Not that I would ever buy one, even if it was 9000Ghz, but I was just curious why since the switch they still aren't close?? Any one know? Thanks
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
How come I can get a 3.7 Dell but only a 2.1Ghz Mac
- Thread starter Learjet035
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
have a link to the dell, and what processor is it?
MHz isn't everything, intel even realize that now.
MHz isn't everything, intel even realize that now.
I haven't looked @ PC's in so long I just shot over to Dell this morning to see where they were @. I clicked on "gaming" and picked the more expensive one. It was like 3.7 something.
I totally agree with you in regards to MHZ. I was just curious why they all aren't now running the latest n greatest.
I totally agree with you in regards to MHZ. I was just curious why they all aren't now running the latest n greatest.
Learjet035 said:
That will be a Netburst based Pentium IV. The Netburst architecture was designed for high clockspeeds but does less per clock cycle that Intel's newer Core architecture. Intel are phasing out all Netburst CPUs due to the fact that they have hit a brick wall with speed and they consume masses of power. The newest Intel Core2 CPUs only run at 3GHz (coming to a Mac soon) but are much faster than the 3.7GHz CPU in that Dell.
Edit to add: Some benchmarks showing the 3.7GHz CPU being roundly beaten by the new lower clocked Core2 CPUs.
MHz values are only comparable if the chip architecture is identical or near-identical. Core Duos are based on a much more efficient design, so do far more in every clock cycle than a Pentium IV. The 2GHz chip in the iMac is faster than the 3.7GHz chip in the Dell, and uses a lot less power to get it's work done.
Killyp said:
This is simply not true. You have 2 2GHz CPUs. A single thread of execution can only run on one core so only runs at 2GHz. Some programs are multi-threaded and can use 2 cores but not all are.
Killyp said:
2 cores at 2GHz does not equal 4GHz.
2 processors at 2GHz doesn't even equal 4GHz
there are system busses and other issues.
2 cores does help offload work to the second core though, providing more stability for processor intensive tasks, same with dual chip computers.
dynamicv said:
That's probably not the case. Whilst the CoreDuo CPU is good, it's not that good. A 1.83 GHz Core2Duo is slower than a 3.7Ghz PIVEE. A 2.4 GHz Core2Due is a little faster. Extrapolating between them you'd probably need somewhere around a 2.2Ghz Core2Duo to be faster than the 3.7Ghz PIV.
Current iMac do not use Core2Duo, only CoreDuo. Core2 is a lot faster than Core so you'r probably talking 2.8-3.0Ghz CoreDuo to be faster, and they don't exist.
Note that CoreDuo is basically designed for laptops, whereas the currently tested Core2Duo chips are for desktop so are less reserved with their power usage. Core2Duo chips for laptops are coming, but will probably be a bit slower than their desktop counterparts.
The is so much difference between NetBurst and Core. NetBurst "sacrifices" low "work-per-cycle" rate in-order to get the highest GHz (which means more average Joes will buy it because for them higher GHz = better). Core has high "work-per-cycle" rates, but has slightly lower clock speeds (however, there are some exceptions, like the Core 2 Duo Extreme @ ~3GHz).
At the same clockspeed, a 3GHz Core 2 Duo Extreme will easily beat a 3GHz Pentium 4 (as well as decapitating the FX-62 benchmarks). I think I read somewhere that the current Core Duos are giving even the FX-62 a run for its money (which is outstanding considering this is a laptop chips against a high-end desktop chip). AMD should be worried.
At the same clockspeed, a 3GHz Core 2 Duo Extreme will easily beat a 3GHz Pentium 4 (as well as decapitating the FX-62 benchmarks). I think I read somewhere that the current Core Duos are giving even the FX-62 a run for its money (which is outstanding considering this is a laptop chips against a high-end desktop chip). AMD should be worried.
All good info, thanks. I guess the moral of this story is Ghz don't mean Sh**t! =) Thanks, I'll wait till Photoshop comes out for the intels and buy myself a new machine.
