# 1.25GHZ is just overclocked 1GHZ



## isgoed (Nov 7, 2002)

Don't buy the new G4 1.25 Ghz mac. It is just an overclocked 1 Ghz model. There are sources on it on internet. just use Yahoo. Why else would there be such a dramatic venting system on it. I suspected it right away. This means that Motorola was not able to produce a faster chip in 6 months.

My advise is not to bu a G4 at all. It was a big management mistake to drop th development f the G5. As far as I am concerned, the current development shows no future for apple. This is a real shame because already in 2001 motorola had a 2.6Ghz G5 prototype in their labs. Their only rescue is if they are already working on a venture with IBM, intel or AMD for use with OSX.

My next computer will be a PC. Intel already is testing a 4.5Ghz Pentium 4.


----------



## serpicolugnut (Nov 7, 2002)

Ouch. Cant... Respond... Too... Many... Flame... Ideas.... Come...To...Mind....

I've been down on Apple lately, but I'm not gonna bait this troll post....


----------



## edX (Nov 7, 2002)

hey, how about a link to one of those "sources"? I am sure they are all reputable and respected purveyors of truth.


----------



## kendall (Nov 7, 2002)

This is absurd.

What do you think a P3 750 MHz CPU is?  Its a P3 700 MHz running at 133 MHz system bus, not 100 MHz.

Most processors unless their core changes are just "overclocked" versions of the original.  

As they produced the 1 GHz G4 the more efficient they became given them higher yields of stable 1 GHz G4s thus allowing them to bump the speed from 1 GHz to 1.25 GHz and not worry about it crashing.

Now that 1.25 GHz G4 will continue to be produced and the cycle will continue until the core changes.  The price for the 1 GHz G4 went down while the 1.25 GHz G4 went up.  What's the big deal?

If they get a lot of 1.25 GHz G4s that don't run stable at that speed, they'll bump them down to 1 GHz.  Its all in the manufacturing process and how its refined.

This is nothing new but thanks for the heads up.


----------



## WoLF (Nov 8, 2002)

this guy has 7 posts. hes prolly a winblows troll


----------



## isgoed (Nov 8, 2002)

I could not find my original source on the internet any more (which was the best one), but I found loads of others:

Evidence:

http://www.mail-archive.com/macnews@insanely-great.com/msg00342.html
http://www.theinquirer.org/?article=6037

how the overclocked processors could be fit on the systembusses

http://www.theinquirer.org/?article=6037
http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2002/08/Anunbelievablekludge.shtml

motorola's G4 7455 specs

http://e-www.motorola.com/webapp/sps/site/prod_summary.jsp?code=MPC7455&nodeId=01M98653


And where are all the good developers going. Is a Playstation II emulator ever coming? See the Grinch project at www.macraider.com. Or can the mac Hardware keep up with the demands new games need.

BTW
I am not trolling. I know what it is, because I read about it in Macworld UK edition october 2002 Page 41. (Provoking people by making (false) statements). I own a performa 630, an iMac and a powerbook G4550. So I am serious


----------



## kendall (Nov 8, 2002)

Like I said, this is nothing new.  CPU manufacturers have been doing this for many years.


----------



## kommakazi (Nov 8, 2002)

Really I see no valid point in all of this. Anyone who's read the slightest inking of Apple-related news in the past year knows that Moto basically sucks. As for the "overclocking" it's like what itanium said about the 750 PIII just being an overclocked PIII 700. It's always been like that no matter what the processor, no big deal. And where does it say that development of the G5 has stopped? It hasn't. It's just not going to be a desktop processor. This is where IBM comes in, it's up and coming PPC 970, a derivative of the Power4, will be your 'G5'. It won't be a 'G5'. Don't get too stuck on the Gx naming convention, it's probably gonna change come the PPC 970. I really see no valid reason why you're going to just drop support for Apple. It's not Apple's fault that Motorola's been fumbling and fumbling. Perhaps Apple has been a bit slow in responding to it...but now they finally seem to have. I see a bright future coming with IBM's PPC 970...don't lose faith yet.


