the GHZ myth is alive and well
i have absolutely NO market research to back this up, but based on my observations of initial reader reactions, it looks like the ghz myth is alive and well
case in point: xbox360
even you must admit you felt a stirring in your loins of some sort when you head "3 cores of 3.2 ghz"
*sigh*
i'm thinking for apple's power range, they should forget about the g5,
1. take a dual core freescale G4
2. put two of this in a mac
3. bump each core to 3.5ghz
4. call it a G6 Mac
5. i'm willing to say most of the public will be 'deceived by this'. apple can go nuts advertising "4 cores running at 3.5ghz..!!"
there's your Apple G6 Quadra
Presenting the Apple G6 Quadra.
14 ghz of blazing cool performance
seriously, think about this possibility for a while, it will tantalise a large part of the target market (who aren't computer scientists but have geek inclinations) when they compare it to a dell or something.
now something like this (i'm not saying freescale has those chips now) would put the marketing in apple marketing
it would capture the imagination. did someone say benchmarks? we all know that there are lies, damned lies, and benchmarks
apple can pull whatever comparison benchmarks it needs to show the Apple G6 Quadra kicks butt
...throw in a radeon 10,000 something (again not saying this exists but just for example) that runs doom3 at 50fps average and you got the fanboys hooked. they're like, hey, i love my iPod, rather than flesh out cash for an xbox360, ps3, or dell pc, maybe this G6 Quadra will take care of my gaming and computing needs.
edit:
sh1t i realised this isn't tobacco i'm smoking
case in point: xbox360
even you must admit you felt a stirring in your loins of some sort when you head "3 cores of 3.2 ghz"
*sigh*
i'm thinking for apple's power range, they should forget about the g5,1. take a dual core freescale G4
2. put two of this in a mac
3. bump each core to 3.5ghz
4. call it a G6 Mac
5. i'm willing to say most of the public will be 'deceived by this'. apple can go nuts advertising "4 cores running at 3.5ghz..!!"
there's your Apple G6 Quadra
Presenting the Apple G6 Quadra.
14 ghz of blazing cool performance
seriously, think about this possibility for a while, it will tantalise a large part of the target market (who aren't computer scientists but have geek inclinations) when they compare it to a dell or something.
now something like this (i'm not saying freescale has those chips now) would put the marketing in apple marketing
it would capture the imagination. did someone say benchmarks? we all know that there are lies, damned lies, and benchmarks
apple can pull whatever comparison benchmarks it needs to show the Apple G6 Quadra kicks butt...throw in a radeon 10,000 something (again not saying this exists but just for example) that runs doom3 at 50fps average and you got the fanboys hooked. they're like, hey, i love my iPod, rather than flesh out cash for an xbox360, ps3, or dell pc, maybe this G6 Quadra will take care of my gaming and computing needs.
edit:
sh1t i realised this isn't tobacco i'm smoking
Comments
Originally posted by ragingloogie
sounds neat... a G6 apple? 3.2GHz? hmm.. thats a beast
3.5 ghz
and 3.5 x 4 = 14 ghz "total"
see... i'm already wet thinking of a 4-core Apple Quadra G6 14.0 GHZ
ohhhh yeahh
marketing peoples, marketing...
Only three cores in the XBox360? Hardly beats the nine in the Sega Saturn...
Originally posted by keot
.....
Only three cores in the XBox360? Hardly beats the nine in the Sega Saturn...
one core for controlling CD-ROM? f8ck me....
Gpu, audioDSP, and MCU also not counted mate
1. & 2.
Two Hitachi SuperH-2 7604 32-Bit RISC processors at 28.6MHz (50-MIPS)
"3."
SH-1 32-bit RISC processor (controlling the CD-ROM)
"4."
Custom VDP 1 32-bit video display processor
"5."
Custom VDP 2 32-bit video display processor
"6."
Custom Saturn Control Unit (SCU) with DSP for geometry processing and DMA controller
"7."
Motorola 68EC000 sound processor
"8."
Yamaha FH1 DSP sound processor, "Saturn Custom Sound Processor" (SCSP)
"9."
Hitachi 4-bit MCU, "System Manager & Peripheral Control" (SMPC)
......
Originally posted by keot
I've never understood the facination with hardware specifications. Isn't it the software that matters?
i totally agree.
Originally posted by keot
I've never understood the facination with hardware specifications. Isn't it the software that matters?...
if so Mac OS X should have 50% market share by now
Originally posted by keot
I've never understood the facination with hardware specifications. Isn't it the software that matters?...
if you dont have hardware specs, then how can a computer run software sufficiently? (not sure on spelling at the moment, lil slow today:-\\)... but i mean, you need space to put the software on the computer, thats where the nice amounts of GB's come in... then you need ram and such like that for the speed of the software to also run accuratly... then you need fast computers so your not waiting 2hrs later trying to finish but it keeps taking minutes to load... as where w/ fast computers it loads in seconds/milli-seconds and your able to finish work in a fraction of the time
What people want is a bigger engine despite the fact that the increased power is lost in the transmission. Mac user have targetted 3GHz as some mythical point where Macs will be blazing fast and they can feel comfortable with their purchase. To each his own.
I don't want to hear how fast a chip cycles I want to hear all the nifty things it does to increase efficiency.
Originally posted by hmurchison
.....What people want is a bigger engine despite the fact that the increased power is lost in the transmission. Mac user have targetted 3GHz as some mythical point where Macs will be blazing fast and they can feel comfortable with their purchase.....
precisely. thats why i talk of it being a question of marketing
the fact that Powermacs have TWO cpus doesn't seem to grab the imagination as much as a dual-core SINGLE cpu running at over 3ghz
obviously apple legal has firmly kept the marketing dept in check by not allowing apple EVER as far as i know to even mention anything like 2.0 x 2 = 4GHZ even in "playful advertising" style. for example, 2.7 x 2 = 5.2 GHZ... not once have have we seen anything like that, possibly because their target audience, the "Pro" audience as we surmise, will not take such claims, however "playful" with any seriousness
....... whether the people that continually whine about 3ghz + would form a viable consumer/ prosumer market for a 3ghz + single CPU mini-powermac-tower, well, i think apple is looking into this to some degree... just a guess
Originally posted by hmurchison
....I don't want to hear how fast a chip cycles....
hmurchinson, i minored in computer science at uni/college... i feel that a lot of IT people, unless (a) they went to uni and (b) did hardware-level chip design subjects (c) even remember studying any of (b) ... even i feel that human tinge of jealousy, however 'irrational' when i see 3ghz+ in a console device...
me brain no kick in and say, wait, how many pipelines, etc... etc...
and this is even AFTER 1 year ago i spent about a month on a single 1.6ghz 1st gen powermac g5 with *gasp* just 512mb...
reason 2.5 pure software synthesis, i took exactly the same file, which brought my dual 1.25ghz g4 512mb ram to its knees (completely maxed out CPU meter), put it onto the single 1.6ghz g5, CPU meter was barely hitting 20%, i was very very surprised.
today though i don't think my ego can handle having a sub 2ghz for a us$1000+ machine
hmm i have a friend doing a masters in psychology... maybe i'll ask her to point me to some 'marketing psychology' reading
edit: also i think a lot of people were brought up in about 15(?) years of computer culture where more ghz almost definitely meant a faster machine
*most* people have not yet really grasped the new era of CPU design