either way, it's a bit sketchy marketing-wise to just call the new chip a g6 out of the blue. and it would actually probably be somewhat bad press since it would have "obsoleted" the g5's after just one year and you'd lose all the equity in the g5 name.
Yep!! No need or reason to change it from G5 at this time.
I could care less if they say it's dual core that is not like 2 processors. I won't buy one. If it's a Dual core they still need have 2 chips in the PowerMac. Intel has hyperthreaded processors, and they don't do sh*t AFAIAC.
That's because Intel's implementation of hyper-threading is crappy, whereas IBM's is not.
I could care less if they say it's dual core that is not like 2 processors. I won't buy one. If it's a Dual core they still need have 2 chips in the PowerMac. Intel has hyperthreaded processors, and they don't do sh*t AFAIAC.
Dual core is exactly like two processors and in fact possesses some benefits over it.
As for IBM's multithreading having seen the benchmark changes I think people will be very surprised by the benefits given Intel's poor results. Intel's hyperthreading actually degrades SPECint and SPECfp whereas IBM's gave a significant improvement, actually SPECfp gives the lowest gain of anything but it still improves. Across the board there are some real surprises though and gains of up to 50% with gains of 40+% occurring in half the tests.
I could care less if they say it's dual core that is not like 2 processors. I won't buy one. If it's a Dual core they still need have 2 chips in the PowerMac. Intel has hyperthreaded processors, and they don't do sh*t AFAIAC.
You know that dual core and hyperthreading is slightly different consepts, right? ;-)
I'd more than love a dual core mac from Apple. :-)
Apple will not name any forth coming chip the G6 until they have a G5 or similar for use in the PowerBooks. In other words, naming any chip a G6 at this time would be marketing madness. The poor G4 would be appear even more outdated and without a current replacement the PowerBooks would go down the drain.
Comments
Originally posted by admactanium
either way, it's a bit sketchy marketing-wise to just call the new chip a g6 out of the blue. and it would actually probably be somewhat bad press since it would have "obsoleted" the g5's after just one year and you'd lose all the equity in the g5 name.
Yep!! No need or reason to change it from G5 at this time.
8)
Originally posted by onlooker
I could care less if they say it's dual core that is not like 2 processors. I won't buy one. If it's a Dual core they still need have 2 chips in the PowerMac. Intel has hyperthreaded processors, and they don't do sh*t AFAIAC.
That's because Intel's implementation of hyper-threading is crappy, whereas IBM's is not.
Originally posted by onlooker
I could care less if they say it's dual core that is not like 2 processors. I won't buy one. If it's a Dual core they still need have 2 chips in the PowerMac. Intel has hyperthreaded processors, and they don't do sh*t AFAIAC.
Dual core is exactly like two processors and in fact possesses some benefits over it.
As for IBM's multithreading having seen the benchmark changes I think people will be very surprised by the benefits given Intel's poor results. Intel's hyperthreading actually degrades SPECint and SPECfp whereas IBM's gave a significant improvement, actually SPECfp gives the lowest gain of anything but it still improves. Across the board there are some real surprises though and gains of up to 50% with gains of 40+% occurring in half the tests.
Originally posted by onlooker
I could care less if they say it's dual core that is not like 2 processors. I won't buy one. If it's a Dual core they still need have 2 chips in the PowerMac. Intel has hyperthreaded processors, and they don't do sh*t AFAIAC.
You know that dual core and hyperthreading is slightly different consepts, right? ;-)
I'd more than love a dual core mac from Apple. :-)