PDA

View Full Version : new g4 clock speed is where pentium 4 started


jefhatfield
Jan 29, 2003, 01:44 PM
does it matter that the pentium 4s debuted in machines in the stores at 1.3 and 1.4 ghz and now are up to 3.06 ghz?

only now the motorola G4 has entered the realm of pentium 4 in clock speed, or should i say "low end or entry level penium 4"

but since the new powermacs have "dual" 1.42 ghz g4s, does that offset the ghz wars or is motorola still way behind intel?

does that make the powermac roughly the equivalent of a 2.84 ghz machine against the best that intel has having surpassed 3 ghz in a single chip?

for the money, a highly accessorized pentium 4, 3.06 ghz machine at the same price as a dual 1.42 ghz powermac still does not seem as appealing to me...i will take the powermac, thank you:D

jefhatfield
Jan 29, 2003, 01:50 PM
sorry for the double post...but a new thought or disclaimer

only an alien system at 3.06 ghz or a sony digital media system at 3.06 ghz...in the same price range as a dual G4 1.42 ghz....seems about equal to me

but as time passes, for instance one year, the powermac will still be very good and useable while the 3.06 ghz pentium 4 chip will be relegated to benchmarks of a celeron chip

my friend bought a dual 1 ghz powermac whre he could have bought a 2.4 ghz pc...for digital photography

and for the same amount of money, i think he scored and will most likely get to use the machine another two or three years if he so wishes...what will a P4 2.4 ghz pc desktop be in three years...yes, i know...a doorstop:p

bluekanoodle
Jan 29, 2003, 11:24 PM
Sorry but if your gonna compare DP current top of the heap processor systems, you'd have to compare a dual p4 3 ghz with the apple dp, in which case the apple would get blown away, not too mention i would still be cheaper. For the cost of a high end powermac, you could get a quad p4 system.

WannabeSQ
Jan 29, 2003, 11:31 PM
I don't believe you have to compare a dual g4 mac to a dual p4 pc, because you buy a dual g4 mac from the store, thats the only way to get it (for a tower at least, and except for that darned single ghz low end) and the PCs in the mainstream all are single processor. If Dell or HP started selling consumer dual processor PCs, then we would have to compare those, but now dual P4 PCs are just for servers and custom machines.

bluekanoodle
Jan 29, 2003, 11:54 PM
Not true, you can buy DP P4's from Zones, CDW, Compusa etc, the same places you can buy a mac. Don't get me wrong, I love my mac, but lets compare apples to apples. (No pun intended)

sparkleytone
Jan 30, 2003, 12:04 AM
its all about the software.

dricci
Jan 30, 2003, 12:14 AM
Are you sure the P4 can be used in a DP setup? I thought you had to use a higher in (xeon? I forget the name) chip to get P4-like dual processors.

MacBandit
Jan 30, 2003, 12:33 AM
Originally posted by bluekanoodle
Not true, you can buy DP P4's from Zones, CDW, Compusa etc, the same places you can buy a mac. Don't get me wrong, I love my mac, but lets compare apples to apples. (No pun intended)

Hey if you can find a dual processor P4 at any of the sites you listed let's see the links. I looked and looked and came up with nothing. I call BS!!!

WannabeSQ
Jan 30, 2003, 01:12 AM
Sure they sell dual P4 xeons at those places, but they are not consumer oriented machines. They for the most part cost even more than apple's machines.

Aside from the hardware issue, hardly any PC software benefits from dual processors, not even quake 3. They only benefit when running many apps at once. Admittedly, most programs for OSX aren't optimized for duallys, but the OS handles it better. Also, Dual processors in windows requires XP Pro, not Home, which further pushes dual P4 PCs into the non home use category.

cr2sh
Jan 30, 2003, 01:47 AM
Originally posted by bluekanoodle
you'd have to compare a dual p4 3 ghz with the apple dp.

I spent about 20minutes searching the sites you listed and I couldn't find a single DP p4 system... so I checked out Dell. Not one there either...

I agree with you, if you took the fastest PC you could build and put it next to the fast Mac you could build, the pc would win... but win at what?
Benchmarks? Which benchmark tests the usability, the ease, the GUI, the realiability, the enjoyment of operation?
Which benchmark tells me that after working on a music sequence for 9 hours straight, I will not get blue screen of death?
;)

pgwalsh
Jan 30, 2003, 03:29 AM
PC's are faster and cheaper, period.

Mac's have better OS and usability, period.

My opinion of course, but I use both OS X, Windows XP, and Red Hat Linux 8. Hands down OS X rocks. The utilities are awesome; the stability is awesome; the bundled apps are awesome, and the usability is awesome.

