I'd a actually do what my customers obviously wanted and would buy. No more Flower Power kind of announcements!
agreed, in addition, I would keep my word, and ship things when we say we will, if we even project a delay, I would give the latest possible date for shipping, thus any time ahead is greavy, customers are happy to recive the units two days before ship date, not pissed when they are a month behind.
Aurora thanks!! Nice ratio so doing easy Math 2Ghz G5= 3Ghz Pentium 4. That means each Gigahertz of G5 is equivalent to 1.5Ghz of Pentium 4 Power. Thus the PowerPC G5 2.5Ghz computer is equivalent to a Pentim 4 3.75Ghz which is faster than they ship. So I guess the PPC 2.5 is the fastest computer right?
So, you are actually happy that it takes TWO G5 processors at 2GHz to equal ONE Intel processor at 3GHz? Did you forget that Aurora was comparing the dual processor G5 to a single processor P4 and you think he/she's wacked?
Oh yea, since you didn't account for the fact that 2.0GHz PowerMacs are DUAL, your formula should read that each Gigahertz of G5 (4GHz G5 ~= 3GHz P4) is roughly .75GHz of P4 power.
So I guess the PPC 2.5 is not the fastest computer right?
So, you are actually happy that it takes TWO G5 processors at 2GHz to equal ONE Intel processor at 3GHz? Did you forget that Aurora was comparing the dual processor G5 to a single processor P4 and you think he/she's wacked?
Oh yea, since you didn't account for the fact that 2.0GHz PowerMacs are DUAL, your formula should read that each Gigahertz of G5 (4GHz G5 ~= 3GHz P4) is roughly .75GHz of P4 power.
So I guess the PPC 2.5 is not the fastest computer right?
The Dual G5's are actually much faster than the single pentium when it comes to multitasking which is how most users compute. It's a simple equation. Simply count the execution units and registers of two G5s verus the Pentium 4. The G5s will get faster as more software threads and supports SMP.
So a 7Ghz processor "is" faster than two 3.5Ghz processors when running one or two apps but the more you add the less efficient it timeslices because everything is still fighting for the limited execution units. When you start to add CPU or cores you have more execution units to run simultaneously so speed increases when running multiple apps.
This bears itself out when hopping on a fast PC and running a bunch of apps simultaneously versus hopping on a fast Dual G5. Apple has more mature SMP desktop apps so many people are suprised at how much the "Lowly 2Ghz" chips can run.
No I didn't account for using "Duals" because the statement that a Dual 2Ghz is "only equivalent to a Pentium4 3.0Ghz is patently false
How do you explain a Dual G5 2.0Ghz
Scoring 522 in Cinebench versus a P4 3Ghz scoring 347
Apple has routinely benched the Powermacs against the dual Xeons and the Powermacs win in many cases. So when you have someone like Aurora, who is more known for providing theatrics rather than useful information , states that a Dual 2Ghz is "only" the equivalent of a single P4 3Ghz system you have to consider the source. He failed to provide any links to support his statement, I have. He loses.
Quote:
So I guess the PPC 2.5 is not the fastest computer right?
Sure you could guess but you might be wrong
Quote:
and where does apple make money there, bMacs- $4000 5pk of headless Macs with 17" LCD.? can such a thing cost sub $750(the per unit price) to build?
Software licensing. Apple makes more money on the iPod now than their software per qtr. That shouldn't happen. Apple needs to double their software licensing to around around $400 million a qtr average. Software licensing is far more sustainable especially to a platfrom like Apple where they control the hardware and the software.
Comments
Originally posted by crazychester
2. Fire a_greer for releasing OS X_X86 and kill it
11. Go for a fly in my new Gulfstream Jet (actually I'd probably do that one first).
Take me on the flight with you and fire me to my face, at 30.000 feet
Originally posted by Placebo
I'd a actually do what my customers obviously wanted and would buy. No more Flower Power kind of announcements!
agreed, in addition, I would keep my word, and ship things when we say we will, if we even project a delay, I would give the latest possible date for shipping, thus any time ahead is greavy, customers are happy to recive the units two days before ship date, not pissed when they are a month behind.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Aurora thanks!! Nice ratio so doing easy Math 2Ghz G5= 3Ghz Pentium 4. That means each Gigahertz of G5 is equivalent to 1.5Ghz of Pentium 4 Power. Thus the PowerPC G5 2.5Ghz computer is equivalent to a Pentim 4 3.75Ghz which is faster than they ship. So I guess the PPC 2.5 is the fastest computer right?
So, you are actually happy that it takes TWO G5 processors at 2GHz to equal ONE Intel processor at 3GHz? Did you forget that Aurora was comparing the dual processor G5 to a single processor P4 and you think he/she's wacked?
Oh yea, since you didn't account for the fact that 2.0GHz PowerMacs are DUAL, your formula should read that each Gigahertz of G5 (4GHz G5 ~= 3GHz P4) is roughly .75GHz of P4 power.
So I guess the PPC 2.5 is not the fastest computer right?
Originally posted by PBG4 Dude
So, you are actually happy that it takes TWO G5 processors at 2GHz to equal ONE Intel processor at 3GHz? Did you forget that Aurora was comparing the dual processor G5 to a single processor P4 and you think he/she's wacked?
Oh yea, since you didn't account for the fact that 2.0GHz PowerMacs are DUAL, your formula should read that each Gigahertz of G5 (4GHz G5 ~= 3GHz P4) is roughly .75GHz of P4 power.
So I guess the PPC 2.5 is not the fastest computer right?
The Dual G5's are actually much faster than the single pentium when it comes to multitasking which is how most users compute. It's a simple equation. Simply count the execution units and registers of two G5s verus the Pentium 4. The G5s will get faster as more software threads and supports SMP.
So a 7Ghz processor "is" faster than two 3.5Ghz processors when running one or two apps but the more you add the less efficient it timeslices because everything is still fighting for the limited execution units. When you start to add CPU or cores you have more execution units to run simultaneously so speed increases when running multiple apps.
This bears itself out when hopping on a fast PC and running a bunch of apps simultaneously versus hopping on a fast Dual G5. Apple has more mature SMP desktop apps so many people are suprised at how much the "Lowly 2Ghz" chips can run.
No I didn't account for using "Duals" because the statement that a Dual 2Ghz is "only equivalent to a Pentium4 3.0Ghz is patently false
How do you explain a Dual G5 2.0Ghz
Scoring 522 in Cinebench versus a P4 3Ghz scoring 347
Apple has routinely benched the Powermacs against the dual Xeons and the Powermacs win in many cases. So when you have someone like Aurora, who is more known for providing theatrics rather than useful information , states that a Dual 2Ghz is "only" the equivalent of a single P4 3Ghz system you have to consider the source. He failed to provide any links to support his statement, I have. He loses.
So I guess the PPC 2.5 is not the fastest computer right?
Sure you could guess but you might be wrong
and where does apple make money there, bMacs- $4000 5pk of headless Macs with 17" LCD.? can such a thing cost sub $750(the per unit price) to build?
Software licensing. Apple makes more money on the iPod now than their software per qtr. That shouldn't happen. Apple needs to double their software licensing to around around $400 million a qtr average. Software licensing is far more sustainable especially to a platfrom like Apple where they control the hardware and the software.