Processor Speed Please Explain like a 4yr old

[GRuizMD]

Ok this is the deal:

I am planning on buying me a 20" 2.4 :apple: Imac in October.. (will be my 1st mac) :eek: , however I do not understand this processor speed configurations. Currently I have a almost 3yr old PC that has a processor with a "speed" of 3.4 gHtz and a FSB of 800.

How would my New IMac will compare with those numbers?? :confused:

Thanks... I dont get it. Tried to google it and look in the forums and have not found a clear 4yr old type of explanation to this...:( All I get is more confused... .:o

[Sean Dempsey]

Ok this is the deal:

I am planning on buying me a 20" 2.4 :apple: Imac in October.. (will be my 1st mac) :eek: , however I do not understand this processor speed configurations. Currently I have a almost 3yr old PC that has a processor with a "speed" of 3.4 gHtz and a FSB of 800.

How would my New IMac will compare with those numbers?? :confused:

Thanks... I dont get it. Tried to google it and look in the forums and have not found a clear 4yr old type of explanation to this...:( All I get is more confused... .:o

It will destroy it like a 4th grader vs. a pitbull.

Your 2.4GHz imac is a dual core processor, ala 2.4 + 2.4 = 4.8, to be SUPER simple and innacurate. But the spirit is the same.

Plus, the architecture of CPU's changed a few years back. Before, it was just a climb to raw megahurtz. Well, they figured out better ways to do it, so now a 3 year old 3ghz processor isn't nearly as powerful as a new Intel Core2Duo 1.8ghz.

I had a pentium4 2.8ghz cpu with 2 gigs of ram. The same photoshop test took like 5 minutes on it, and like 52 seconds on my imac 2.4ghz.

Trust me, new CPU's are ++++++++++++++ old ones.

[flopticalcube]

Raw clock speed is only one part of how fast a processor is. Think of it like a highway, the traffic might not be moving quite as fast as before but it has 12X the number of lanes so a lot more can be done with less. If your processor is a Pentium 4 (and it probably is) look at this chart:http://www.cpubenchmark.net/common_cpus.html

The 3.4GHz P4 scores 528 points on the CPU Mark test.
The 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo (similar to the one in the iMac) scores 1402. Nearly 3 times the performance.

[Eric5h5]

The really basic answer is just to ignore the GHz numbers, as they are fairly meaningless unless you're comparing processors of the exact same type. Intel was infamous for cranking up the GHz numbers at the expense of everything else for marketing purposes ("oooh look, a bigger number, it must be faster!"), but even they've given up on that.

What you want to care about is not the numbers, but the kind of processor you're getting. The Core 2 Duos in the iMacs are much better than the old Pentium IVs, regardless of GHz numbers. So don't worry about it. :)

--Eric

[CanadaRAM]

Processor Speed Please Explain like a 4yr old"Look Daddy, it shiny! An' fast!"
"How fast is it, son?"
"It fast fast daddy. Fast fast coz it has core core. An' it shiny. Can we keep it, Daddy? Huh? We take it home, please?"

[A Pittarelli]

the bigger it is son the better!

[GRuizMD]

"Look Daddy, it shiny! An' fast!"
"How fast is it, son?"
"It fast fast daddy. Fast fast coz it has core core. An' it shiny. Can we keep it, Daddy? Huh? We take it home, please?"

MMM Got it now....

Thanks guys. I am a happy camper now.

[GRuizMD]

Raw clock speed is only one part of how fast a processor is. Think of it like a highway, the traffic might not be moving quite as fast as before but it has 12X the number of lanes so a lot more can be done with less. If your processor is a Pentium 4 (and it probably is) look at this chart:http://www.cpubenchmark.net/common_cpus.html

The 3.4GHz P4 scores 528 points on the CPU Mark test.
The 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo (similar to the one in the iMac) scores 1402. Nearly 3 times the performance.

That is exactly was I was looking for.. Thanks

[CRIIM44]

its like having one girl in your bed compared to 2:rolleyes:

[Gymnut]

"Look Daddy, it shiny! An' fast!"
"How fast is it, son?"
"It fast fast daddy. Fast fast coz it has core core. An' it shiny. Can we keep it, Daddy? Huh? We take it home, please?"

No better way to explain it as if one was a small stupid child. :p

Well done. :D

[jmufellow]

Read this wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megahertz_Myth) about the so-called "megahertz myth." I'm no computer whiz either, so maybe you'll be able to understand my non-technical way of describing it.

It's a problem of words: when someone asks, "What's the speed of that processor?", does he mean how many times does it cycle in a second (aka clock speed), OR does he mean how fast will it run programs on my computer (aka overall speed)? The gigahertz number on the processor only indicates how fast it can cycle in a second, which is one of many factors you need to take into account when assessing the overall speed of a processor.

Remember the difference
Clock speed is the measure of how fast a processor cycles.
Overall speed is the clock speed + other factors

What are these "other factors" you ask? Beats me. Stuff like how it processes chunks of data per each of those cycles, and stuff like that. As I said, I'm no computer whiz.

[siurpeeman]

all you have to know is that it's fast. it's faster than your computer and faster than anything apple was offering two or three years ago. enjoy your machine.

[Sean Dempsey]

is the top result in that chart just 1 of the mac pro cpu's?

[sananda]

Raw clock speed is only one part of how fast a processor is. Think of it like a highway, the traffic might not be moving quite as fast as before but it has 12X the number of lanes so a lot more can be done with less. If your processor is a Pentium 4 (and it probably is) look at this chart:http://www.cpubenchmark.net/common_cpus.html

The 3.4GHz P4 scores 528 points on the CPU Mark test.
The 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo (similar to the one in the iMac) scores 1402. Nearly 3 times the performance.

is there a nice graph like that including ppc processors? i've been trying to find out the speed difference between the present apple processors and the ppc computers we have (without success since i also need it explained to me as though i'm 4).

[zap2]

My Core Duo 1.66Ghz eats my 2.4Ghz P4....a 2.4Ghz Core 2 Duo will beat a 3Ghz P4, the Core 2 Duo has 2 Core, which is basically 2 chips in one.


Now, one Core of your new iMac running at 2.4Ghz, would be much faster then your 3.0Ghz P4, Intel has made a chip run at a lower Ghz, but is more efficient. Now you have 2, 2.4Ghz, you'll be in a whole new world.

[flopticalcube]

is there a nice graph like that including ppc processors? i've been trying to find out the speed difference between the present apple processors and the ppc computers we have (without success since i also need it explained to me as though i'm 4).

Try this (http://www.geekpatrol.ca/2006/08/mac-performance-from-the-g3-to-the-xeon/).

[yg17]

Your 2.4GHz imac is a dual core processor, ala 2.4 + 2.4 = 4.8, to be SUPER simple and innacurate. But the spirit is the same.


Yep, super inaccurate since you can't add proc speeds like that when more than one is involved, but that's irrelevant. A single core Core2 chip would beat the crap out of the P4

[NtotheIzoo]

Raw clock speed is only one part of how fast a processor is. Think of it like a highway, the traffic might not be moving quite as fast as before but it has 12X the number of lanes so a lot more can be done with less.

That might be one of the best explanations/analogies that I've come across. It's easy to understand and put in simple terms that everyone can relate to.

[sananda]

Try this (http://www.geekpatrol.ca/2006/08/mac-performance-from-the-g3-to-the-xeon/).

just what i wanted. that you very much.

[Luis]

As someone already said, the Pentium 4 is like having a 1 lane highway going really fast, but the new Core 2 Duos are like having a highway with 12 lanes going a little bit slower. Per cycle they are slower, but overall, they are much more efficient.

[joeybagadonutz]

its like having one girl in your bed compared to 2:rolleyes:

4 yr old, not 14, 24, 34...

[MK2007]

Ok this is the deal:

I am planning on buying me a 20" 2.4 :apple: Imac in October.. (will be my 1st mac) :eek: , however I do not understand this processor speed configurations. Currently I have a almost 3yr old PC that has a processor with a "speed" of 3.4 gHtz and a FSB of 800.

How would my New IMac will compare with those numbers?? :confused:


I have two machines similar to yours. Without any hestitation I can tell you that you won't see much difference at all. Some applications and operations are very speedy on one of my machines while they are acceptable (but not impressive) on the other. For all practical purposes they are equivalent.

Leopard will add new functionality with potentially some slowdown. This will bring OS X even closer to what you experience now on your PC. A bigger, more advanced oeprating sytem doesn't offer the same speed as its predecessor, so don't let anyone fool you into thinking there will be no change. If software never made more demands on processors we would have no reason to upgrade hardware.

[rds]

I have two machines similar to yours. Without any hestitation I can tell you that you won't see much difference at all. Some applications and operations are very speedy on one of my machines while they are acceptable (but not impressive) on the other. For all practical purposes they are equivalent.

What?!

Leopard will add new functionality with potentially some slowdown. This will bring OS X even closer to what you experience now on your PC. A bigger, more advanced oeprating sytem doesn't offer the same speed as its predecessor, so don't let anyone fool you into thinking there will be no change.

Absolute hogwash. Unless you have proof, don't bother spreading nonsense.

If history is anything to go by, Leopard should see more improvements in performance than otherwise. Also consider the possibilities in various software areas with the introduction of CoreAnimation, multicore support and 64-bit.

What is technically possible for developers with Leopard on current hardware is pretty darn impressive if you look back at the "issues" Microsoft had with Vista (Aeroglass?, etc.) When Leopard arrives, if you were to look at it from a developers perspective, you might wonder how it is able to do some of the clever stuff.

Take it from me, if areas of Leopard are slower, you won't notice it, nor care.

[Eric5h5]

Leopard will add new functionality with potentially some slowdown. This will bring OS X even closer to what you experience now on your PC. A bigger, more advanced oeprating sytem doesn't offer the same speed as its predecessor, so don't let anyone fool you into thinking there will be no change. If software never made more demands on processors we would have no reason to upgrade hardware.

Dude, this ain't Windows. ;) Every MacOS version from 10.0 through 10.4 has gotten faster. There are plenty of technical reasons why this is so, should you care to investigate them. (One good reason is that 10.0 was, shall we say, somewhat inefficient....) All reports indicate Leopard is faster yet. The only thing adding more features has done is to require more memory, although not anywhere on the same scale as Vista.

--Eric

[Cheffy Dave]

Raw clock speed is only one part of how fast a processor is. Think of it like a highway, the traffic might not be moving quite as fast as before but it has 12X the number of lanes so a lot more can be done with less. If your processor is a Pentium 4 (and it probably is) look at this chart:http://www.cpubenchmark.net/common_cpus.html

The 3.4GHz P4 scores 528 points on the CPU Mark test.
The 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo (similar to the one in the iMac) scores 1402. Nearly 3 times the performance.

THANKS SO MUCH! That chart was invaluable to me. I have a second question.
All my PC's One a P-4 3.2, and the other an Athlon 3700, both use 10,000 RPM H.D.D.'s Even though Apples processor's are faster, what hit is there for use with an Apple 5400 RPM H.D.D. What's up with 5400 speed anyway?:D

[flopticalcube]

THANKS SO MUCH! That chart was invaluable to me. I have a second question.
All my PC's One a P-4 3.2, and the other an Athlon 3700, both use 10,000 RPM H.D.D.'s Even though Apples processor's are faster, what hit is there for use with an Apple 5400 RPM H.D.D. What's up with 5400 speed anyway?:D

New iMacs use 7200 RPM drives. If your old drives were PATA, I doubt you will notice a difference. If they were SATA, you may see a small drop in disk intensive tasks but that would depend on disk size and how full it is.

[MK2007]

What?!



Absolute hogwash. Unless you have proof, don't bother spreading nonsense.

If history is anything to go by, Leopard should see more improvements in performance than otherwise. Also consider the possibilities in various software areas with the introduction of CoreAnimation, multicore support and 64-bit.

What is technically possible for developers with Leopard on current hardware is pretty darn impressive if you look back at the "issues" Microsoft had with Vista (Aeroglass?, etc.) When Leopard arrives, if you were to look at it from a developers perspective, you might wonder how it is able to do some of the clever stuff.

Take it from me, if areas of Leopard are slower, you won't notice it, nor care.

Don't bother spreading BS -- as you are doing right now.

The fact is that some of us have been running Mac OS X since the early days. If you want to see just how big and slow the latest version would be on an old machine, then throw away your Mac and downgrade to nice G4 or earlier.

In no time at all you'll be sick of the slowdown and crying about it.

[flopticalcube]

Don't bother spreading BS -- as you are doing right now.

The fact is that some of us have been running Mac OS X since the early days. If you want to see just how big and slow the latest version would be on an old machine, then throw away your Mac and downgrade to nice G4 or earlier.

In no time at all you'll be sick of the slowdown and crying about it.

Reports from beta testers seem to refute this. G4 owners have reported that some tasks are faster or at least appear to be faster under Leopard while overall its not significantly slower, if at all.

[MK2007]

Reports from beta testers seem to refute this. G4 owners have reported that some tasks are faster or at least appear to be faster under Leopard while overall its not significantly slower, if at all.

It never ceases to amaze me when I find people who think that software increases speed instead of hardware.

If hardware did not increase the speed of a machine, we would still be running a 68000 processor and looking forward to OS XI in 2010.

[flopticalcube]

It never ceases to amaze me when I find people who think that software increases speed instead of hardware.

If hardware did not increase the speed of a machine, we would still be running a 68000 processor and looking forward to OS XI in 2010.

Leopard makes greater use of multi-threading thus the effect of it appearing to run faster. Like hardware, software can be improved upon as bottlenecks are found and removed.

Your second statement is just specious.

[suneohair]

It never ceases to amaze me when I find people who think that software increases speed instead of hardware.