For and OEM I believe apple puts in top quality parts. I don't think you'll get the same from dell. Alienware probably puts in great parts, but then you're getting up there in cost and you're still stuck with XP. After using OS X, I can't see how anyone would want to go back to windows. At least for home use. It's a different situation when it comes to business.

moby1
Jan 30, 2003, 03:40 AM
and you thought Apple had a problem.... (http://www.sgi.com/workstations/)

reflex
Jan 30, 2003, 07:13 AM
Originally posted by WannabeSQ
Aside from the hardware issue, hardly any PC software benefits from dual processors, not even quake 3. They only benefit when running many apps at once.

Now there's a line of ************ if ever I heard one. If an application has multiple threads (and a lot of applications do), it's possible that it will benefit from more than one cpu.

Bear
Jan 30, 2003, 07:22 AM
Originally posted by jefhatfield
does it matter that the pentium 4s debuted in machines in the stores at 1.3 and 1.4 ghz and now are up to 3.06 ghz?
Nope it doesn't matter. At the same clockspeed the G4 is much faster than a P4.

In some applications, the G4 at half the clockspeed can outdo the P4. At the same clock speed, it's no contest.

I don't care about the GHz factor when comparing different processor lines. I do care about productivity and usability.

So give me a Mac with OS X.

synthetickittie
Jan 30, 2003, 08:57 AM
As for those first pentium 4s, the computer I have right now is one of them. I bought it about 3 years ago and at the time it was the fastest that you could buy in stores that I know of(got mine at bestbuy). I remember for about the first year(if that) it was blazing fast. But now after 3 years, hell I dam cant run photoshop without it taking me an hour to do something that before I could do in a totaly time of about half that. Dont even want to talk about trying to run 2 big programs at one when I trying to do a big project. I definitly wanted to wait for 970 powermacs but **** I cant take this more longer, Im definitly going to be ordering a nice 1.42 powermac with in the next few weeks.

DeusOmnis
Jan 30, 2003, 09:10 AM
You wont see a Pent 4 Dual Processor because the Pent chips cost 400 dollars apiece. Athalon comes in a nice second at 300 dollars, and the mac chips cost 150 apiece (2 x 150 = 300). We have dual processors because we can afford to do that. The cost of a mac, i think, comes from the casing and the little extras like firewire, not the internal components.

MacBandit
Jan 30, 2003, 09:57 AM
Originally posted by DeusOmnis
You wont see a Pent 4 Dual Processor because the Pent chips cost 400 dollars apiece. Athalon comes in a nice second at 300 dollars, and the mac chips cost 150 apiece (2 x 150 = 300). We have dual processors because we can afford to do that. The cost of a mac, i think, comes from the casing and the little extras like firewire, not the internal components.


I agree and that is the simple reason that if you price out a Compaq or Dell and equip it with all similar equipment that comes standard on the PowerMac the price of said pcs will be within 2-300 dollars of the Mac.

FelixDerKater
Jan 30, 2003, 10:29 AM
For $8 more than the 1.25GHz Dual, you get a nearly identical DeLL 3.06GHz P4 system. Same specs on RAM, GPU, etc.

DeLL 3.06 GHz - $2007
Apple Dual 1.25GHz - $1999

Step up the specs on the DeLL to match the 1.42GHz system and the following prices are found.

DeLL 3.06GHz - $2297
Apple Dual 1.42 GHz - $2699

WannabeSQ
Jan 30, 2003, 01:01 PM
Originally posted by reflex


Now there's a line of ************ if ever I heard one. If an application has multiple threads (and a lot of applications do), it's possible that it will benefit from more than one cpu.

I saw some benchmarks for Quake 3 using dual athlon processors, and the dual actually had less FPS than the single processor. Multiple threads alone doesnt allow for multiprocessing, and PC software for the most part wont benefit from duals. I'm sure other software works as well as or better than apple's for SMP, but not as much.

jefhatfield
Jan 30, 2003, 01:53 PM
Originally posted by WannabeSQ


I saw some benchmarks for Quake 3 using dual athlon processors, and the dual actually had less FPS than the single processor. Multiple threads alone doesnt allow for multiprocessing, and PC software for the most part wont benefit from duals. I'm sure other software works as well as or better than apple's for SMP, but not as much.

some routers and servers only have the extra processors for backup...to keep the downtime low...not for extra speed per se

some great cisco routers in use today only employ a motorola 030 processor and is in the second tier routers, just up from the cheap sub-$1,000 models used in the current cisco networking academy

cisco.netacad.net is a good site for those interested in cisco network engineering

Das
Jan 30, 2003, 02:02 PM
QUOTE]Originally posted by DeusOmnis
You wont see a Pent 4 Dual Processor because the Pent chips cost 400 dollars apiece. [/QUOTE]

Well, the 3.06 P4 does have hyperthreading which counts as a dual processor (even the lil bios says so). Currently, a 3.06 runs for 636 bucks, but Intel should cut it way down soon (in a few weeks according to some PC sites).