| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
nightstriker424
Member
Joined: 02 Aug 2005
Posts: 97
Location: Here
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
devo
Veteran Member
Joined: 23 Jan 2005
Posts: 5273
Location: Dunwoody, GA
|
 Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 7:31 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Nothing has really changed. They're awesome machines and still very expensive. I still think having two processors seemed cooler than having one dual-core. Just wish I was rich!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ranter
Member
Joined: 07 Jun 2005
Posts: 223
Location: Palm Springs, CA USA
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 9:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, but if you were rich, you could have 2 dual-core processors now.
That thing has a total of 10GHz CPU power, and not with any hyper-threading silliness either.
I want one. Maybe I'll buy myself one as a retirement present.
_________________
http://skeptichosting.com/
Weapons are the tools of violence; all decent men detest them.
Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Drake
Junior Member
Joined: 19 Aug 2005
Posts: 36
Location: Australia
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
picaman
Veteran Member
Joined: 16 Aug 2005
Posts: 1444
Location: NYC
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 7:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| devo wrote: | | Nothing has really changed. They're awesome machines and still very expensive. I still think having two processors seemed cooler than having one dual-core. Just wish I was rich! |
There's a lot of debate online about whether the old dual-processor machines are faster than the new single-processor dual-core machines. Out of curiosity, does anyone know for certain one way or the other?
Jamie |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jcleekm
New Member
Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Posts: 15
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 9:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| picaman wrote: | | devo wrote: | | Nothing has really changed. They're awesome machines and still very expensive. I still think having two processors seemed cooler than having one dual-core. Just wish I was rich! |
There's a lot of debate online about whether the old dual-processor machines are faster than the new single-processor dual-core machines. Out of curiosity, does anyone know for certain one way or the other?
Jamie |
I do not have any links but I do remember reading that the dual core might be slower. But not by much aka “we can measure it but you will not see any difference using it”
The big advantage is heat; one processor with dual cores will generate less heat thus saving in cooling solutions. This will allow a higher clock for a tiny boost in performance. Not to mention the proverbial dual “dual core”
Hopefully this will cause the dual processor Macs to drop in price. I have the “wants”
for one real bad……..
Here is a Linky
http://media.99mac.se/g5_dualcore/
Does anybody know of any way I can get my PC 6800GT (AGP) to work in a Dual Proc Power Mac? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nightstriker424
Member
Joined: 02 Aug 2005
Posts: 97
Location: Here
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 3:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
16Gb ram=$11500
_________________
Mac Mini 1.42
1gb Ram
100 Gig Hd
4gig Nano
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
andp
Senior Member
Joined: 28 Jan 2005
Posts: 358
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
retrophonic
Junior Member
Joined: 28 Jun 2005
Posts: 32
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 6:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Barefeats has posted new benchmarks which are, in my opinion, pretty underwhelming. I guess I'll stick with my Dual 2.3 ghz until the mactels are released.
http://www.barefeats.com/dc20.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Memberlist 
Photo Gallery
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
