3GHZ P4 here Nov. 14th.

[peter2002]

Darn that Intel is making it tuff for those "switchers". The new 3GHZ P4 systems will be the first to support "hyperthreading", which increases performance another 30% or more by activating a new section of the P4 silicon that acts like a new processor. Although you need a new motherboard and chipset to activate the feature.

Peter

http://www.ocworkbench.com/ocwbcgi/newspro/viewnews.cgi?newsid1033985499,25491,

 

[Mr. Anderson]

Will the power4 be too little too late for Apple? This is crazy that things keep getting upped in the PC world and we're dealing with 1.25 GHz and using duals to try and keep up.

Ugh!

 

[vniow]

Okay, this is the COMMUNITY section. If you want to post a bunch of computer news, I suggest you put future posts like this in the general Mac, or seeing as this is PC news, the Current Events.

 

[sparkleytone]

peter2002 you are my personal hero. not only are you an unabashed pc zealot, but you also seem to be completely comfortable with your lower than average IQ. i salute you. i guess just because you are dimwitted doesn't mean you can't flaunt it.

 

[PCUser]

I hope I'm not the only sane person using a PC...

3GHz? So what. 5 GHz? Big whup. Can it perform as much work per cycle as a G4? Comparing a chip on it's clockspeed alone is really, really ignorant.

"Hyperthreading". Cool sounding name. I suggest you read the Ars Technica (http://arstechnica.com/paedia/h/hyperthreading/hyperthreading-1.html) explaination of what it is. It will increase performace in some areas, and decrease it in others. Since it makes the chip act as two chips, it's only understandable that it cause slowdowns when two threads want the same part of the chip.

But, none of that matters to peter2002. Why am I even bothering to respond to a troll? Arg.

 

[scem0]

Bohoo, it will take us 2 seconds longer to open IE - which is crap in the 1st place. I really don't care that much about speed. It is price that I am worried about. Macs will never be used if only 10% of computer users can afford them.

 

[Hemingray]

Huh? I musta missed something. Remind me why we're bashing this guy?

Frankly, I'm GLAD he mentioned this. I don't read PC news hardly ever, so when articles like this do come our way I read them so I know how Apple's holding up against the PC world's current offerings.

 

[vniow]

I think everybody's being nostangic about his X-Book, world's most powerful notebook thread.

But in OTHER PC CPU newz, AMD is going to release their 64-bit Clawhammer soon that will be marketed as 3400+.

 

[dricci]

Arn should start a site called PCRumors.. Not only would all of the trolls have a place to hang out, he could make a killing from Intel and Dell buying Ad Space on the site!

 

[MarkW19]

As someone else said, who cares how fast PC's get? Who cares when Microsoft launch a new version of crappy Windows?

The Mac is nicer to use, more elegant, and you get more things done, in less time, ultimately, and with a lot less hassle, which = faster in the long run. Sorry, how many times does Mac OS 10.2 crash?

And Windows?

Ahh, ok.

(Ironically - or not - the only thing that has ever crashed on my DP867 with 10.2, despite me trying to excessively crash it, is IE. Hmm...)

 

[vniow]

We should be concerned how fast the PC world is getting because 3Ghz vs. 1.25 Ghz (duals or not) doesn't look good.
The average consumer doesn't know about pipelines, hyperthreading or Altivec, they're going to look at the numbers and when they see what they percieve to be a faster computer, guess which one they're going to choose.

Like it or not, that's how most people in the PC world view things.
Numbers.
It's as simple as that.
They're starting to realize that numbers aren't everything, (take a look at Intel's latest commercial, it advertizes multimedia stuff, not Ghz) but it's still a long way off.
Right now, Apple does not look like the speediest computers on the market and that's hurting their sales and their image.

 

[funkywhat2]

while i agree that we may have to begining to worry, very few mainstream pc's surpass 2.0 GHz. Really, only machines just purchased, say within the last two months or so, are at that speed. Ask anyone that you know with a pc, and i'll bet that they say either 1.5, 1.7 or 1.8 GHz. Unless they have lots of $, they're really wasteful, or they waste way too much of their life gaming.

P.S.-while may come off at first as a hine, it's not

 

[MacAztec]

Originally posted by edvniow

But in OTHER PC CPU newz, AMD is going to release their 64-bit Clawhammer soon that will be marketed as 3400+.

I think that hammer chip will be pretty friggin awesome. I hope the Powe4 comes soon....

 

[MacAztec]

Im buying a PC....

Yes, its true. I am keeping my macs though.

I am building a GAMING and VIDEO STORAGE PC. I worked out everything that I will buy, and its a pretty nice PC, for a pretty cheap price:

Coolermaster Case
Gigabyte Mobo with USB 2.0/Firewire/RAID/PC 2100 or higher
AMD Athlon 2100+ XP
Networking cards, DDR RAM, 80GB HD
Radeon 9000 AIW
SoundBlaster Gamers Edition Card
Wireless Keyboard and Mouse
All the other little things...(fans, power, etc.)
Viewsonic 17in PF Monitor

All for 800 dollars, I think thats a pretty nice deal. I am going to run Windows NT too...

 

[vniow]

Re: Im buying a PC....

Originally posted by MacAztec

Radeon 9000 AIW

You might want to check ATI's site again for that one.

Yeah when I get a Mac, I'll probably keep my PC for well, PC stuff.
Hopefully I will have abolished Windoze by then and have a working Lindows box.
Maybe even with a +3400 AMD Clawhammer in the future.