Pentium rating

Hypernate

Hypernate

McGeek
I think that Apple should list the PR (Pentium Rating) of their chips as well as the normal rating. I say this because I am openly a mac fan, and while I'm drooling over the dual 800Mhz G4s at school on the net, the other guys say how much better their 1.7Ghz AMDs are (AMD PUH!)and no amount of talking as hype will convince them that the dual 800 is at least as good as the 1.7
 
point them to a (by now old) arstechnica article that compares Intel architecture and PPC architecture. Ask them if they know what a "pipeline" is.... if they know, which I doubt they will, explain (using the nice drawings from arstechnica) how the PPC makes more sense and basically explodes the megahertz myth.

There is also a page on Apple's site discussing the "Megahertz Myth."

sorry no direct links but I'm sleepy, just got back from Iceland. Search the sites for yourself...
 
I do believe though, the G5 introduces a 10 stage pipeline... which is the same as Intel's chip if my memory serves me correctly.

This is why the G5 chips are coming in at much higher MHZ numbers, more in the "Intel" range.

Admin
 
EXACTLY!

When I heard that I wet myself. What are they thinking. will copper on silicon, optical computing, the Velocity engine or some unknown tech save us????

Why did they give in to the myth?! They just centerstaged the "Myth" presentation after S. Jobs in NY!
 
The only thing I can think of is that Apple must be balancing it out somehow to make up for the longer pipeline. I don't know why they'd be such a supporter of the myth, and then doing exactly what the other myth does. If it's numbers they are worried about, they should keep the pipes short and fast and start advertising their rating in gigaflops or something, or name their processors like AMD did.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top