Skip to comments.
Intel Readies Earlier Rollout of 3.0 Ghz Pentium 4
Reuters
| July 22, 2002
Posted on 07/22/2002 6:01:07 PM PDT by HAL9000
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-85 next last
To: Bogey78O
Now if only I can get a reliable ISP that will work with my 1200 baud modem.
Yeah, that speed is hard to come by these days.
41
posted on
07/22/2002 7:44:59 PM PDT
by
rdb3
To: rdb3
I was promising myself a new PowerBook G4 if I complete this quarter in the black with my new business. Now I'm not so sure that this is a good idea. If Intel is pushing the 3Ghz processors, all other processors are going to drop significantly in price. So I could have a monster Dell 2Ghz laptop for far less than what the PowerBook will go for. Whoa, partner. Processor speed is not enough of a reason to make a machine choice. The Intel chips still use 32-bit or 64-bit instruction, whereas the Mac G4 uses 128-bit. Way more things can happen at once in the Mac chip.
And as someone else already mentioned, it is all about bus speed. No machine is going to be radically faster until someone solves the bus speed problem (which is actually a heat problem.) The G4 has a bus speed of 133MHz, the same as any newish PC board out there. (and don't let Dell's little 400MHz bus trick fool you -- it is 4 separate 100Mhz buses.)
Don't let Intel play the number game with you like it does in its marketing campaigns. If you want a wintel machine, buy one -- but know what you are getting. But if you want a beauty that flies, treat yourself to the G4 Ti.

You know you want one.
To: unix
Cripes! Just reading that review scared me. Reading the corporate reply for the BTMS makes me think the guys who made it were illegal immigrants who made it in their garage.
43
posted on
07/22/2002 8:17:40 PM PDT
by
Bogey78O
To: Semper911
Don't ch'ya know? The collective are quite happy being assimilated. You're wasting pixels...
44
posted on
07/22/2002 8:20:32 PM PDT
by
NapaCA
To: rdb3
Couple that with Apple's plan to port OS X to the PC, why bother with the PowerBook? There is no "plan to port OS X to the PC". That is pure speculation and wishful thinking from Wintel users based on an offhand statement by Steve Jobs last week that was taken out of context.
45
posted on
07/22/2002 8:23:34 PM PDT
by
HAL9000
To: rdb3
I saw some 1.6 mhz laptops for as low as $1299 3 weeks ago (and there were some "demo's" for sale too) at Fry's. The prices are tumbling fast I'm sure. You probably could already beat the powerbook for a very nice machine. I got one with built-in 802.11/x wireless networking, so I can freep in the AM on the back portch during breakfast (another way to make living without a newspaper easier).
To: umgud
If it's anything like mine (Hitachi Lifebook, made in Canada) then it probably kicks.
To: HAL9000
Anybody using anything more powerful than a 286 is a hopelessly obsessed gadgethead.
GET A HORSE!!
To: NapaCA
The collective are quite happy being assimilated. You're wasting pixels...So true, so true.
To: Bogey78O
I'm just sayin' that most PC's don't use a fraction of the processor power and I guess if a RAID was set up, then I could understand getting the gigabit to the desktop...it's the same question that plagues these huge fiber companies...whatcha gonna do with all the bandwidth?
50
posted on
07/22/2002 9:05:17 PM PDT
by
Benrand
To: goldstategop
Is there really that much of a speed difference in real computing time between a 3.0 Ghz Pentium IV and my current 903 Mhz Pentium III?? Yes, in the processor. In the rest of the system, no. Where is the bottleneck now? Could be the graphics card, could be the memory or bus, could be the CD or hard disk depending on what the computer is doing. If you are solving matrices, there will be an increase in speed. If you are displaying images or interactive sound, speed will be the same assuming the peripheral devices are running at maximum speed.
Just registered my Windows XP over the toll-free phone line. Microsoft did a good job, it was quick, no pauses, it even answered on the first ring.
To: Semper911
whereas the Mac G4 uses 128-bit In its multimedia extensions, same as Intel and AMD. Get a clue mac head.
52
posted on
07/22/2002 9:17:23 PM PDT
by
Dinsdale
To: monkeyshine
These machines really are getting to be fast enough. Seriously. I mean, some people will need more speed... graphics, sound, video, etc... but for the average person I think we're reaching the limits of what we could possibly want. Ah, If only bandwith could go up at the rate that processor speed increases.
To: monkeyshine
Also, using windows XP at home is much quicker than 98 at the office (obviously).
Is that because you don't have to restart as often to free up memory? I started saving after making any change on our machine running Windows 98 because by the time I noticed it start to slow down for this reason it was often too late. Well, manipulating huge Photoshop files brought things to crisis point pretty quickly. On the new Windows machine (AMD ATHLON XP 2000+ on a MSI K7N420PRO NFORCE 420D motherboard) we're running Windows 2000 Professional. It doesn't seem to have the same problem. Of course, having 1 GB of RAM helps. But since I've gotten my new G4 Quicksilver with 1.28 GB RAM (as well as Photoshop 7 for OSX), I haven't had any reason to go back to the PC.
54
posted on
07/22/2002 9:28:14 PM PDT
by
aruanan
To: rmmcdaniell
That would be nice.
To: bandlength
right. in a word, no. the price does not justify the so-called improvement in speed.
Do you honestly expect that prices are going to stay at their initial level? Of course not! Competition from AMD is going to drive them down very fast.
56
posted on
07/22/2002 9:52:20 PM PDT
by
Bush2000
To: HAL9000
Fire extinguisher not included.
I'd prefer a fire extinguisher to a walker, Macophile...
57
posted on
07/22/2002 9:54:37 PM PDT
by
Bush2000
To: aruanan
That could be partially it. Maybe also that the old machine has a lot of stuff that opens on start up. And the drive is slower, and it has slower and less ram, slower processor, etc...
To: goldstategop
There's a real advantage when you use P4-specific code for crunching bitmaps. In my first pass at writing SSE2 code, I've found at least a 2X increase over SSE (sometimes 4X). My code converts integer rgba to float rgba, does filtering, then converts back to integer. The SSE2 code is almost 9X faster than generic x86 code.
Another advantage to upgrading to a P4 cpu is that you'll also get an upgraded chipset. I built a new machine a month ago that uses a P4-2.26GHz, i845E chipset, and DDR266 RAM. The new chipset supports USB 2.0 which is much faster than USB 1.x.
One thing I don't like about my new system is that it only has a single processor. I built my old system around an el cheapo dual Celeron 400 mobo (the Abit BP6). It was smooooth. No jerkiness while multitasking.
59
posted on
07/22/2002 10:04:35 PM PDT
by
mikegi
To: Bush2000
A 3 Ghz Pentium reminds me of a Ferarri with bald tires stuck in the sand. The tires spin fast, it kicks up a lot of dust and makes a lot of noise - but there's no traction.
60
posted on
07/23/2002 12:34:43 AM PDT
by
HAL9000
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-85 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson