Fro Productions(tm)
Join Date: May 2004
Location: London Town
|
ArsTechnica article about Intel's upcoming new processor numbering system.
From the conclusion: Quote:
Funny thing is, despite the MHz comparison being useless when comparing machines of different platforms, MHz comparison is a solid indicator of relative performance in the Apple world itself. As far as I know, every new processor that Apple incorporates into a new system has a higher MHz clock-speed than the ones it supersedes. So Apple has never had the problem of a potential customer wondering if a 1.25GHz G3 is faster than a 800MHz G4, the way one might think that a 2.6GHz Celeron is a better performer than a 2.0GHz Pentium 4. We will soon be in the ironic situation in which Apple is the only manufacturer perpetuating the MHz Myth. In retrospect, Apple has done well to devise a product line (based on processor development out of its control) that, with each new Mac, shows an improvement in performance in line with an increase in numerical specifications: this is essential for us dumb consumers. Bring on the Dual 3GHz G5! That will be, like, loads better than the Dual 2GHz G5 (and, boy, won't it be...) bouncy bouncy |
|
quote |
Selfish Heathen
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Zone of Pain
|
Quote:
The quality of this board depends on the quality of the posts. The only way to guarantee thoughtful, informative discussion is to write thoughtful, informative posts. AppleNova is not a real-time chat forum. You have time to compose messages and edit them before and after posting. |
|
quote |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Ottawa, ON
|
Why cannot everyone just refer to some better benchmark of speed? Perhaps "FLOPS". I am no computer genius, so correct me if I am wrong here. No doubt FLOPS would not be perfect either, but at least it would seems to address basic speed at the operations level. No?
When there's an eel in the lake that's as long as a snake that's a moray. |
quote |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Pittsburgh
|
Perhaps universal benchmarks are impossible now that computing tasks are so disparate in nature.
It’s like trying to come up with a universal benchmark for vehicle performance. Sure, an F1 racecar is fast… unless you’re driving it on a swamp-buggy course. While in school, I remember various SGI machines running circles around everything while manipulating high-resolution medical imaging. However, these same machines were only average on more mundane office tasks. Same goes for the G4, great parallel processing via altivec but mediocre performance on other tasks. |
quote |
careful with axes
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Hillsborough, CA
|
I don't think it's quite the same. G3 and G4 refer to chip generations. They aren't arbitrarily named for the sole purpose of quantification such as Intel's 7xx, 5xx and 3xx families.
|
quote |
Fro Productions(tm)
Join Date: May 2004
Location: London Town
|
Quote:
|
|
quote |
Posting Rules | Navigation |
|
Thread Tools | |