Discussion in 'Chit Chat' started by SpocKirk, Jul 27, 2001.
We already saw that, it was part of the keynote.
Regardless of what Apple says they still are going to have to get that number up b/c many many ignorant compumers look at that number as the major feature of the pc setup. They see 1.4 ghz and think that it will rock even though it is not necessarly the case. People aren't going to get over that too quickly.
Moose: what is a compumers? =D (Don't worry...my spelling sucks, too...)
I agree wholeheartedly with ya, tho.... Most 1st time computer purchases are completed by computer illiterate peeps. They see a whole slew of PC's and Mac's out there, and think, "Bigger must be better..."
So if you knew nothing, and saw a 1.7 Ghz P4 vs a 733Mhz G4, what do most peeps go for?
BYW: Has Apple done any Marketing of the OSX system on TV or Radio? I've NEVER seen any ads, spots, or heard any radio ads yet!!! But I have seen and heard MS XP system ads...
How frustrating for the generally computer illiterate population to be exposed to XP, when OSX was out 1st. Now those same peeps are going to wonder why Apple has copied from MS when they do hear about OSX....
I think Apple would have more luck with their megahertz myth if they stopped using photoshop as a benchmark. It's kind of odd to call your computer 83% faster than the competition based on photoshop tests.
I'm sure I could find a program on both macs and pcs where the pc would greatly outperform the mac, but you can't make an accurate comparison of two systems based on tests run with one program. That kind of logic is similar to saying that an 800mhz P3 is faster than a 733mhz G4 just because the number is bigger. It's a one aspect comparison, one being number of clock cycles, the other being photoshop benchmarks, neither being useful overall comparison.
That's contradicting everything else you said. The only way a program could execute faster on an x86 chip, was if it was programmed sloppily on every other architecture. The G3 and G4 are so much faster because they execute arithmetic in fewer clock cycles, the only way you could counteract such an advantage is with bias. In reguards to Photoshop, the reason Apple uses it so much in G4 comparisons is for Altivec optimisation, which adds a little in their favor, though they'd still come out on top without it. I personally think Apple needs to dump Altivec, and Motorola in general, they've had pisspoor performance ever since the G3 came out, and to be honest, I have more faith in IBM's engineers. To summarize, I agree to everything you said, basically. Though to truly compare the systems, a fair test would show Apple ahead in every way processor-wise. However, this is not always the deciding factor in overall system performance. Right now the coupling with DDR RAM, faster system buses, and blazing graphics cards can far offset the processor performance (especially since not all that processing power is required for FPS games, the most popular genre by a sizeable margin). Until Apple starts incorporating the faster system buses, and in particular, AMD's new technology (what's that called, the next generation super-fast buses?) they can still sag in areas, non-processor oriented.
Hmmm, that appears butchered, basic analysis:
Apple processors vs. Intel/AMD = Apple
Apple mainboards/RAM vs. x86 PC mainboards/RAM = x86 PC's
Graphics acceleration = GF3/upcoming RadeonII for Mac and PC
The new bus is HyperTransport I think.
That's the one. See Jake's post in the Hardware forum.
It wouldn't surprise me if the P4 system had PC600 RDRAM in it. That shit would slow it down big time...
I'm sure it would have 2100ddr. But then again, doesn't it use rambus?
RAMBUS is what P4's are currently deigned for, a DDR version is in the works. I agree with cow, RAMBUS is old technology, it's used in the Nintendo 64 and that came out 3 years ago.
yeah, but intels next gen chip will be 800 mhz maybe 1 ghz by the time it comes out and guess how fast will the G4's be then?
Intel's next chip is already out. It's called the Tualoton (i know i botched the spelling on that). It's a P3 that has better cache and a .13 process. I think you can get these new chips at up to 1.13GHz now. It's already out in Japan.
Intel keeps killing themselves by staying with the P6 architecture...
I'd like to see Apple benchmark a 1.4 GHz T-bird with 2100DDR. Ever notice how they only compare their machines to Intel systems?
According to TechTV's benchmarks the 1.4 T-Bird leads the 1.7 P4 by only about 10-15%. I'm just guestimating based on their bar charts.
Not to make you look stupid or something, but what's the point of comparing macs to pcs using the AMD chip when they only have about 10% of the pc market share. I'm sure many people using pcs don't know what an AMD is and if it even exists.
You're thinking of the ithanium. It's not marketed towards the consumer market, more towards the server market I belive.
AMD has a 19% market share.
Just out of curiosity, how much market share does apple have?
Separate names with a comma.