----------



## ksv (Nov 8, 2002)

What's wrong about this place? You're all bitching  this new member for providing a relevant link to an interesting story!? What a warm welcome   

We're talking about APPLE overclocking 1 GHz chips. Not MOTOROLA. And I find it highly likely, as Motorola still have no papers or documentation on 1.25 GHz chips. When the 1 GHz G4 was introduced, Motorola had it on their site two or three days later.

And, as isgoed said, why would they completely redesign the cooling system in the G4 just because of a 25% speed increase?


----------



## kommakazi (Nov 8, 2002)

Because it is overclocked. Nobody is denying that. It doesn't matter who did the overclocking. It's been going on for along time all over the PC market. Big deal./...


----------



## ksv (Nov 8, 2002)

> _Originally posted by kommakazi _
> *Because it is overclocked. Nobody is denying that. It doesn't matter who did the overclocking. It's been going on for along time all over the PC market. Big deal./... *



Sure it matters. If Motorola sold them at 1.25 GHz, they would at least have been properly tested before rated at that speed. But when Apple does it, it can lead to instability.
And what makes this really bad (if it's true) is the fact that the 1.25 Ghz processor itself, leaving all other higher specs of the 1.25 GHz model alone, costs $650 more than the 1 GHz. That's $650 for some soldering I could've done in a couple of minutes.

I'm seriously going to have a look under the heatsink of a 1.25 GHz G4...


----------



## scruffy (Nov 8, 2002)

Actually 1GHz chips are _under_clocked 1.25GHz ones.

All G4s are cast in the same process.  The thing is, not all of them turn out the same way - we're talking about millions of microscopic circuits; a couple of misaligned atoms can mean an imperfection that slows down one circuit's response time.  The whole chip has to be run slow enough that every circuit can keep up.

Here's the way that chip makers figure out how fast to run a processor:  They make a chip.  They test it at the highest speed they sell.  If it shows errors (most will), they test it at progressively lower speeds until it runs without errors.

So, if you overclock your processor, you're just deciding that Motorola's quality control department is too picky for you.  Yes, on a 1GHz G4, probably 99.999% of the circuits on the chip are capable of running reliably at 1.25GHz.  You won't see any errors until you do operations that involve the last .001% of circuits, that can't quite keep up.  Which, at 1.25 billion operations a second, mightn't actually take all that long.


----------



## ksv (Nov 8, 2002)

> _Originally posted by scruffy _
> *Actually 1GHz chips are underclocked 1.25GHz ones.
> 
> All G4s are cast in the same process.  The thing is, not all of them turn out the same way - we're talking about millions of microscopic circuits; a couple of misaligned atoms can mean an imperfection that slows down one circuit's response time.  The whole chip has to be run slow enough that every circuit can keep up.
> ...



Nope.
The highest rated official G4s are 1 GHz. A 1 GHz chip is sold as a 1 GHz chip, and you never know how fast they really can run. Some may do 1.4 GHz, while some can't even do 1,1 GHz. They're all rated the same.
The point is, that IF this rumor is true, you pay $650 more for exactly the same processor, just clocked at a higher frequency.


----------



## kendall (Nov 8, 2002)

Like you said, not all 1 GHz G4s can run at 1.25 GHz.  Its likely that not all 1 GHz G4s can run at 1 GHz.  I guess Apple would slap those into a 133 MHz System Bus and call them  867 MHz G4s.

What is important to remember though is that as Motorola refines their manufacturing processes the cost of 1 GHz G4s decreases and the ability to run them at higher speeds increases.  

The only reason you should have a problem with Apple charging more for a 1.25 GHz G4 is if they didn't charge less for a 1 GHz G4 which they do.  Its all relative.  

Again, like you said, not all 1 GHz G4s can run at 1.25 GHz.  I guess that would make those that can "different", more costly to produce and worth the additional fee.


----------



## ksv (Nov 8, 2002)

> _Originally posted by itanium _
> *Like you said, not all 1 GHz G4s can run at 1.25 GHz.  Its likely that not all 1 GHz G4s can run at 1 GHz.  I guess Apple would slap those into a 133 MHz System Bus and call them  867 MHz G4s.
> 
> What is important to remember though is that as Motorola refines their manufacturing processes the cost of 1 GHz G4s decreases and the ability to run them at higher speeds increases.
> ...



I don't say they should sell 1.25 GHz G4s for the same price as 1 GHz ones. I'm saying that Apple should leave overclocking up to the customers, or at least inform that these chips aren't really rated at the speed they're selling them at.

Theoretically, if you cool a 1 GHz down to absolute zero, you can run it at speeds the world has never seen before. It's all relative  

But we're talking about _rated_ speeds now, and what speed they can run on with _normal_ cooling. Motorola has _not_  refined their manufacturing processes and the fastest chips they ship are rated 1 GHz.


----------



## kendall (Nov 8, 2002)

They are rated at the speeds they are selling them at.  Don't you understand these chips have been tested and found stable at 1.25 GHz?

You can't just pick out any 1 GHz G4 and run it at 1.25 GHz.  These chips are "special."

Leave overclocking to the consumer?  You'd have a lot of fried G4s then.  Not a great idea.  

Tell them these chips aren't really rated at the speed... blah blah?  Anyway, why?  They are rated for 1.25 GHz.  They have been tested by Apple and found to run stable at these speeds.

If you'd bother to take a business class or 12, you'd learn through mass production, the process becomes refined, the good becomes better quality and the  manufacturing costs reduce.

This allows Motorola to make faster G4s and charge less overall.

Have you ever thought through new manufacturing techniques and refinement the initial rating could change?  Well that's a wild idea isn't it.  

My iBooks battery is rated for five hours but thanks to power management, I can make it last seven.  Damn Apple for lying to me!


----------



## ex2bot (Nov 8, 2002)

KSV complained that we're bitching at new members for discussing overclocking. I think the point is that we're really sick to death of hearing people say, "I'm going to buy a Windows PC." 

Boo hoo. I have a Windows PC. They're not that much to get excited about. I like my iBook better. Can't we talk about Mac's without people going, "Game Over, Man!" every other day?


----------



## ksv (Nov 9, 2002)

> _Originally posted by itanium _
> *They are rated at the speeds they are selling them at.  Don't you understand these chips have been tested and found stable at 1.25 GHz?
> 
> You can't just pick out any 1 GHz G4 and run it at 1.25 GHz.  These chips are "special."
> ...



Gaah! Read for yourself! Motorola has no 1.25 GHz chip.
http://e-www.motorola.com/webapp/sps/site/taxonomy.jsp?nodeId=01M0ylsbTdG
The chip Apple uses in both the dual 1 GHz and dual 1.25 GHz G4s is exactly the same one as they used in the dual 1 GHz Quicksilver, wchich means that if you buy a Quicksilver instead, you'll get a cooler running and easier to overclock CPU.


----------



## kendall (Nov 9, 2002)

How do you overclock it.  I wan't to run 867 MHz G4 at 1.25 GHz.  Show me how.

Oh wait, you can't?  I guess that 1.25 GHz G4 is worth a little more to me than that 867 MHz G4.  Hmmm, go figure!

Your argument is weak, all CPU manufacturers do this.  Why the sudden interest in Motorola?

Also, not all 1 GHz G4s will run stable at 1.25 GHz.  What don't you understand about this.  This is what makes the 1.25 GHz G4 special and worth the additional cost.  Lower yield equals higher cost.  Tada!


----------



## plastic (Nov 9, 2002)

Well, in Japanese Mac Mod shops, they are always OC-ing this and that... and you can find loads of Japanese Mac Sites doing this (second largest market in the world for Apple) and what they do not show you is....

How long does the OC-ed G4 run stable? Tada! They can get a G4-1Ghz to run at 1.25 for an hour? And after a month? What happens? Fried? Nah, they will not tell you this... so I kinda have to support what itanium mentioned. These are more stable chips that was used in 1.25 towers.

I dun care if they have found a new way to OC a 400Mhz G4 chip to a 5Ghz G5... as long as it works, I will part with my money for it. Simple as that. I think Apple does a decent QC job. 

My opinion. Dun bite me.


----------



## ksv (Nov 9, 2002)

> _Originally posted by itanium _
> *How do you overclock it.  I wan't to run 867 MHz G4 at 1.25 GHz.  Show me how.
> 
> Oh wait, you can't?  I guess that 1.25 GHz G4 is worth a little more to me than that 867 MHz G4.  Hmmm, go figure!
> ...



You're repeating yourself and ignoring my answers, and your arguments are self-contradicting. For the last time; we're talking about Apple, not Motorola.
And go back and read my posts once more.

Sure I can show you how to overclock your 867 MHz. But I can't guarantee it will run at 1.25 GHz without additional cooling. PPC7455 bus multiplier is set by R2, R5, R8, R4 and R10 where R2 is PLL CFG0, R4 PLL CFG1, R5 PLL CFG2. R8 PLL CFG3 and R10 PLL EXT. The resistors are located left to the processors. If you add a peltier with water cooling, or cool it with liquid nitrogen to lower resistance, sure you can clock it to 2 GHz+.
What Apple has probably done here is to add aditional cooling to make 1 GHz chip run stable at 1.25 GHz. That's $650 for four ugly holes in the front and an even more noisy fan which makes the computer sound like a jumbojet heading at full speed against the ground.
I'd rather invest 70 bucks in a peltier, thermal paste and some quality fans to make a 1 GHz Quicksilver run at even higher speeds than 1.25 GHz. Then I wouldn't have to pay three times as much for useless DDR RAM, either.


----------



## ksv (Nov 9, 2002)

> _Originally posted by plastic _
> *Well, in Japanese Mac Mod shops, they are always OC-ing this and that... and you can find loads of Japanese Mac Sites doing this (second largest market in the world for Apple) and what they do not show you is....
> 
> How long does the OC-ed G4 run stable? Tada! They can get a G4-1Ghz to run at 1.25 for an hour? And after a month? What happens? Fried? Nah, they will not tell you this... so I kinda have to support what itanium mentioned. These are more stable chips that was used in 1.25 towers.
> ...



So it's guaranteed to be stable and all good when Apple does it?


----------



## scruffy (Nov 9, 2002)

This is not hard, m'kay?

Apple buys many G4s from Motorola.  Some are rated by Motorola at 1GHz, some at 867 MHz.  Apple knows that the chips rated at 1GHz have not been tested at higher speeds, since 1GHz is the highest Moto will test at.  So they test the 1GHz-rated chips at 1.25GHz.  Some fail at 1.25 GHz.  These they sell as 1GHz processors, since they are already rated (by Moto) at that speed.  Some pass at 1.25 GHz.  These they sell as 1.25 GHz processors (with extra cooling, since more Hz => more W => more heat).

Now, for the grand prize of not getting kicked in the ass by Leroy the arthritic mule, answer these questions:

a)What is the difference between chips sold _by Motorola_ as 1GHz chips and those (re)sold _by Apple_ as 1GHz chips?

b)What would be the likely result if we were to overclock to 1.25GHz, and leave running for more than an hour or two, the chips sold _by Apple_ as 1GHz chips?


----------



## ksv (Nov 10, 2002)

> _Originally posted by scruffy _
> *This is not hard, m'kay?
> 
> Apple buys many G4s from Motorola.  Some are rated by Motorola at 1GHz, some at 867 MHz.  Apple knows that the chips rated at 1GHz have not been tested at higher speeds, since 1GHz is the highest Moto will test at.  So they test the 1GHz-rated chips at 1.25GHz.  Some fail at 1.25 GHz.  These they sell as 1GHz processors, since they are already rated (by Moto) at that speed.  Some pass at 1.25 GHz.  These they sell as 1.25 GHz processors (with extra cooling, since more Hz => more W => more heat).
> ...



No.
More MHz does not necessary mean more watts. A real 1.25 GHz can have exactly the same watt rating as a 1 GHz.
Motorola doesn't test each invidual processor.
It's likely that Apple doesn't, either. That could be the reason for the extreme cooling system.   Sure, any processor can be run at high frequencies with proper cooling.

OK, to answer your questions;
a) If Apple _does_ test each invidual processor, a 1 GHz chip from Motorola can potentially be run on higher frequencies that the ones you get from Apple, and the average temperature/wattage is lower because the ones from Apple are found to be unstable or not to run at all on 1.25 GHz with Apple's cooling.

b) Again, if Apple _does_ test each invidual processor, that wouldn't work on a new DDR G4. With a Quicksilver CPU module, though, it could work just fine with good cooling (unless Apple did the same when they sold Quicksilvers, and have collected chips that can be run on 1.25 GHz for a long time).
I've overclocked a G3 from 300 to 440 MHz, and my current G4 from 400 to 500 MHz, and both of them still run perfectly stable.


----------



## ksv (Nov 10, 2002)

I tend to be the last poster in discussions...


----------



## scruffy (Nov 10, 2002)

Chip makers _do_ test every CPU they make.  And something like 25% of them don't run acceptably at any speed, and need to be thrown out.  (A couple of years back, someone used FPGA's to make a low-cost supercomputer out of partially functional CPUs that would otherwise have been thrown out, but that's a digression)



> a) If Apple does test each invidual processor, a 1 GHz chip from Motorola can potentially be run on higher frequencies that the ones you get from Apple, and the average temperature/wattage is lower because the ones from Apple are found to be unstable or not to run at all on 1.25 GHz with Apple's cooling.



Exactly.  Can consumers buy them direct from Motorola?  That would be especially interesting if one could get a commodity motherboards that would run OS X and hold G4s



> b) Again, if Apple does test each invidual processor, that wouldn't work on a new DDR G4. With a Quicksilver CPU module, though, it could work just fine with good cooling (unless Apple did the same when they sold Quicksilvers, and have collected chips that can be run on 1.25 GHz for a long time).
> I've overclocked a G3 from 300 to 440 MHz, and my current G4 from 400 to 500 MHz, and both of them still run perfectly stable.



Did Quicksilvers come up to 1GHz?  That is an interesting thought, certainly.  

Second part - so you've overclocked chips before, and gotten lucky.  Congratulations, and may your good luck continue (should you OC more chips).  Still, I wouldn't run any scientific apps on those machines...  It should be noted that the testing consists of more than just "does the OS run stable", which isn't really much of a workout for the CPU.  Generally they will do things like calculate pi to the 50,000th digit, and if even one number is out it's considered an unacceptable chip at that speed


----------



## boi (Nov 10, 2002)

> _Originally posted by ksv _
> *I tend to be the last poster in discussions... *



no way, i'm the designated thread killer here! (and pretty much everywhere)

i'm going to go ahead and accredit it to irrefutable arguments ^_^.


----------



## plastic (Nov 10, 2002)

> _Originally posted by scruffy _
> *Did Quicksilvers come up to 1GHz?  That is an interesting thought, certainly.   *



What do you mean? I have a QS Dual-1G. Or do you mean they were overclocked Dual 867s now...


----------



## scruffy (Nov 10, 2002)

I mean I wasn't sure.  I check exact specs of new Apple computers when I'm actually thinking of buying one, or helping someone else pick one out.

Just to give you an idea of how often the former happens, I have a 300 MHz B/W G3.


