge jumps in new usable technology.
I could be wrong, it could truly start in late October, just before the Christmas shopping season.
Originally posted by oldmacfan
Remember this, Intel has been at the wall for quite some time. Intel released the 3.06Ghz Pentium 4 with 533 FSB in November of 2002. That is closing in on 18 months of stalemate
[snip]
Wrong.
Intel is up to 3.6ghz now on a single P4 chip...and I'm not aware that Pentiums can be dual systems.
For example...dell has the Dimension XPS @ 3.4 now with 800mhz FSB.
But again, consumers don't care/don't know enough to care about FSB and the performance benefits a higher FSB offers.
The wall they seem to have hit is at 3.6, but that was after the wall they hit at 3.4. So we'll see. I know Intel wont lay down and die yet, but they need to figure something out, cause the Itanium (sp?) isn't the answer.
Originally posted by DMBand0026
Wrong.
Intel is up to 3.6ghz now on a single P4 chip...and I'm not aware that Pentiums can be dual systems.
For example...dell has the Dimension XPS @ 3.4 now with 800mhz FSB.
But again, consumers don't care/don't know enough to care about FSB and the performance benefits a higher FSB offers.
The wall they seem to have hit is at 3.6, but that was after the wall they hit at 3.4. So we'll see. I know Intel wont lay down and die yet, but they need to figure something out, cause the Itanium (sp?) isn't the answer.
You are not understanding what I am saying. Intel broke the 3Ghz barrier 18 months ago, they have done very little since. 400Mhz, a 10% increase, in those last 18 months is nothing.
As for the 3.6Ghz chips, they are to be released in June some time. They are not yet available. Don't count your fried chickens before they hatch.
Originally posted by oldmacfan
You are not understanding what I am saying. Intel broke the 3Ghz barrier 18 months ago, they have done very little since. 400Mhz, a 10% increase, in those last 18 months is nothing.
As for the 3.6Ghz chips, they are to be released in June some time. They are not yet available. Don't count your fried chickens before they hatch.
So in summary it wouldn't be wise for apple to move to a different naming convention?
Originally posted by emig647
So in summary it wouldn't be wise for apple to move to a different naming convention?
Apple still has to over come public perception of their products with the masses. I do not believe a naming convention is going to help that. Apple did a great job with the original iMac, but that initial momentum has stagnated.
Originally posted by emig647
So in summary it wouldn't be wise for apple to move to a different naming convention?
I don't know about him, but that's what I'm saying. I don't want Apple to fall in line with Intel/AMD and just get pushed to the back of the pack again. I say they stick with the Mhz ratings. For all the reasons I stated above, and more...which I don't have time to type out now, but I will later.