New posts

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="eburness" data-source="post: 42271">Sorry, let me rephrase that one, b/c you're right. What I meant to imply is that Apple's ability to lure in new customers from the Wintel and WinAMD market is somewhat hindered by the fact Macs cannot boast comperable CPU speeds in terms of RAW megahertz, which is a huge barometer of performance for lots of people who know little about computers (yes, I know AMD runs it's chips at a lower clock-speed also, but they have a numbering system that makes it easy to understand how their chips stack up against Intel's). I mean, most enthusiasts agree that AMD makes the fastest chip (Athlon 64 FX-53), but many people who just buy a computer fromt best buy or circuit city assume their Intel equipped system is the best money can buy.****And to add to my earlier point about the front side bus, here's another reason why Apple should pursue that strategy that I can see. Whereas the latest Intel and AMD mobile chips automatically downclock themselves when using fewer system resources (ie: running fewer or less power hungry apps), the Apple mobile chips (so far as I know, feel free to tell me otherwise), do not. That said, wouldn't it make sense to be able to have, for instance, a 1.33ghz G4 be able to downclock itself to 600, 667, 800 mhz, etc when all ur doing is some mobile word processing. And wouldn't a higher front-side bus help offset any drop in performance in such situations (ie: have a CPU multiplier of 4, and a front side bus speed of 200mhz [400mhz effecrtive])?? Wouldn't that also increase the ibook or powerbook's battery life dramatically??</blockquote>

Verification: Name this item. 🍎