The higher Mhz Mac would be confusing with the lineup. For example having a 3.7 Ghz Mac Mini and a 2.6 Ghz Mac Pro. I am glad Apple stayed away from the older designs and the Celerons.
Killyp said:
But the that is the root of the issue. It's not 2 times 2. You have 2 things both running at 2Ghz. Nothing is running at 4Ghz.
robbieduncan said:
I suspect you're not considering the number of functional units on the processor, cache sizes, number of registers etc
I agree with the gist of what you say though.
You'd spend well over $3 grand for that PentD EE machine that will also buy you a Quad G5 (or a Dual Woodcrest when they're released) for the same price, and I guarantee you that the Dell won't be the better choice/have better performance.
Reiterating what's already been said: clock speed means nothing.
Reiterating what's already been said: clock speed means nothing.
Plus, a core duo system at about 2.5GHZ will WHIP a PD E.E.zero2dash said:You'd spend well over $3 grand for that PentD EE machine that will also buy you a Quad G5 (or a Dual Woodcrest when they're released) for the same price, and I guarantee you that the Dell won't be the better choice/have better performance.
Reiterating what's already been said: clock speed means nothing.
The pentium d is way outdated yet they still sell the extreme edition for around 1k monays. Intel is going through a transitional phase where they aren't introducing the laptop desktop and server lines at the same time. For that reason, everything but the laptop processors are wayyyyyy overpriced. I don't know about G5 versus Pentium XE; but the g5 would be a better buy, if the dell had woodcrest (although it's prolly gonna be the other way around first) it would whip the woodcrest. I just wish they had released everything at once... I woulda gotten a mac pro instead of an imac..
Dual processor and dual coare a different; a dual processor system will tend to perform better because there are physical processors, not just two cores meant for multithreaded applications. A macbook pro has 1(one!) processor. Apple tends to say things differently by saying because, say a quad G5 is quad becuause it has 4 processors (it doesn't; that's what they want you to think; you have two dual core processors). Although; even a dual processor system does not perform as if it was a single 4ghz processor; it just multitasks so that two threads can perform just as well opposed to using two processors doin' one thread. So; unlike, say, nvidia cards in sli, two processors does not equal anywhere near double the performance.Killyp said:
For example, as you can see there:
http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=2772&p=6 The ultrasparc has 8 cores at 1GHZ but the woodcrest wipes the floor with the opteron and the ultrasparc w/ fewer cores than the ultrasparc.
Killyp said:
its not running at 4GHz though, it has two processing cores at 2GHz and that does not equal 4GHz. why won't you believe that? simple math does not apply here as there are many, many factors that cause this.
Killyp said:
I have 2 cars, both have 2 litre, 4 cylinder engines that rev to 9000rpm. I cannot add them together to make a F1 beating 4 litre, v8 engine that revs to 18000rpm.
Dual Core is like this, not Apples in boxes.
Robbie, I agree with you, but it's more complicated than single core vs. dual core since most recent single core Intel CPUs come with HyperThreading enabled.
HT which makes them look like a dual core processor to the OS, and can only be changed at the BIOS level, not on the fly. Thus most people who buy a 3.7 GHz machine have the CPU emulating 2x~1.85 GHz cores, and this is the default because it leads to a more responsive machine where multiple threads are being run simultaneously.
You're absolutely right that with a single core you can disable HT and get higher performance for a single threaded app, but that's not the way they tend to be used.
B
HT which makes them look like a dual core processor to the OS, and can only be changed at the BIOS level, not on the fly. Thus most people who buy a 3.7 GHz machine have the CPU emulating 2x~1.85 GHz cores, and this is the default because it leads to a more responsive machine where multiple threads are being run simultaneously.
You're absolutely right that with a single core you can disable HT and get higher performance for a single threaded app, but that's not the way they tend to be used.
B
P4's with hyperthreading are just plain pathetic. They get less than 1/2 the performance of a core duo in a desktop processor. They've disabled hyperthreading in pretty much all of the new line, so this isn't a problem anymorebalamw said: