Operating Systems > macOS
The G5
Parrott:
i like milk : :confused:
psyjax:
quote:Originally posted by Viper:
The speed potential differnce between what you suggested and that p4 2.4c is worth the extra $100. $300 for 3.2ghz w/800mhz FSB and Hyperthreading is a steal...it really is.
[ September 29, 2003: Message edited by: Viper ]
--- End quote ---
Meh, I'd rather spend my money, on a dual 2Ghz (better yet dual 3Ghz at christmass) with 1Ghz FSB, and 8GB of 400Mhz DDR RAM.
Zombie9920:
It's funny how you mention the 1ghz FSB. An overclocked P4 2.4@3.1 - 3.2ghz runs a FSB that is effectively over 1ghz.
CPU @ 3.12ghz
Quad pumped 260mhz FSB = 4x260mhz = 1040mhz FSB
CPU @ 3.19ghz
Quad Pumped 265mhz FSB = 4x265mhz = 1060mhz FSB
One time I really pushed my stock air cooling and got the CPU to near 3.3ghz and it was effectivley running on a 1.1ghz FSB.
So a 1ghz FSB isn't really impressive to me. ;P
Granted, the current P4's can't address over 4GB of Ram because that is the limit of the 32-bit architecture. The Prescott and the Tejas will solve that problem though. Honestly, not many people even use 4GB of Ram let alone over 4GB. The people who do are likely to own something like an Itanium 2 anyways(A high-end 64-bit Server chip). 4GB of Ram on a desktop is literally overkill.
[ September 29, 2003: Message edited by: Viper ]
mushrooomprince:
quote:but it can be overclocked to 3.2ghz with stock air-cooling with no hitch.
--- End quote ---
YOur only thinking as if it were you yourself using the machine. YOur always talking about how you can overclock processors and what not. What you don't get is that businesses and universities don't have time to over clock all of their hundreds of PC's just to get a better performance for their price. Besides price and performance are defined in so many ways. Price isn't just how much money you pay to get the machine to your house. And performance isn't just how much number crunching a CPU can pull off.
I think thats why Virginia Tech is using the G5's for their supercomputer cluster. I'm betting software was a big issue with it also.
hm_murdock:
I still think the RISC vs CISC argument comes down to efficiency over power.
the RISC concept goes for efficient execution of simple code. CISC goes for breakneck execution of relatively complex code.
In the end, RISC, running at a slower clock is keeping up with CISC running at drastically higher clocks, but it's still easier for CISC to pull away than it is for RISC to keep up, for some reason.
No way is better, they're just different means of reaching the same end
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version