Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
PC to Powerbook: processor speed
- Thread starter skatesc
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
that all depends. i had a pc with a 2.4ghz celeron and 128kb cash and noticed an incredible diff going to a 1.25ghz mac. if you have an athlon 64 @ 2.4ghz yes, you'll notice a downgrade. P4 might be about comparable and if you've oc'd a pentium m to that speed you've got serious balls
i don't have any benchmarks to back it up but i imagine it would be about similar performance. if anyone can find any "scientific" benchmarks that'd be nice.
Probably, your friends will heckle you for using such a slow computer.
In reality you may notice a second on two lost here and there, but quite a few people think the OS more than makes up for it.
Unless you are really hammering the machines with stuff that takes minutes or hours to render, you really won't be out too much with a machine that may take a second or two longer.
But for some people, that 1-2 seconds longer it takes Office to open up the first time is really important.
In reality you may notice a second on two lost here and there, but quite a few people think the OS more than makes up for it.
Unless you are really hammering the machines with stuff that takes minutes or hours to render, you really won't be out too much with a machine that may take a second or two longer.
But for some people, that 1-2 seconds longer it takes Office to open up the first time is really important.
I think you'll find the speed pretty similar. That said, the switch to Mac OS X will be an incredible upgrade coming from Windows. I switched 6 months ago, and I wouldn't trade my Mac for a PC that was twice as fast because Mac OS X is such a good OS.
fantastic point. not that we're having to convince you to switch or anythingmduser63 said:
but people can talk on and on about more speed means more productivity but that's more than made up for by the OSOne thing you will have to get used to is the "feel" of OS X.
I, as well as friends of mine that have recently bought Macs, have all noticed that the feel of the mac is just...different. At first you might think it's not as fast as a PC, because of the way the windowing system works.
After a few weeks, you will probably begin to understand why so many people think the mac just feels better to use. The way it works is a bit more refined than the rawness of Windows. Sure some parts of the GUI are going to be slower than Windows, but there are definitely parts of the GUI that move considerably faster than Windows.
OS X and Longhorn will probably "feel" much more similar than OS X and XP, since Lonhorn is going to have a bunch more eyecandy and a more refined interface.
I, as well as friends of mine that have recently bought Macs, have all noticed that the feel of the mac is just...different. At first you might think it's not as fast as a PC, because of the way the windowing system works.
After a few weeks, you will probably begin to understand why so many people think the mac just feels better to use. The way it works is a bit more refined than the rawness of Windows. Sure some parts of the GUI are going to be slower than Windows, but there are definitely parts of the GUI that move considerably faster than Windows.
OS X and Longhorn will probably "feel" much more similar than OS X and XP, since Lonhorn is going to have a bunch more eyecandy and a more refined interface.
I currently have a 1.33GHz PB and a PC with a 2GHz AthlonXP. There's a huge difference when it comes to processor intensive tasks.. encoding, folding, extracting files, etc. takes "forever" on the PB compared to the PC (although some things, like extraction, can also be affected by your HDD speed). Some High Definition movies seems to struggle slightly during playback.
...but in 'normal' usage, like viewing websites, writing, playing music and most movies there's no particular difference. It's slightly annoying when I have to do some heavy computing on the PB, but when I don't, OS X makes it a pleasure to use and for most things I'd rather use the PB, than the PC, despite the occational speed difference.
The difference in CPU speed between your PC and the PB is less, so you may not notice it...
...but in 'normal' usage, like viewing websites, writing, playing music and most movies there's no particular difference. It's slightly annoying when I have to do some heavy computing on the PB, but when I don't, OS X makes it a pleasure to use and for most things I'd rather use the PB, than the PC, despite the occational speed difference.
The difference in CPU speed between your PC and the PB is less, so you may not notice it...
Hey, I don't think you guys are giving the G4 enough credit. Don't your remember the megahertz myth speech where steve showed an 800MHz G4 against a 1.7 GHz P4, and the G4 was twice as fast as the P4.
nightdweller25 said:
The megahertz myth campaign only applies to Pentiums and not AMD Athlons (XP or A64). If Apple made the claim that that an 800G4 = 1.6Ghz Athlon, they would be the laughing stock of the entire computing industry.
Why did AMD introduce PR ratings? Why is their Athlon 64 FX-51 (2.2Ghz) much faster than their old generation Athlon XP 3200+ (2.2Ghz)?
Mav451 said:
On average a G4 is about equal to a P4 that is clocked 400mhz-500mhz faster. With Athlon XP's they are about equal being that G4's no longer carry L3 cache , and I don't want to even compare Pentium M's or Athlon 64/FX's. It's not even fair, plus Intel has Pentium D's(Dual Core) coming in a few weeks as Cnet, anandtech and many others have reviews of them.
