At MacWorld this week, Steve Jobs once again mentioned that Macs are not about clock speed. This is a point that has been brought up many times, comparing the efficiency of different processor architectures. There is some validity to the argument that clock speed isn't everything, but this argument falls short in some important areas. If you look at a sampling of current processors and make a list from least efficient to most efficient, you would come up with something like this: Pentium 4 - Athlon - PowerPC G4+ - PowerPC G4. The less efficient processors have larger pipelines (20 stages for the P4) and the most efficient ones have shorter pipelines (5 stages for the G4). The problem with short pipelines is that they cannot run at GHz speeds. This has been reinforced by Motorola's failure to speed up the original G4 past about 500MHz and their need to extend from a 5- to 7-stage pipeline to realize their current 867MHz speed. Sure, the P4 was maligned at 1.4 GHz and is still maligned at 1.7 GHz. However, the astute are starting to notice that the P4 will soon be available at 2.0 GHz, and it's a pretty potent design at that speed. AMD is still chilling at 1.4 GHz, and Motorola is stuck at 867 MHz. All of the aforementioned chips will get a boost from moving to .13 micron production processes, but the Pentium 4 should be able to hit the highest GHz rating. And, even if that rating doesn't relate to direct performance and the P4 will suffer some drag, the higher speeds enabled by the longer pipeline will put it in the lead as the other chip makers are scrambling to update their designs. You must increase your pipeline stages to run at acceptable MHz/GHz speeds today, even if Intel took it a bit too far in their current design, sacrificing a lot of efficiency. Ask yourself, "Why do we even have pipelines in the first place?" It would certainly be more "efficient" not to have them (a.k.a. one-stage pipeline), but then you'd be stuck at very low speeds, that, even though you have high "efficiency," will not be able to compete against less-efficient chips running at far higher clock speeds. So, although the Mac may not be about MHz, Apple shouldn't pretend not to care about it at all, or they are sending a strange message about their ability to compete against other computer designs.
www.abcnews.com (http://www.abcnews.com)

------------------
Manu Narayan

APPLE screwed up when they kept their OS propietary i.e. only they wrote programs. It seriously limited their ability to expand while PC based products could be turned out by the ga-zillion.

No one will argue Macs from a hardware standpoint. They have some good stuff. It's just a matter of finding good software that doesn't require a home mortgage.

Well another BLUNDER on apples part is rating the computers via the clock speed.

No one will say that an 867Mhz G4 is as slow as an 866 P3.

But to a consumer, they go, I can spend 2500 on a MAC that is 867 or 2000 and get a 1.8gig P4?

Im going with the p4!

They made mac a machine used in schools and peolpe 'in the know' very few 'lay' mac users.

another thing...recent tests have shown some considerable gian in grounds as far as PC/MAC in graphics issues..

------------------
Manu Narayan