Proccessors

L

liverpool89

Registered
I cannot seem to find a thread on any forum which explains to me in plain english why apple are not using pentium 4 or pentium M proccessors in their new Macintels. They are using proccessors of up to 2.16GHZ while Pentium 4 and M can produce 3.6GHZ

This doesnt make sence to me
 
Intel redesigned the processors so they get more work done with less power, in a nutshell. Think of it as how apple touted their processors as being faster than intel ones, even though the Mhz was slower. You can't really judge a processor by it's Mhz value, you should see benchmarks to judge. I can't remember where I read that, but it was in some article reviewing the macintels. They explained why we are not getting 3 Ghz machines and stuff..

Some benchmarks
 
Yes, and the 2.16GHz is not a single processor, it is a dual-core procossor, essentially two processors on the same chip. With the more modern (faster) memory bus and the capability to provide much the same performance as a desktop while running on battery power (for laptops), this newer chip family is just the beginning from Intel, and will quickly replace the last-generation P4, which it already out-performs.
The P4 family seems to have reached its limit, the CoreDuo is just getting started.

This might look like some kind of advertisement, but the CoreDuo (and more newer-generation chips) will quickly go in all Macs
You can ask the same question of Dell, HP, and etc, why they are also going with the CoreDuo processors. Raw numbers don't tell you everything.
 
the Pentium 4 was one of the most inefficient processors ever designed, needing huge numbers of clock cycles to get anything done. this was becuase of the pipeline that all data had to go down before being processed. it had to basically go through about 26 'doors' before it got 'processed', and if there was a bad secotr, it would have to start all over again. better designed chips have around 10 stages in their pipelines, making the chip far more eficient, and faster at lower speeds, and cooler temperatures, making it far more stable, as well as being a lot faster.
 
Short answer: They're faster.

Long answer: The "MHz Myth" is something Apple has been talking about for a long time. The G5 never crossed 3GHz, but it was (and is) still at least as fast as the top-of-the-line P4s. Intel focused on marketability with the P4, pushing aside everything else in favor of high clock speeds (MHz/GHz). The result is that the P4 is the slowest chip on the market, MHz-for-MHz. When it first came out, it was even slower than the P3 it replaced. Now Intel is finally facing the fact of the MHz Myth and using more efficient designs that achieve better performance at lower clock speeds.

Clock speed is not useful when comparing speeds of different types of processors. It is ONLY useful when comparing different versions of the SAME processor. For example, a 3.0GHz P4 is certainly faster than a 2.5GHz P4, but that doesn't mean it's faster than a 2.5GHz G5.

The Pentium 4 is on its way out, and I doubt we'll see another 3.6GHz processor from Intel for quite some time. Doesn't matter, because Intel's new ~2GHz processors will still beat the pants off the P4.
 
It is for this very reason that AMD had to keep up their odd numbering scheme for their XP and 64 lines of CPU. Their actual clock speed was always less than the number that was given to the CPU. For example, my XP 1800+ was only 1.53 GHz, but it would compete with about a P4 1.8 GHz, same with the A64 3000+, it was only 1.8 GHz yet it competed with a P4 3 GHz processor. You wouldn't think it would matter but a lot of people just look at the numbers when they make a comparison so this was actually a good move for AMD.
 
well, it looks like i don't need to add anything, its all been said. the p4 is on its way out, and the core chips are more efficient. that is why apple is not using the p4.
 
In fact, all of my own comparisations of MySQL, gcc and other programs show that my iMac Core Duo (1.83 GHz) is somewhat faster than my Developer Transition Kit (3.6 GHz Pentium 4 running Mac OS X), even with only one of the cores running.
 
(off topic - if the 1.8ghz core duo is faster than the fastest pentium, and the quad g5 is still faster than the fastest core duo, then bloody hell, either i want a quad g5 now, and have all the software work amazingly fast, or what the hell is Conroe going to be like?)
 
Lt Major Burns said:
(off topic - if the 1.8ghz core duo is faster than the fastest pentium, and the quad g5 is still faster than the fastest core duo, then bloody hell, either i want a quad g5 now, and have all the software work amazingly fast, or what the hell is Conroe going to be like?)
Click to expand...

The Core Duo is faster than the quad G5 for many common tasks like web browsing, launching applications, compiling, database serving, etc. Conroe is supposed to be launched at speeds up to 3.33 GHz, with twice the cache size and FSB speed of the iMac. I think a quad Conroe would be faster than a quad G5 ;)
 
The conroe pretty much has to be faster. How is Steve going to go up there and say "Well, here's what you've all been waiting for, the Intel Powermac! It's only a bit slower than a quad: you probably won't even notice the difference!"

The Intel Powermac: It's almost as fast as a Quad.

Seriously, though. The Conroe will be faster, so don't buy a Quad. They haven't switched for slower processors..
 
yes, but my point is, the main Pro apps (the reason for having a fast computer) may not be around untill 2007. a quad G5 will still be fast in 4 years time. and will take 16gb ram, and runs all software natively. it's still a good investment. a conroe mac my not work properly for maybe a year after you bought it... that's not fun.
 
Yes, but then buy a quad and replace it with an intel Mac Pro when the software's ready for your tasks: Simple, really. But until the Mac Pro's are here, it's futile to even compare them to anything. ;) ... We have no idea how many cores will be available at what speed at which pricepoint.

And about why you, liverpool, couldn't find the threads about it: It's "processors", not "proccessors". Forum search engines aren't clever enough to correct your spelling as you search.
 
Check out the PC Mag "short take" or review or whatever it was. They gave it 4.5 stars, I believe.

The Cinebench number is astronomical. 1200 or something. Nothing to shake a stick at. If you can find a stick, anyway.

(nothing to shake a stick at ~= It's significant.

Idioms. What'll they think of next?)

Doug
 
(doug i love your sig. try this, i ran a mac+ emulator under a 68k emulator running system 7 on a pc running win 98se. i have also run a mac+ emulator on a x86 emulator running msdos on my quadra 800. but the best was really running a mac+! haha)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top