One other thing I remember about 486's and their 'Mac-equivlents' at the time, the 68040 Centris models. The 68040 ran at 25MHz and 33MHz, while the 486's ran usually at 50 and 66. But, IIRC, I read that the 486's were speed-doubled at the clock rate (which would explain how a turbo button could work). The Macs also were doubled, but Apple didn't double the MHz when advertising (so, like, they both were really 25 and 33MHz chips doubled, just the Intel folks used the 'doubled' number and Apple didn't).
This is riddled with inaccuracies.
The i486-DX2 models had a processor clock speed that was twice the speed of memory bus. This is identical to modern 2.0 Ghz PowerMacs that have a 1.0 Ghz memory bus. Of course everyone calls the Mac a 2Ghz machine and not 1Ghz, just as with the Intel machines.
The 040 Macintosh models were not "clock doubled", although later on Apple marketing started lying and marketing the chips as "33/66Mhz" or similar. The lower number is the correct one for those machines, and their lack of real oomph was the big reason for the last Apple CPU shift.
The function of the Turbo button (when turned off) was to knock the clock speed down to 8Mhz, the same as a genuine IBM PC AT. This improved compatibility with software that used specific timing loops. By the 486 era, the Turbo button was just a fugly case feature that was rarely wired up.
The i486-DX2 models had a processor clock speed that was twice the speed of memory bus. This is identical to modern 2.0 Ghz PowerMacs that have a 1.0 Ghz memory bus. Of course everyone calls the Mac a 2Ghz machine and not 1Ghz, just as with the Intel machines.
The 040 Macintosh models were not "clock doubled", although later on Apple marketing started lying and marketing the chips as "33/66Mhz" or similar. The lower number is the correct one for those machines, and their lack of real oomph was the big reason for the last Apple CPU shift.
The function of the Turbo button (when turned off) was to knock the clock speed down to 8Mhz, the same as a genuine IBM PC AT. This improved compatibility with software that used specific timing loops. By the 486 era, the Turbo button was just a fugly case feature that was rarely wired up.
Actually, Louzer is correct. At the time, clock doubling was standard for the technology. Intel advertised clock doubling as though it were a unique feature. It was not, but it sounded impressive to the easily impressed. However, you are correct that eventually Apple got around to advertising clock-doubled speeds.
Actually, Louzer is correct. At the time, clock doubling was standard for the technology. Intel advertised clock doubling as though it were a unique feature. It was not, but it sounded impressive to the easily impressed. However, you are correct that eventually Apple got around to advertising clock-doubled speeds.
Nope. yourself and Louzer are wrong, and you are just going to have to wollow in your wrongness until you feel ready to go back into living in ignorance.
The 040 may have had some nice features and its own "Mhz Myth" issues, but it was not clock doubled and did not run at 66Mhz.
I heard, the transition to Intel has been the plan all along. There was the option of staying PowerPC depending on how things panned out but, the plan, was always to move to Intel.
I would have never thought that until I heard otherwise.
I heard, the transition to Intel has been the plan all along. There was the option of staying PowerPC depending on how things panned out but, the plan, was always to move to Intel.
I would have never thought that until I heard otherwise.
Having Steve brag on stage about how the G5 would be at 3 GHz within 12 months hardly fits with a "powerPC as a back-up plan" theory.
Pretending that something is desirable, when in fact it was compelled by necessity, is possibly the oldest rationalization on the books.
I've owned two 486's, a 66MHzDX2 and a 100MHzDX4. I also owned an 040 Mac, a Centis 610 at 20MHz). (I've also owned other machines, including 386 and 286 PCs and a Mac SE and SE/30.)
Macs were never clock doubled, although I did purchase an overclock chip for my centris to bump it to 25 MHz I think. I remember the weird numbering scheme with the xxx/xxx machines, but I think those were the first PowerMacs. The last 040 machines, centris and quadras, didn't use that convention.
Meanwhile, that DX4 is actually clock tripled and the DX2 is doubled. Even though the MHz is different, the speed of the 100MHz machine was only marginally faster. That machine was selling when the first 60 MHz Pentiums were cooking things and the 486 was a better value. Now I wish I had a Pentium box so I could have compared them.