----------



## ksv (Nov 11, 2002)

> _Originally posted by scruffy _
> *Exactly.  Can consumers buy them direct from Motorola?  That would be especially interesting if one could get a commodity motherboards that would run OS X and hold G4s
> *


Exactly.  Can consumers buy them direct from Motorola?  That would be especially interesting if one could get a commodity motherboards that would run OS X and hold G4s
You'd still need the rest of the processor card (clock, L2/L3 cache etc)



> _Originally posted by scruffy _
> *Did Quicksilvers come up to 1GHz?  That is an interesting thought, certainly.
> *



The last ones were 800, 933 and 2x1000 MHz, I think. 



> _Originally posted by scruffy _
> *Second part - so you've overclocked chips before, and gotten lucky.  Congratulations, and may your good luck continue (should you OC more chips).  Still, I wouldn't run any scientific apps on those machines...  It should be noted that the testing consists of more than just "does the OS run stable", which isn't really much of a workout for the CPU.  Generally they will do things like calculate pi to the 50,000th digit, and if even one number is out it's considered an unacceptable chip at that speed *



When I leave it calculating mandelbrot fractals for 24 hours, and doesn't crash, I consider it as stable 
I've overclocked many other G3s, too, and none of them have had instability problems.


----------



## isgoed (Nov 21, 2002)

while I was browsing the internet some more I stumbled across my original source.  MOST DEFINITELY take a look at it:


!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.architosh.com/news/2002-10/2002c-1023-mcp7457-rm1.phtml

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

source is dated in oktober 2002


----------



## cfleck (Nov 21, 2002)

i've read this thread in full, and it has some interesting merits.  but can someone tell me why it matters if you chip is overclocked?  i agree with the statement that this happens in the pc industry all the time.  so why is this news?  if my processor was "approved" in some sense to run faster, you can bet that i would find a way to overclock it.  but if you cant promise me that i wont fry it, well then...

i just dont see what all the hub-ub is about.  at most the only real news here is that now people have more reason to bash moto for not putting out a new chip.


----------



## theed (Nov 21, 2002)

The point is not the fact that the 1GHz and 1.25GHz chips use the same fab process.  That's no big deal.  It's made painfully obvious that the circuit diameter didn't shrink and the core voltage remained the same by the size of the heat sink and the consumed wattage.  What pains me is the manner in which the material is presented.  Both by posters here and by the link provided just above.

This is industry norm.  Not industry freak.  And should be represented as such.  Also, the big difference between me overclocking my processor and Apple overclocking my processor is ... that it IS guaranteed by Apple.  For a year.  Or 3 for about 10% over the cost of the machine.  What a guaranteed seller of chips says is the speed, is the speed.  The facts are true, their presentation is severely flawed.  This is an indication that moto isn't introducing new designs very fast.  ... we know that already.


----------



## ksv (Nov 22, 2002)

This thread consists of nothing more than arguments repeated over and over.


----------



## MacLegacy (Nov 22, 2002)

hey ksv/boi, careful i'm the last poster now!


----------



## chevy (Nov 24, 2002)

I am working in the semiconductor industry.

There is a difference between me overclocking my G3 from 300 to 400 MHz and Motorola testing the same chip under controlled conditition to rate it 300 or 400 MHz.

What we don't know here is who decided these G4 were good for 1.25 GHz. Did Motorola test these at 1.25 GHz (and deliver only to Apple), did Apple receive test info from Moto and use these accordingly, or does Apple just overclock and cool ?

Or is the speed limitation related to temperature, in which case just cooling down the die would allow for higher speed ? This would also be under control.

The only concern is that a device may be unreliable if it is operated outside its specification. We don't have the real specification of the device (only the published ones are available on Moto web site, but the real one may differ), neither do we have the test specification.... therefore all our discussion is... speculation.


----------



## habilis (Nov 24, 2002)

I wholehartedly agree with not buying a new G4, and picking up a new pentium with XP. I just bought the new G4 Dual 1GHz with 1 gig RAM and jaguar and I'm utterly disturbed and profoundly disappointed with it's performance in every aspect. I used to be a Mac person, it's the sad truth, Apple has finally dropped the ball and gone south. We Mac people need to come out of our shell of denial about Jaguar. People need to know the truth about this. You can read my full report in the Opinion forum....


