Agreed, and I apologize for the generalization. However, I was correct in showing that the 1.83 Ghz dual core != 3.66 ghz single<br><br>J<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 6/1/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Brian Pearce
</b> <<a href="mailto:brpearce@optonline.net">brpearce@optonline.net</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;">
> It's two 1.83 chips on the same silicon. It's twice as fast.<br><br>It's not quite so literal. If you go back and look at the benchmarks<br>for the dual processor Macs, even they aren't "twice as fast" as the
<br>comparable single processor models would have been.<br><br>And as Tom said, there are far too many variables involved.<br><br>BRIAN PEARCE<br><<a href="http://www.redjacketpress.com">http://www.redjacketpress.com</a>
><br>"Yesterday's Books for Today's Reader"<br><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>iBook mailing list<br><a href="mailto:iBook@listserver.themacintoshguy.com">iBook@listserver.themacintoshguy.com
</a><br><a href="http://listserver.themacintoshguy.com/mailman/listinfo/ibook">http://listserver.themacintoshguy.com/mailman/listinfo/ibook</a><br><br>Listmom is trying to clean out his closets! Vintage Mac and random stuff:
<br> <a href="http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZmacguy1984">http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZmacguy1984</a><br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>--Joel