It seems that now, Intel is attempting to drive into Apple's and others main selling point, that is a slower, more efficient computer. So why can't Apple do the opposite?
Take their new powermac line, the one with the dual 1.43 Ghz processors, and up the numbers in comparison with Intel's chips
Figuring a 20:7 ratio for operations per cycle between Intel and Apple, that comes out to about 2.85. Knock off.85 for Intel's hyperthreading.
(1.43*2=[2.86])
Multiply that by about 1.5 due to the dual processors
(2.86*1.5=[4.29])
Hey Presto, if Apple advertised like that i'm pretty sure that they could sell more units, comprable to intel.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems that now, Intel is attempting to drive into Apple's and others main selling point, that is a slower, more efficient computer. So why can't Apple do the opposite?
.85 for Intel's hyperthreading.
Take their new powermac line, the one with the dual 1.43 Ghz processors, and up the numbers in comparison with Intel's chips
Figuring a 20:7 ratio for operations per cycle between Intel and Apple, that comes out to about 2.85. Knock off
(1.43*2=[2.86])
Multiply that by about 1.5 due to the dual processors
(2.86*1.5=[4.29])
Hey Presto, if Apple advertised like that i'm pretty sure that they could sell more units, comprable to intel.
If some crazy fan of yours traps you in a room with one of these, you can use it to escape.
[Misery]