----------



## ksv (Nov 25, 2002)

> _Originally posted by chevy _
> *I am working in the semiconductor industry.
> 
> There is a difference between me overclocking my G3 from 300 to 400 MHz and Motorola testing the same chip under controlled conditition to rate it 300 or 400 MHz.
> ...



Why should Motorola sell chips capable of running at 1.25 GHz rated at 1 GHz? That would just make less profit...
Motorola's chip's clock frequency ratings aren't related to temperature. Sure, cooling down the die allows the processor to run at higher frequencies, but I'd rather do that myself than paying $650 for Apple doing it.


----------



## chevy (Nov 25, 2002)

You didn't get me right.

Either Moto only delivers to Apple because they have a contract to do so, or because Apple takes all the production at the best price, or because Apple accepts to pay a premium for extra testing and binning (sorting).

Or by cooling the chip Apple is able to run it faster. Managing the temperature of a component is not that easy ! And development of a new cooling scheme also costs, someone has to pay for it...

BTW, the only solutions for a much faster Mac now are:
Wider processing (64 bits or above)
New technology (faster clocks or parallel computing)
Distributed processing (Apple is already going this route with Quartz Xtreme), this is the option with the highest acceleration potential, but also the least versatile and probably the most expensive as all processors become specialized. This is the way biology is operating and it as been demonstrated to be quite efficient....


----------



## ksv (Nov 26, 2002)

> _Originally posted by chevy _
> *You didn't get me right.
> 
> Either Moto only delivers to Apple because they have a contract to do so, or because Apple takes all the production at the best price, or because Apple accepts to pay a premium for extra testing and binning (sorting).
> ...



If Motorola sorts out 1.25 GHz chips, they'd sell them as 1.25 GHz, not as 1 GHz. If Apple sorts them, the overall quality of the 1 GHz G4s is lower, and can't be overclocked as easily as pre-DDR G4 Macs, like I've said three or four times now 
Cooling down a processor effectively isn't harder than using a peltier and a good fan. A peltier costs about $20. I'm sure I could clock a 1 GHz G4 way beyond 1.25 GHz for $650!
But, we can of course not say anything for sure until someone actually have checked the 1.25 GHz if they really are rated by Motorola at the speed they are running at.

I'm not saying Apple is doing anyhing wrong as long as their computers are stable, I'm just saying I'd rather buy a dual 1 GHz Quicksilver than a dual 1 GHz DDR.


----------



## chevy (Nov 26, 2002)

Quality higher or lower... I won't argue. The problem is the quality of the Mac.

Now, as you can see form the line at the bottom of my mail, I am still runing a 300 MHz G3... the 2 processors 1.xxx GHz is probably a lot of fun,... but I need my little $$$$ for other purposes !

I think that this race for MHz is a little bit "empty". Several small improvements on top of several small improvements do not make one breakthrough.

I expect a new breakthrough from Apple.


----------



## theed (Nov 26, 2002)

There is perfectly good reason to sell chips as 1.25 GHz to one guy and 1GHz to another.  If you are using a chip in an embedded device the rate of cooling may be inherently limited, and the additional speed creates additional heat, and with insufficient cooling that means greater errors and failures.

How about automotive?  Can you think of a more ridiculous environment for a processor?  They need to last, and take heat, and not give it out.  Embedded is where the PPC processors are strong.  Speed means a lot less than reliability and cost in that environment.  Apple may indeed be the only vendor with its hands in the 1.25GHz bin.  Or it may be the only one who benefits from taking questionable chips and marking them as having an acceptable failure rate at a higher clock speed.

It doesn't matter.  And we don't know which one (if any) of these things is true.  But without something like a twofold performance increase in processors and memory bandwidth soon, Apple's hardware business is looking kinda crappy in terms of high end performance.

I still don't think the hardware speed is the most critical part of this equation, but a factor of two performance disparity is hard to ignore.


----------



## ksv (Nov 26, 2002)




----------