Comments
Originally posted by Louzer
One other thing I remember about 486's and their 'Mac-equivlents' at the time, the 68040 Centris models. The 68040 ran at 25MHz and 33MHz, while the 486's ran usually at 50 and 66. But, IIRC, I read that the 486's were speed-doubled at the clock rate (which would explain how a turbo button could work). The Macs also were doubled, but Apple didn't double the MHz when advertising (so, like, they both were really 25 and 33MHz chips doubled, just the Intel folks used the 'doubled' number and Apple didn't).
This is riddled with inaccuracies.
The i486-DX2 models had a processor clock speed that was twice the speed of memory bus. This is identical to modern 2.0 Ghz PowerMacs that have a 1.0 Ghz memory bus. Of course everyone calls the Mac a 2Ghz machine and not 1Ghz, just as with the Intel machines.
The 040 Macintosh models were not "clock doubled", although later on Apple marketing started lying and marketing the chips as "33/66Mhz" or similar. The lower number is the correct one for those machines, and their lack of real oomph was the big reason for the last Apple CPU shift.
The function of the Turbo button (when turned off) was to knock the clock speed down to 8Mhz, the same as a genuine IBM PC AT. This improved compatibility with software that used specific timing loops. By the 486 era, the Turbo button was just a fugly case feature that was rarely wired up.
Originally posted by IntlHarvester
This is riddled with inaccuracies.
The i486-DX2 models had a processor clock speed that was twice the speed of memory bus. This is identical to modern 2.0 Ghz PowerMacs that have a 1.0 Ghz memory bus. Of course everyone calls the Mac a 2Ghz machine and not 1Ghz, just as with the Intel machines.
The 040 Macintosh models were not "clock doubled", although later on Apple marketing started lying and marketing the chips as "33/66Mhz" or similar. The lower number is the correct one for those machines, and their lack of real oomph was the big reason for the last Apple CPU shift.
The function of the Turbo button (when turned off) was to knock the clock speed down to 8Mhz, the same as a genuine IBM PC AT. This improved compatibility with software that used specific timing loops. By the 486 era, the Turbo button was just a fugly case feature that was rarely wired up.
Actually, Louzer is correct. At the time, clock doubling was standard for the technology. Intel advertised clock doubling as though it were a unique feature. It was not, but it sounded impressive to the easily impressed. However, you are correct that eventually Apple got around to advertising clock-doubled speeds.
Originally posted by Mr. Me
Actually, Louzer is correct. At the time, clock doubling was standard for the technology. Intel advertised clock doubling as though it were a unique feature. It was not, but it sounded impressive to the easily impressed. However, you are correct that eventually Apple got around to advertising clock-doubled speeds.
Nope. yourself and Louzer are wrong, and you are just going to have to wollow in your wrongness until you feel ready to go back into living in ignorance.
The 040 may have had some nice features and its own "Mhz Myth" issues, but it was not clock doubled and did not run at 66Mhz.
Here it is right from the horse's mouth:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...06487551?hl=en
In the future, please donÕt post this type of mis-information. All it does
is perpetuate old myths that many of us have tried very hard to squelch.
I heard, the transition to Intel has been the plan all along. There was the option of staying PowerPC depending on how things panned out but, the plan, was always to move to Intel.
I would have never thought that until I heard otherwise.
Originally posted by tink
FYI, for those who care.
I heard, the transition to Intel has been the plan all along. There was the option of staying PowerPC depending on how things panned out but, the plan, was always to move to Intel.
I would have never thought that until I heard otherwise.
Having Steve brag on stage about how the G5 would be at 3 GHz within 12 months hardly fits with a "powerPC as a back-up plan" theory.
Pretending that something is desirable, when in fact it was compelled by necessity, is possibly the oldest rationalization on the books.
Methinks you're being spun.
Macs were never clock doubled, although I did purchase an overclock chip for my centris to bump it to 25 MHz I think. I remember the weird numbering scheme with the xxx/xxx machines, but I think those were the first PowerMacs. The last 040 machines, centris and quadras, didn't use that convention.
Meanwhile, that DX4 is actually clock tripled and the DX2 is doubled. Even though the MHz is different, the speed of the 100MHz machine was only marginally faster. That machine was selling when the first 60 MHz Pentiums were cooking things and the 486 was a better value. Now I wish I had a Pentium box so I could have compared them.
Originally posted by mpls244
Having Steve brag on stage about how the G5 would be at 3 GHz within 12 months hardly fits with a "powerPC as a back-up plan" theory.
Pretending that something is desirable, when in fact it was compelled by necessity, is possibly the oldest rationalization on the books.
Methinks you're being spun.
I don't think so.
I'm not referring to anything Steve said.