| Schweb's Lounge Forum for general conversation, chit chat, or most topics that don't fit in another forum. |
| Post Reply | New Thread | Subscribe |
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
I really noticed buying a Mac with a G4 would be worth my money. I switched to Mac for the CPU mostly. It's like brests (don't take this the wrong way): Is bigger better? Well yes, but the shape is most important, usually too big is nasty likewise, smaller is nasty too.
x86 wants too bee as big as possible (Ghz) but we see that they are making new CPU's with lowers Hz like the Opteron & iTanium, likewise "playboy" who now selects smaller brests as they use too doo. PPC wouldn't mind beeing big but minds it's shape to be nice and started bringing "TWO" to peaple a lot sooner (i don't mean invented), and although i like amazones one brest is less then two . Though PPC also comes wrapped in very nice clothes, and this means she's gonna cost ya ![]() Sparc, here's my problem. What the heel is with these things, I've looked over benchmarks all over the Web. But it seems to be just a little but better than a PIII and currently around $1000 for a 500Mhz ??? Does anyone know anything about these Sun Machines. I really like Solaris so i considerd a Sun but went to Apple instead since i know how nice Mac's are from 3rd party experiences. And now from 1st hand ![]() : old machine : 900Mhz AMD, 512Mb 133 Mhz RAM, Nvidia TNT2 16Mb : new machine : 800Mhz G4 , 384 Mb 133 Mhz RAM, ATi Radeon 7500 32 Mb |
| QUOTE Thanks | |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
. You should'nt just throw AMD and Intel together into your generalizations about x86. Intel has been ALL ABOUT THE MHZ ever since AMD beat them to 1ghz. They keep pumping out inefficient processors with longer pipes just to get to 2, 3 and 4 ghz. Meanwhile AMD has been all about efficient operation per clock cycle CPU's. Intel has only decided to go back to more effecient lower mhz processors due to the fact that the athlon xp's and A64's running at 50% slower have been eating intel's lunch at gaming (also due to the fact that they cant get very high speeds with their new 90nm cpu's because of major heat problems).PPC's aren't the only dual cpu setups you can run. Dual cpu's are very good at multitasking and can show a nice improvement if the programs you are using truely take full advantage of your dual-cpu setup. Sadly, not many programs do :mad: A dual setup will generally run worse than a single cpu setup in programs that do not support dual cpus. |
|
| QUOTE Thanks | ||
![]() Member Since: Mar 09, 2004
Location: Miami FL
Posts: 2,860
![]() Mac Specs: G4 1Ghz OS X 10.4.7
|
Last edited by witeshark; 06-12-2004 at 01:43 PM. |
||||
| QUOTE Thanks | |||||
![]() Member Since: Mar 09, 2004
Location: Miami FL
Posts: 2,860
![]() Mac Specs: G4 1Ghz OS X 10.4.7
|
|
| QUOTE Thanks | |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
definately something i would like. But does anyone know anything about the Sparc architechture, i mean what are it's strong points? I see no reason to go for Sparc now i have PPC. Do they accually have any advertisment with nice benchmarks or something i only found benchmarks comparing a 500 with p3's??? I hope thats an old Sparc.The guys from Gentoo seem to mhave made a Sparc version so i'm ready for some Sparcling action if it's worth it. Not ever, neglecting Apple btw :cool: ! |
|
| QUOTE Thanks | ||
| Post Reply | New Thread | Subscribe |
| Thread Tools | |
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
|
|
|
|
|||||||
Thread |
Thread Starter |
Forum |
Replies |
Last Post |
| PPC 970 Mentioned in Businessweek | schweb | Apple Rumors and Reports | 3 | 05-22-2003 08:20 PM |
| PPC 970 Timeline | schweb | Apple Rumors and Reports | 9 | 05-14-2003 02:57 PM |
| PPC 970's in May? | schweb | Apple Rumors and Reports | 9 | 05-07-2003 12:57 PM |
| More News on the PPC 970 | rman | Apple Rumors and Reports | 6 | 02-27-2003 10:41 PM |
| PPC 970 | muso | Apple Rumors and Reports | 3 | 01-15-2003 06:32 PM |
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:49 PM.
Powered by vBulletin