The Megahertz Myth

deltatux Says:

Aug 30, 2009 - It was actually because IBM didn't have the resources to advanced PowerPC to what Apple wanted and then they went Intel. Second reason is that Intel finally woke up to the megahertz myth and toned down the pipeline in their Core Microarchitecture and later generations.

Petchhyy Says:

Sep 1, 2009 - Haha I do doubt that.

irulethe70s Says:

Sep 9, 2009 - and they didnt have it energy effecient in a good period of time

tuffluffjimmy Says:

Sep 12, 2009 - Because processor architecture and advancement doesn't stagnate. Back then the G4 was much faster than the Pentium 4. But today the G4 and the Pentium 4 are archaic, the current Intel processors are faster and more efficient than the PPC chips Apple used to use.

macnerd93 Says:

Sep 15, 2009 - IBM the maker of the PowerPC Cpu's couldn't deliver what Apple wanted. Apple couldn't put a G5 CPU in a there PowerBook notebooks due to its heat Power consumption. Also time had seen the PowerPC by, Intel caught up sad in away, PowerPC macs are great even now, but intel's the future

peterthethinker Says:

Sep 18, 2009 - POWER6 was described at the International Solid-State Circuits Conference (ISSCC) in February 2006, and additional details were added at the Microprocessor Forum in October 2006[1] and at the next ISSCC in February 2007. It was formally announced on May 21, 2007.[2] It was released on June 8, 2007 at speeds of 3.5, 4.2 and 4.7 GHz[2], but the company has noted prototypes have reached 6 GHz" Apple goofed IMHO

KingofComputing Says:

Oct 12, 2009 - im thinking of buying a dual processor 1 GHZ Quicksilver for $300. i think with that, some good HDD in there, and 1.5 GB RAM it should run good for everyday use. Will it do iMovie HD 6 and iDVD? my iDVD from 2006 won't run on any leopard later than 10.5.2 so to get the best performance i was going to run it on panther if it is compatible, if not, tiger.

BarricadeSlade Says:

Oct 12, 2009 - The core duos are based off the Pentium 3s??? No way!

BarricadeSlade Says:

Oct 12, 2009 - They really can't advertise them as "portable supercomputers" andymore cause EVERY PC manufactuere uses Intel, and Apple saying their notebooks are "portable supercomputers" would imply there is something special in the new Macs when PCs will just catch up with it 1-4 months later.

BarricadeSlade Says:

Oct 12, 2009 - I immagine a 1.5GHz Pentium 4 would SUCK on leopard. According to Apple, a 1GHz Pentium 4 is equivalent to a 400MHz PowerPC G4.

BarricadeSlade Says:

Oct 12, 2009 - Like, the pentium is better at running Windows. A Cell processor (which is PowerPC) would run Windows XP like a K6 with only 32mb of ram.

BarricadeSlade Says:

Oct 12, 2009 - Apple will never move to AMD. Ever notice Apple seems to get Intel processors before others? They also get them FAR cheaper than everyone els. Intel agreed to do that if Apple doesn't switch to AMD. And it would take years for Apple to recompile all their code to AMD.

huutoapaljon Says:

Oct 13, 2009 - G4 is not that fast, I did own Dual G4 867MHz machine and that P4 Hackintosh-machine didn't feel any slower. According to benchmarks they are at the same level of performance, however P4 wins a lot in memorybench part thanks to its higher FSB. I now own iMac G5 1.6GHz and according to benchmarks it equivalent to Athlon XP 1800+ - 2000+ which do run around same amount of MHz. However, probably due poor Flash-optimization even some YouTube -videos bring the single G5 down to its knees.

KingofComputing Says:

Oct 13, 2009 - in that case, apple should start making their code universal to both architectures so if they strike a deal with AMD they can make the switch, although with Intel being a bigger company, they're gonna have a better deal.

KingofComputing Says:

Oct 13, 2009 - now i'm thinking about buying a DP 1.33 GHZ MDD Powermac G4 for doing the same things above. it comes triple booting with 9.22, 10.2, and 10.3.9. for only $30 more, I think it's a good deal. anyone else got ideas?

BarricadeSlade Says:

Oct 13, 2009 - Mabye they have recompiled for AMD for the "Just in case" theory. Just like they did with Intel. Every version of Mac OS X has had a PowerPC and Intel version. (Cept 10.6, No PowerPC!) Apple just kept the Intel version a VERY well-kept secret! I wonder how steve kept them from saying anything...

BarricadeSlade Says:

Oct 13, 2009 - Flash is AWFUL on the PowerPC Macs. It's like Adobe coded it with blindfolds for a bet while they were at the bar, drunk.

ikilluish Says:

Oct 20, 2009 - Pentium 4 sucks!!! It always did!!! the Pentium III was better than that piece of shit

4K4K1K0 Says:

Nov 8, 2009 - NETBURST FTW! ATHLON BOOO! Dell and many retail didn't sell any computers with Athlon a reason: they sucked, sure they were a lot cooler and sustain a higher temperature, also their multiplicator could be changed after application with pencil, but who cares? REAL GHZ count! With the P4 technology up to 10 GHZ!!! The longer the pipelines the better! And after P4 there is an even brighter future awaiting us: the revolutionary Itanium technology!!!1

4K4K1K0 Says:

Nov 8, 2009 - »And it would take years for Apple to recompile all their code to AMD.« Ummm, no.

ikilluish Says:

Nov 8, 2009 - They use Intel processors for three main reasons: 1. During the intro of the Power Mac G5, Steve Jobs promised that the PowerPC G5 would reach 3 GHz within 1 year. But two years later, the PowerPC G5 still didn't reach that clock speed. 2. IBM could not keep the heat intensity and power consumption of the PowerPC G5 low enough for them to be used the iBooks or PowerBooks. 3. The Intel processors would offer 70 units of performance per watt while the IBM PowerPC only offered 15.

4K4K1K0 Says:

Nov 9, 2009 - Are you serious? Because I wasn't... _

ikilluish Says:

Nov 9, 2009 - Forget it...

kinamod2k Says:

Nov 9, 2009 - notice the neva showed the clock speed at twice tho. if they showed the p4 running twice as fast (approx) it wouldnt have fallen so far behind.

ikilluish Says:

Nov 17, 2009 - At 2.4 GHz it took my old Dell Dimension 4600 w/2.4 GHz Pentium 4 over 5 minutes to download and processor 1 SONG! And some people think the Pentium 4 is the best processor out there. The only good Pentium 4s were the Northwood-based ones. Besides, it never reached 10 GHz, only 3.8 GHz. The Athlon XP usually outperformed it. Athlon 64 X2 outperformed the shitty Pentium D. My Pentium Dual-Core laptop can outperform some desktop Pentium Ds. In sort: the NetBurst microarchitecture sucked.