Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
USA Today article on Apple + IBM
- Thread starter Chad4Mac
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm not quite sure I would go that far. I would be more opted to say this article places more validity on the rumors pending, but not a right-out conformation.
Very exciting....
Chad4Mac
Very exciting....
Chad4Mac
pro: 1.6 and 1.8 ghz 64 bit chip
con: not until the middle of next year when wintels will hit 3.5 ghz on their machines
is this a case of too little way too late?
does that mean that apple can see their first 2 ghz machine in 2004 when wintel will be at 4 ghz?
personally, i think once macs hit 2 ghz across the board, it won't matter how fast the pc side is
but apple has really taken forever just to hit 1 ghz and only one line of apple's computers even go that fast
con: not until the middle of next year when wintels will hit 3.5 ghz on their machines
is this a case of too little way too late?
does that mean that apple can see their first 2 ghz machine in 2004 when wintel will be at 4 ghz?
personally, i think once macs hit 2 ghz across the board, it won't matter how fast the pc side is
but apple has really taken forever just to hit 1 ghz and only one line of apple's computers even go that fast
I would read the other threads on the Forums before you make assumptions on the preformance comparison to simply Gigahertz.
As Arn said, it's a arcitechture thing too -- you can't compare apple to oranges.
Chad4mac
As Arn said, it's a arcitechture thing too -- you can't compare apple to oranges.
Chad4mac
Agreed..
but overall we are still a little behind the speed of the PC's..
Does this really matter??
Not really. The dual processor macs can eclipse PC's in most areas
Is the machine still useable??
Of course, even more so than a PC
Should we get all bent out of shape over the megahertz gap?
NO!
the one line..
'The new IBM chip is derived from the computer giant's Power4 microprocessor that powers its high-end Regatta servers. When available by the middle of next year, it will range in speeds from 1.6 gigahertz to 1.8 GHz.'
that sounds pretty damn definate to me... its going to happen. I love the Intel rebuttle to 64-bit cpus, 'oh, our users don't need that..'
'The new IBM chip is derived from the computer giant's Power4 microprocessor that powers its high-end Regatta servers. When available by the middle of next year, it will range in speeds from 1.6 gigahertz to 1.8 GHz.'
that sounds pretty damn definate to me... its going to happen. I love the Intel rebuttle to 64-bit cpus, 'oh, our users don't need that..'
i hear what you say from a technical standpoint
even if we get this processor and it benchmarks really well, the average consumer will only be able to understand very little
i think, sales wise, it is important that we reach the 2 ghz mark, whatever the architecture the processor employs
i spent some time as a computer salesman and i have seen the concerns of the consumer
but i am also a techie so i understand the hidden issues the average consumer does not pay attention to like ddr, cache, system bus, etc.
by and large the computer shopper will look at the simple things like "gigahertz"