One thing to remember about Apple and GHz ratings...<br>When Apple quotes a processor clock speed, they are giving you "guaranteed" clock rating based on<br>their testing of the chipset. If it is indeed the 2.93 Intel Core 2 Extreme Processor X6800, it just may be that Apple determined, in a Mac, there were too many instances where the chip didn't perform reliably above
2.8 GHz, so they rated the Mac at 2.8 GHz, because it can consistently run at 2.8 or better.<br><br>Jon<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 8/9/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Zane H. Healy</b> <<a href="mailto:healyzh@aracnet.com">
healyzh@aracnet.com</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">At 8:35 PM -0700 8/8/07, Jim Robertson wrote:<br>>The new iMacs look nice. I don't do lots of extremely processor intensive
<br>>stuff, but I'm wondering about whether the quad-core machines will be better<br>>suited to fairly consistent use of Windows (XP or Vista) in a virtualized<br>>environment alongside the Mac OS. How about Photoshop CS3?
<br><br>By quad-core I assume you mean a "Mac Pro"? These should totally<br>rock for what you want, if you have enough RAM. Xeon based systems<br>are *VERY* nice, even nicer than Core 2 Duo based systems, and that
<br>is saying a lot!<br><br>>Also, is the 2.8 GHz iMac truly using a different processor (Core 2 Duo<br>>"extreme"), or is it just the same processor running at a faster clockrate?<br><br>I'd really like to know what the **** a
2.8Ghz iMac is using for a<br>CPU! To the best of my knowledge Intel does not make an Extreme with<br>those spec's, the closest to what Apple is advertising is the "Intel<br>Core 2 Extreme Processor X6800" running at
2.93Ghz.<br><br> Zane<br></blockquote></div><br>