Latest G4's running at 1.43Hhz

[iamaboringperson]

nice!  :-D

[iamaboringperson]

Kay wrote:
> OOPS thats 1.42 Ghz

Ah, I knew that 1.43 figure was too good to be true.

Kay

 :roflmao:  :roflmao:  :roflmao:  :roflmao:  :roflmao:  :roflmao:  :roflmao:  :roflmao:  :roflmao:  :roflmao:  :roflmao:  :roflmao:  :roflmao:  :roflmao:  :roflmao:  :roflmao:  :roflmao:  :roflmao:  :roflmao:  :roflmao:

[iamaboringperson]

Eric_Z wrote:
He he, well not that any of this realy matters anyway because the ArticaS can't cope with the 166 Mhz fsb of the 7455.

To use the 7455 some one would have to make an amiga based upon the ArticaP.

:-o  wow! i think ill put off my buying of amigaone until i can get one with THAT!!
 :-D

[iamaboringperson]

Caelth wrote:
Guys, don't give into Apple's hype. Yeah, dual G4 1.4GHz sound really nice until you realize they work on 166MHz front side bus. Then you realize you have DDR333 RAM that us just a gimmick because who needs bandwidth that CPU cannot use? And digging deeper into specs of chipset that Apple uses in those PowerMacs you find that both CPU share one data bus!
It's all hype. Apple tries to go around this pifitul design by using level 3 cache but Pentium 4 can get data as fast from main memory (!) as those Power Macs from 1 or 2 MB of level 3 cache. Apple uses benchmark composed of handful of Photoshop filters heavily optimized for AltiVec to draw their conclusion of owning P4. Take a look at any independent benchmarking and you'll see that 3GHz Pentium 4, especially combined with 1066MHz Rambus and i850E chipset or dual channel DDR333 and E7205 (Granite Bay) chipset is much faster in video encoding, 3D rendering, etc. than dual G4 Macs. It doesn't matter how efficient your CPU is when it gets no bandwidth.
Are Macs pretty and OS X nice? Definitely. Are they faster than PCs? No. Sorry, I'm realist.

I use Mac at work and bought my first Amiga back in 1991.

a few points:
1. they do use the extra bandwidth!!! thats why its there!
2. both cpu's share the same bus??? what do you expect! that is how SMP is done! all SMP machines have the CPU's sharing the same data bus!!!!!!!! i forget the name of this architecture, would somebody please help!
3. the cpu efficiancy CAN/DOES matter when there may be a reletivly low bus bandwidth! memory bandwidth is only important when there is a lot of data to move, otherwise, if there is litte data and more processing of that data, you dont need such a huge bandwidth

"a realist", everybody uses that term on a.org!

[iamaboringperson]

bad idea

changing cpu's all the time
they did that 10 years ago, and i dont think they would want to go through it all over again

its unfair to the developers, who must compile & test their software for both machines
and not good for the users either

its especialy bad when you consider the big-endian/little-endian compatability issue

i think the ppc is just going through a 'slump' at the moment IMHO
it will probably recover with the PPC970, then what will you say?

[iamaboringperson]

strobe wrote:
I use Macs because they save me time and therefore money. I don't have a problem with the hardware choices since I stopped using desktop Macs. Apple's portables are excellent

People who want a Mac will buy a Mac. If Apple tries to support every crappy PC board they'll have a support nightmare and no hardware profits. A sure recipe for disaster.

Not to mention Mac developers would have a support nightmare and would likely drop Apple altogether and jump to Windows.

true! people buy their computer for all sorts of reasons, not just because it has a cpu that is the fastest in a whole bunch of tests

i know mac owners who prefer them for many reasons, good reasons, i do not consider them zelots

i have an ibm-pc machine, but it doesnt matter how new it is, they are flawed, dated architecture, they have many problems, many bottlenecks

i hope to see more people support other architectures, & other cpus such as ppc, sparc, mips, x86-64, itanium
(well not x86-64 so much)

it would be good if everybody would move away from that old architecture, that would allow cpu's to get so much faster, machines would be quicker, & easier to configure etc...

i hate legacy technology - move away from it
hell, ive starting to do away with floppies!
i hope USB/firewire will replace parlel/serial ports
etc...

[iamaboringperson]

if they switched to say X86-64 or Itanium... they would be alot more appealing... I'd probably buy one... even though the cost would be higher... It'd be a nice stable OS...and decent well supported hardware..

I dont care that much what CPU i'm running on as long as its fast and reliable... I'd like to see apple move to a faster chip ... it would bring them into bieng viable as workstations.

so what about PowerPC 970?
whats wrong with that?