If hardware did not increase the speed of a machine, we would still be running a 68000 processor and looking forward to OS XI in 2010.

That is common sense man. Really.

Your argument is terribly weak. If software did not increase the speed of a machine, we would still be running DOS and looking forward to DOS 7.1 in 1996. Therefore, software increases the speed of a machine. See what I mean?

A great argument for software is 64-bit. 64-bit makes huge improvements, right? If we had 64-bit CPUs but 32-bit code are we benefitting from that hardware? Not really. Throw some 64-bit software in there and you got yourself a nice speed boost. I think SJ showed this off when they talked about Leopard this year right? The whole Library of Congress image?

Software has to follow the hardware. If we were running an OS that was not multi-cpu aware. Our hardware is meaningless. Or software than not did process data coming over gigabit ethernet quickly. Or, an OS that didn't utilize shaders and the likes with new GPUs. It is clear that software and hardware progress together. Hardware simply leads the way most of the time.

[dan7592]

So what's better? 2.16 ghz or 2.4?

[StealthRider]

So what's better? 2.16 ghz or 2.4?

A 2.16GHz/2.4GHz what? Details are important. If you're talking about Core 2 Duos, then obviously the 2.4GHz.

[DMHB]

It never ceases to amaze me when I find people who think that software increases speed instead of hardware.

If hardware did not increase the speed of a machine, we would still be running a 68000 processor and looking forward to OS XI in 2010.

Here's a small example what you try yourself if you have elder OS X discs. First, install Mac OS X 10.0 to your machine, open safari to apple website and press print. Take time with your clock to see how long it takes time. Then install Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger and do the same trick. Now compare how much time did the printing procedure take in 10.0 and 10.4. It's something like 10 seconds versus 3 seconds. See what I mean?

Of course both, hardware and software, affect to OS development. If some code is crap in older OS, it will be usually coded better in next so it'll be faster.

[MK2007]

That is common sense man. Really.

Your argument is terribly weak. If software did not increase the speed of a machine, we would still be running DOS and looking forward to DOS 7.1 in 1996. Therefore, software increases the speed of a machine. See what I mean?

A great argument for software is 64-bit. 64-bit makes huge improvements, right? If we had 64-bit CPUs but 32-bit code are we benefitting from that hardware? Not really. Throw some 64-bit software in there and you got yourself a nice speed boost. I think SJ showed this off when they talked about Leopard this year right? The whole Library of Congress image?

Software has to follow the hardware. If we were running an OS that was not multi-cpu aware. Our hardware is meaningless. Or software than not did process data coming over gigabit ethernet quickly. Or, an OS that didn't utilize shaders and the likes with new GPUs. It is clear that software and hardware progress together. Hardware simply leads the way most of the time.
Your argument is completely weak.

If you want to discuss Windows and see the difference that hardware makes, then install Windows 3.1. Its speed is so fast on a modern processor, or even one a few years old, that every operation is performed instantly. Compare that with Vista, a much bigger and slower OS. The bigger the OS, the slower it runs. Hardware improves the speed.

Then run OS X on a nice old G3. Why is it so slow? Because the hardware is slow!!!

As for 64-bit computing, it won't help the average desktop user at all. Those who will benefit from it are scientific and engineering users running big apps on PowerMacs. Servers also benefit from 64-bit computing because they can address more memory directly. However, the average Mac user running iWork, iLife, Adobe CS, Safari, and other apps won't see any difference.

[MagicWok]

Just to complicate things further for the OP.

A 3Ghz dual-core CPU could, ironically to this thread, out-perform a 2.66Ghz Quad-Core CPU in some situations.

So like we've said before, getting caught up in the number of GHz to determine how faster a computer will be, doesn't make sense. And so you/we shouldn't get caught up with the fact that an extra core or more, will guarantee to make your system faster - because it won't on its own.

To explain to the OP in an easy to understand way - this is because the software has to be written to take advantage of advantages hardware will bring. This won't make much difference to the big ones like OSX as it is written to take advantage all the way up to 8-cores at the moment.

In relation to my post, and the above poster, with 3rd-party software, such as games for example, ironically a faster (in Ghz terms) dual-core CPU could out perform a slower (in Ghz terms) quad-core CPU unless the software is written to use all 4 fours if they are there, or else 2 out of the 4 cores will be sitting unused by the game. So you have an example where 'better' software can speed up your PC.

Now it doesn't matter as much in Macs due the GPU limitations in the first place, but it is well documented an Intel E6750 (Dual-3Ghz) will out-perform an Intel Q6600 (Quad-2.66Ghz) in the majority of past games up to this point in time. Alot of the big exciting titles are written specifically to use 4-core CPU's, e.g. Crysis.

Hope that complicates things for you :p