Quote :

"Because Yonah is not some fucking saviour of a new chip. It's MARGINALLY faster than the P4, and still isn't as fast per dollar as A64 chips. And JOBS said 2-3 times the performance of the G5, which, by interpolation, would mean the P4 would be nearly twice as fast, and the Athlon XP would be as well."

Being dual-core vs. single core before, that's almost an instant 2x faster, then having a faster bus, and a bit better architecture accounts for the rest. The Yonahs are a lot more than "marginally" faster than the P4s/clock (about 50% faster per clock, by looking at the benchmarks). But they are marginally faster overall, but have a brighter future.

Jobs/Apple though was being picky about the benchmarks they use, because they are choosing SPEC now, which the PIV has always been the champ in, where as before, they would use other performance measurements.

Quote :

"I never said the benchmarks were useful, or that they have ever put substance over marketing hype in hardware. That wasn't the point of my post, I was pointing out that all you fucking Apple fanboys ooo and aaaahhh over a marketing ploy that basically says everything you have bought to this point was garbage."

Pretty much everytime Apple releases a new chip, they "say" that to their past customers. They trash-talked the G3 when the G4 was released I bet. It's how they get people to buy newer products.

1/13/2006 2:42:28 PM

i sincerely like this thread

1/13/2006 2:48:12 PM

^^Who gives a fuck if they are faster per clock?

Quote :

"But they are marginally faster overall, but have a brighter future."

Is all that matters, OVERALL performance. And yes it's a marginal difference.

Quote :

"Being dual-core vs. single core before, that's almost an instant 2x faster,"

Nope.

1/13/2006 3:08:10 PM

Dual Core vs Single isn't that big of a deal yet until software is coded to take advantage.

VM support, however, is a pretty big deal.

1/13/2006 4:30:22 PM

Quote :

" ^^Who gives a fuck if they are faster per clock? "

Intel, apparently, since they are axeing the netburst architecture, in favor of this newer, more efficient architecture.

Quote :

""Being dual-core vs. single core before, that's almost an instant 2x faster," Nope."

Relating to what Jobs was talking about with his speed comparisons, yep. When they Spec'd the dual core, they used the thread version of the spec, which comes out to be 2x faster (according to Apple) instantly. The Yonah, according to Anandtech as well, is the most efficient multiprocessor design they tested.

1/13/2006 4:34:23 PM

in the real world, you aren't going to even approach 2x. it's still bandwidth limited to memory and everything else.

Quote :

"Intel, apparently, since they are axeing the netburst architecture, in favor of this newer, more efficient architecture."

which doesn't have a whole lot to do with clock vs performance in general. Netburst and the P4 architecture has been flawed since the getgo.

And this "newer" architecture is, in actuality just a revision of the PIII architecture. So really it's older.

1/13/2006 4:46:34 PM

They're only marginally faster than the desktop p4's... but are low wattage mobile chips... that's fairly significant. Comparing low wattage laptop processors to high end desktop processors is kind of unfair anyways.

Also, these are the same processors that'll be in teh Thinkpad T60's and competing laptops. Basically the only difference between a high end macbook and a high end thinkpad will be the OS, features, and overall "design." The hardware's now basically exactly the same. That is also significant, because it means the argument that mac's are inherently slower and using dated technologies will be incorrect.

[Edited on January 13, 2006 at 8:44 PM. Reason : ]

1/13/2006 8:40:59 PM

at least it is now

1/13/2006 9:20:04 PM

Yeah, and that's the real important thing. You can't claim that the mac's aren't as good as pc's in terms of hardware anymore. They're now using the same tech as Dell, Lenovo, Toshiba, etc. will be using. Whether or not it's a quantum leap over the current generation is irrelevant. The next line of macbooks is actually superior to the current line of mobile pc's in terms of hardware specs (some extreme high end and desktop replacement beasts not withstanding.) SThey'll still be more expensive than dell's, less conservative looking and probably not as tankish as thinkpads, and not about as gay as a sony, but they've lost that last bit of hardware seperation.

[Edited on January 13, 2006 at 9:27 PM. Reason : ]

1/13/2006 9:26:08 PM

the only speed that matters is productivity

1/13/2006 9:28:02 PM

i am the solid stone in a river of doubt

1/14/2006 2:46:39 PM

Quote :

"They're only marginally faster than the desktop p4's... but are low wattage mobile chips... that's fairly significant. Comparing low wattage laptop processors to high end desktop processors is kind of unfair anyways."

The dual core Yonah isn't low wattage and isn't a "mobile" chip. The Pentium M core IS Intel's core for everything, at least this year. So it's perfectly fair to make that comparison. The dual core M's are still furnaces, just not as bad as the retarded final batches of the P4 cpu's.

1/14/2006 3:03:31 PM

^ they get really good battery life if you don't leave a usb device plugged in, and the USB device issue is actually with the board anyways.

2/16/2006 6:23:47 PM