<strong>I think the new 1 GHz will be a lot faster than the old!
167 MHz bus vs. 133 MHz.
Radeon 9000pro vs. GF4mx,
new architecture using DDR 333 RAM (only good for I/O to/from HD, PCI, ethernet etc. but still)
ATA100 vs. ATA66
And it still has 2 x 1 MB L3 cache. The old had 2 x 2 MB, but I think the other speed improvements outweights that.
[ 08-13-2002: Message edited by: Power Apple ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
I am not quite sure if the new Dual GHz will be that much faster. A comparison on <a href="http://www.barefeats.com/xserve2.html"; target="_blank">http://www.barefeats.com/xserve2.html</a>; shows, that there is actually no difference at all (speaking of DDR-RAM and the new architecture). Todays harddisks only use a fraction of what ATA 100 can provide, so the limiting factor is the HD itself.
What remains is the faster system-bus (166 vs. 133) and the new graphic-card. I do wonder myself (since I own an old Dual GHz QS) if the bigger L3 cache of the old Dual GHz can compensate for these or not. Benchmarks will show...
That 166 MHz system bus will own the old dual gigs. Don't even compare them, the new one's are superior in virtually everything that matters: system controller, RAM, system bus....I doubt one Gig of L3 cache is going to make much of a difference. Don't forget that Apple's (Moto's) L3 cache is a dog compared to most other CPU l3 caches.
What I'm interested in is seeing comparisons between the new low end, and the old high end. Without a faster system bus, the dual 867 is probably slower than the old dual Gig, but I sure would like to see some numbers.
"Don't forget that Apple's (Moto's) L3 cache is a dog compared to most other CPU l3 caches"
Yea a real damn dog! It is crap compared to the awsome p4 L3 cache,not to mention it's L34563 cache.And there is just no compareing it to the amd L3 cache that thing must be nearly....1...lets call it 0 meg is size with 0 throughput.You dont get numbers like that in macville!
Hey Guys. Download the technology Overview PDF from the Apple PowerMac page <a href="http://www.apple.com/powermac/specs.html"; target="_blank">http://www.apple.com/powermac/specs.html</a>; to find all sorts of comparisons between the new Macs and the dual GHz from yesterday. I'd say according to that 29 page document there is no question even the dual 867 is a better value than yesterday's dual GHz.
Comments
[ 08-13-2002: Message edited by: Kecksy ]</p>
167 MHz bus vs. 133 MHz.
Radeon 9000pro vs. GF4mx,
new architecture using DDR 333 RAM (only good for I/O to/from HD, PCI, ethernet etc. but still)
ATA100 vs. ATA66
And it still has 2 x 1 MB L3 cache. The old had 2 x 2 MB, but I think the other speed improvements outweights that.
[ 08-13-2002: Message edited by: Power Apple ]</p>
Dobby
<strong>Is the new Dual 1GHz cheaper now that is been relegated to 2nd Fastest Mac ever. I forgot the exact price of the previous one.
Dobby</strong><hr></blockquote>
I believe the old one was 2999$ and the teh new one is 2499$
<strong>I think the new 1 GHz will be a lot faster than the old!
167 MHz bus vs. 133 MHz.
Radeon 9000pro vs. GF4mx,
new architecture using DDR 333 RAM (only good for I/O to/from HD, PCI, ethernet etc. but still)
ATA100 vs. ATA66
And it still has 2 x 1 MB L3 cache. The old had 2 x 2 MB, but I think the other speed improvements outweights that.
[ 08-13-2002: Message edited by: Power Apple ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
I am not quite sure if the new Dual GHz will be that much faster. A comparison on <a href="http://www.barefeats.com/xserve2.html"; target="_blank">http://www.barefeats.com/xserve2.html</a>; shows, that there is actually no difference at all (speaking of DDR-RAM and the new architecture). Todays harddisks only use a fraction of what ATA 100 can provide, so the limiting factor is the HD itself.
What remains is the faster system-bus (166 vs. 133) and the new graphic-card. I do wonder myself (since I own an old Dual GHz QS) if the bigger L3 cache of the old Dual GHz can compensate for these or not. Benchmarks will show...
What I'm interested in is seeing comparisons between the new low end, and the old high end. Without a faster system bus, the dual 867 is probably slower than the old dual Gig, but I sure would like to see some numbers.
450Mhz/100Mhz vs. 466Mhz/133Mhz
500Mhz/100Mhz vs. 533Mhz/133Mhz
This could give us some idea as to how the new DP1Ghz/166 will face off against the DP1Ghz/133.
Dave
Yea a real damn dog! It is crap compared to the awsome p4 L3 cache,not to mention it's L34563 cache.And there is just no compareing it to the amd L3 cache that thing must be nearly....1...lets call it 0 meg is size with 0 throughput.You dont get numbers like that in macville!
[ 08-13-2002: Message edited by: Multimedia ]
[ 08-13-2002: Message edited by: Multimedia ]
[ 08-13-2002: Message edited by: Multimedia ]</p>