As for anyone believeing those old Macworld faceoffs between P4's and G4's are truthful is drinking some serious mac koolaid , those things are rigged worse than any Las Vegas slot machine.
skatesc said:
you may notice some diffrerence because of the FSB, 533mhz for the P4 compared to 167mhz for the G4 , mostly in encoding and anything processor intensive. Just remember than unlike the G4, P4's especially those famous 2.4ghz models are monster overclockers. Your CPU shoud be able to hit 3.0ghz with little effort maybe even 3.2-3.4 with a Zalman or Thermalright HSF and good ram. always use Artic Silver 5 Thermal paste on your CPU if u intend to overclock. I am actually typing this on an Athlon XP setup a 2400+ Mobile(Barton)1.8ghz OC'd @ 2.4ghz 400mhzFSB , this is my cheap system not my Athlon 64 Monster running 2.6ghz 1200mhz FSB.
nightdweller25 said:
All you Mac Nuts need to give up the Ghost and admit that the G4 is a chip that is being dragged to death by Apple and needs to be put out of it's misery. The G4 should have been EOL'd in 2003 , it's never been anything more than a supercharged G3 with Altivec.
correction, a super charged g3 with an MPX bus and a longer pipeline (on the g4e).
the old g4 equaled a pc a little more than twice the speed but because of the pipeline increase a 1GHz g4e is abotu the same as a 1.6GHz p4, or a 2GHz g4 would be about the same as a 3.2GHz p4 assuming they have the same cache.
the old g4 equaled a pc a little more than twice the speed but because of the pipeline increase a 1GHz g4e is abotu the same as a 1.6GHz p4, or a 2GHz g4 would be about the same as a 3.2GHz p4 assuming they have the same cache.
jiggie2g said:
The FSB on the P4 is really 133mhz, but it is "quad-pumped", correct? From what I understand one does not really get 533mhz performance - it is more like 266mhz. Is this correct?
Hector said:
2ghz G4 = 3.2ghz P4 ......LMAO not even in your wet dreams buddy, maybe a 2ghz G4 (Which by the was dosen't even exist) is close to a 2.6ghz P4. who cares your bus is stil 167mhz and that won't change no matter what and G4 architecture does not even utilize DDR correctly thats why it's just a maketing ploy on apples part when they added DDR to the G4, cuz thay would get laughed at for being the last ones still using 133mhz SDRAM. My cheap Athlon XP-M has a 400mhz bus and runs at 2.4ghz, plus True Dual Channel DDR, SATA on my DFI nForce 2 Motherboard. a G4 will never do that and we are talking about 2 1/2yr old PC parts.
P.S. don't make any excuses about my Athlon XP-M Desktop being OC'd because at default 1.8ghz(Barton core 512k L2) it's still faster then a 1.67ghz G4 , and i overclock it cuz i can cuz it's easy and because in the PC market you're not locked into what other people want you to buy. You can buy the best MB to get the Best results just a simple Multipler increase x12 and increase the FSB to 200mhz x2 and bam running 2.4ghz on stock voltage.
just like skatesc can take that 2.4ghz P4 and push it to 3.2ghz , even increase the FSB from 533mhz to 600-700mhz. no G4 can come close to that kind of performance.
My old Athlon XP-M at 2.2ghz(3200+ speeds) kills a Single CPU 1.8ghz G5 in Cinebench and just owns it once it set it to 2.4ghz , not even gonna throw my Athlon 64 in this , but i can't wait till Dual Core Athlon 64's are out then i'm goona enjoy trashing those Dual 2.5ghz G5's in every Multi-threaded benchmark there is.
Auxplage said:
Remember this is old gen Pentium 4B cpu's running 533mhz FSB we are talking about. They all do 800mhz now and this is all sock default speeds i've seen P4 C/E increased thier FSB to 1200mhz and run at 4ghz with some proper cooling. I get what ur saying about the bus being quad pumped but it does make a huge difference. I wanna ask skatesc what's the maximum speed he's ripped songs at on iTunes for windows.
I know my Athlon XP-M hit's 27x on a 48x Drive , my Athlon 64 hits about 37x
same kind of drive.
auxplage said:
It depends on the task, but mostly quad-pumped systems are hindered by memory that doesn't match the clock (maxing out at "400MHz" rather than "533"). Essentially, the system bus is still 133MHz, but in the time that a single-rate system takes to carry 1 byte, the P4 can carry 4, in theory. Many people think that the quad-pumped business is a marketing gimmick, but DDR was viewed the same way for a year or two after its release, because the added bandwidth didn't translate into real performance gains with the early DDR controllers (more like 2%).
As technology improved, no one would be caught dead without a DDR chipset. Except, of course, for Apple. AMD still uses DDR rather than a quad-rate system and can keep pace because of a different architectural design which lowers latency in accessing the system memory (in other words, making the trip back and forth shorter instead of adding more lanes to the road). This gives concrete improvements. For the G4-based computers, however, Apple has neither moved to DDR (something that should have been done at least 2 years ago, if not longer) nor taken the second step to further its technology. The G4 has no place 2005-vintage computers because it has spent the last 4 years sitting idle while IBM, AMD, Intel, and everyone else have pushed forward with faster, better technologies. It's a good processor that performs well and still competes with today's very low end, but by the end of the year, even Apple will probably laugh at how pathetic it is.
http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/systems/1ghz_g4/1_ghz_G4_vs_Athlon_1_6Ghz.html
Here is a 1GHz G4 owning a 1.6GHz athlon all other things equal (ram and bus speed ect).
Here is a 1GHz G4 owning a 1.6GHz athlon all other things equal (ram and bus speed ect).
In all fairness, they are talking about a 1.6 Athlon from 2001 (more specifically, an overclocked 1.4 GHz Thunderbird core, it seems based on the date). A newer Athlon XP at that factory clock speed would hold its weight better. The KT7A also does not support DDR RAM.Hector said:
All things being equal, the G4 might take the original Athlon (and maybe even Athlon XP), but it has been said that the Pentium III could take early Pentium 4s, and even that the G4 could hold its own against the G5, considering just the CPU. But all things aren't equal, because with new CPUs come new associated technology. If you were to buy a 1.6 GHz Athlon today and a 1.67 GHz G4 system, which would be faster? I think it's not the G4 (nevermind that the 1.6 AXP is a $35 processor, among the slowest you can still buy, whereas the 1.67 is the FASTEST G4 you can buy and goes in $2000 computers).
Yes I must say that in many task the Intel and especially the AMD based PC's do outpace the dilapidated G4. However for most layman users all the speed and power from an 800mhz fronstside bus and DDR gets crushed by spyware and viruses. Or you can run spyware protection and anti-virus all the time and still take a major performance hit.
Therefore, for more performance out of a processor an AMD or Intel wins if you know how to keep your computer clean from viruses and spyware. But for the common user (ie ignorant about computers, you know the kind saying there PC is running on Office not realizing its actually Windows) the G4 will outperfom the most powerful PC since their system has not been completely disabled due to visiting porn sites and music piracy.
Mac = 100% porn safe So far
Therefore, for more performance out of a processor an AMD or Intel wins if you know how to keep your computer clean from viruses and spyware. But for the common user (ie ignorant about computers, you know the kind saying there PC is running on Office not realizing its actually Windows) the G4 will outperfom the most powerful PC since their system has not been completely disabled due to visiting porn sites and music piracy.
Mac = 100% porn safe
So far
Hector said:
ROTFLMAO , I can't believe you pulled that rabbit out of your azz. T-Birds kicked ass in thier day and were the 1st destktop CPU to hit 1ghz almost 2yrs b4 apple even dreamed of it. However unlike Apple, AMD eventually knew when it was time to retire the old bird and let it take it's place in history..and then came the Athlon XP...not the same CPU Hector. just as now the Athlon XP has been put away in favor of the Athlon 64/FX series and Semprons(which by the way kick ass on socket 754).
matticus008 said:
My point exactly and this is what i have been trying to drill into the heads of the Mac Monkeys, this is why I bash the crap outta Apple's hardware even though they make exceptional software.
All things are not fair. No apple motherboard with ever come close to my both my DFI nForce 2 & 4 MB's. Mac users have to wait and pray for a decent Videocard revision, and still don't even have a midrange upgrade non-BTO option. My Athlon XP-M 2400+(1.8ghz) which i Purchased in early Dec cost me $77 and with a slight OC's ownz every single CPU mac option. G4 cannot take full use of DDR ,has no SATA , 167mhz Bus, Anchient Technology face it.
All this in a $2000 machine at that, which is unacceptable.
Any PC notebook over $1200 will own a powerbook. Pentium M's(Dothan) are Low voltage monsters and the Sonoma chipset they use runs DDR2 @ 533mhz on a 533mhz bus thats 1:1 FSB to Ram frequency ratio which is excellent will only get faster ,plus Dualcore Pentium M's(Yonah) are expected in Q1 2006 by then will be runing 667mhz bus/ram or even 800mhz.
Translation for the Price of a 14in iBook i can get a Notebook with a 15.4in widescreen , longer battery life and performance out the azz.
P.S. I don't fully blame Apple for the CPU part because Motorola almost put them into the grave, but It is apples fault for waiting so long to go to a 2nd supplier(IBM) and leaving them selves at the mercy of Moto for so many years.
