Thread: I only wish...
View Single Post
chas_m

 
chas_m's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jan 22, 2010
Location: Victoria, BC
Posts: 16,191
chas_m has a reputation beyond reputechas_m has a reputation beyond reputechas_m has a reputation beyond reputechas_m has a reputation beyond reputechas_m has a reputation beyond reputechas_m has a reputation beyond reputechas_m has a reputation beyond reputechas_m has a reputation beyond reputechas_m has a reputation beyond reputechas_m has a reputation beyond reputechas_m has a reputation beyond repute
Mac Specs: 2009 MBP, Black speakers, Black Benq second monitor, black(ish) iPhone 5s, Black 2012 iPad, etc.

chas_m is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by OnceYouGoMac View Post
lol I understand...and I have owned and messed up many a bike haha. I guess I just wonder, when 3.6 + processors are available, why Mac tends to use such slower ones?
1. Price.
2. Stability.
3. Heat management.
4. I presume you are referring to the Pentium 4 560 or the Xeon, but there's really nothing faster than a core i7 out there at the moment (at least, not according to Intel, who make the other 3.6GHz processors referred to above) and the top speed for that is 3.2GHz ... just slightly less than what's used in the iMac.
5. Which proves that clock rating on the chip ≠ everything.
QUOTE Thanks