If the original poster has stuck with this thread as it rapidly decends into yet another PC vs Mac BS thread I personally think you will be very happy with a new Powerbook.
I recently had to purchase new laptops for a marketing company. They required PC's and needed good networking ability and battery life. So I purchased 3 IBM centrino laptops all top of the line. They are quick but as usual are slowed down by the bloatware (but essential) anti virus and firewall software. At the time I had a 1GHz 17in PB and for basic things such as startup time, application opening and general response it ran rings around the Centrino's. I custom built a PC a few years back with what were then top of the line components (MSI motherboard, RAID, Athlon 2200 etc etc) and although things have moved on this machine will run rings around new P4 setups that people have bought.
At the end of the day it isn't just about clockspeed it is about how well you maintain your setup and what you put on it in the forms of software.
I recently swapped my single 1.6GHz G5 Powermac for a dual 2.5 and for a lot of things it doesn't feel that much faster but I can multitask like you wouldn't believe and encoding is a breeze. Most people unless they are either gamers or professionals doing CPU intensive tasks will never push their systems close to the limit.
As a package the current 1.67GHz Powerbooks with their fast hard drives and solid graphics cards will easily feel as fast as you current P4 setup and once you get used to either 10.3 or soon 10.4 you will probably find it is a lot quicker.
I'm currently waiting to buy a new Powerbook and once the NAB announcements have been made I will buy the latest 17in model. Paper specs only count for so much sometimes user experience equals greater productivity.
I recently had to purchase new laptops for a marketing company. They required PC's and needed good networking ability and battery life. So I purchased 3 IBM centrino laptops all top of the line. They are quick but as usual are slowed down by the bloatware (but essential) anti virus and firewall software. At the time I had a 1GHz 17in PB and for basic things such as startup time, application opening and general response it ran rings around the Centrino's. I custom built a PC a few years back with what were then top of the line components (MSI motherboard, RAID, Athlon 2200 etc etc) and although things have moved on this machine will run rings around new P4 setups that people have bought.
At the end of the day it isn't just about clockspeed it is about how well you maintain your setup and what you put on it in the forms of software.
I recently swapped my single 1.6GHz G5 Powermac for a dual 2.5 and for a lot of things it doesn't feel that much faster but I can multitask like you wouldn't believe and encoding is a breeze. Most people unless they are either gamers or professionals doing CPU intensive tasks will never push their systems close to the limit.
As a package the current 1.67GHz Powerbooks with their fast hard drives and solid graphics cards will easily feel as fast as you current P4 setup and once you get used to either 10.3 or soon 10.4 you will probably find it is a lot quicker.
I'm currently waiting to buy a new Powerbook and once the NAB announcements have been made I will buy the latest 17in model. Paper specs only count for so much sometimes user experience equals greater productivity.
jiggie2g said:
This kind of blanket statement means nothing. Why don't you back yourself up with some actual configurations or benchmakrs? And in what applications, exactly, are these PC notebooks you speak of "owning"?
You seem to know a lot about PC components... but no one really gives a **** what the memory to bus ratio is. It's a fact that DDR performance becomes negligible after 400MHz.
I'm glad your DFI motherboard lets you sleep at night but spewing out specs won't get you much respect on these forums.
On the contrary, I think that in basic tasks, you could easily become frustrated with a Mac if you're used to PCs. Scrolling speed, for one, is slower, as is mouse tracking. Even on the fastest default settings, the Mac has a distinctly different (and slower) feel. This rings true elsewhere in the UI as well. It's not that the system is being taxed, just differences in the design. All of the Macs I'm familiar with take longer to boot than the PCs I use. These basic and simple tasks are what novice users will criticize as different/slower, not that x filter in Photoshop takes longer or iMovie exports more slowly than Windows Movie Maker. Anything that takes more than a moment, to most basic users, is weighted about the same (this issue is that you have to wait for something, not that you have to wait 2:15 on the Mac and 2:05 on the PC). It's the small things that make Macs seem slower, not just the specs.psycho bob said:
Once you get used to them, or get MouseZoom etc., then you have a great, responsive computer that does what most people need. As far as being more productive, that's an entirely subjective valuation. I prefer OS X to Windows, and I like the consistency and conventions that make the learning curve easier to tackle on Macs, but the greater performance at the same price points means that your computer can do a lot more if it's a PC (assuming that both are functioning at potential without spyware and viruses--it's preposterous to count on problems and bloat to equalize the performance difference, even if it's rampant with Windows). I can be a lot more productive if I spend less time waiting for the computer to export, compile, or render. I most definitely prefer my PowerBook and my other Macs over the past 18 years, but when it comes to getting something done as fast as possible, my Athlon 64 is the system of choice, so much so that my G4 tower is in the closet.