PDA

View Full Version : Are there any benchmarks anyone could show me to compare G4 and Pentium M


Soc7777777
May 28, 2004, 03:43 PM
i want to see what is faster... the g4 or the pentium m... i was just wondering if anyone can show me some benchmark proof of it... whichever you say

Soc7777777
May 28, 2004, 03:44 PM
i want to see what is faster... the g4 or the pentium m... i was just wondering if anyone can show me some benchmark proof of it... whichever you say
i didnt use caps everyone... im learning :D

jxyama
May 28, 2004, 03:52 PM
depends on the app...

and can i ask why you are asking? i ask because a topic like this often ends up in massive flamewars.

Soc7777777
May 28, 2004, 03:56 PM
depends on the app...

and can i ask why you are asking? i ask because a topic like this often ends up in massive flamewars.
because i have a friend who is very ignorant when it comes to computers... and i just want to offer some concrete proof that the g4 isnt years behind... and is actually similar to pentium m

Soc7777777
May 28, 2004, 03:57 PM
depends on the app...

and can i ask why you are asking? i ask because a topic like this often ends up in massive flamewars.
oh and apps.. maybe like photoshop, or ms office.. or some other basic video or word processing or internet program that everyon uses often

krimson
May 28, 2004, 04:03 PM
benchmark comparisons are stupid IMHO, they're almost never fully comparable.

Machines that use a faster bus, slower bus, less ram, slower ram, etc.. etc... PC users can use exes that are optimized for their processors, Mac users can get alitvec optimized apps. etc.

Like Apples intial audio comparision... use Logic 6 (or 5, i dont remember) vs a PC using Cubase, trying to perform the same thing. Call me a traitor, but i think it's obvious that the G5 would have won in that one.

Anyways, benchmarking a Wintel and a Mac is like comparing Apple and Oranges (pun intended)... either side can and will finagle the test/results.

dopefiend
May 28, 2004, 04:05 PM
because i have a friend who is very ignorant when it comes to computers... and i just want to offer some concrete proof that the g4 isnt years behind... and is actually similar to pentium m

G4 is years behind and a pentium m is faster.

Think of it like: The 1.7 Pentium M is the equiv of a 3GHz P4.


And the pentium m is currently up to 2.0ghz

jxyama
May 28, 2004, 04:07 PM
oh and apps.. maybe like photoshop, or ms office.. or some other basic video or word processing or internet program that everyon uses often

ok, i lied a bit too, it doesn't depend just on apps because different apps for different platforms are optimised differently.

one of many reasons why i choose to ignore benchmarks altogether.

ok, for your friend, just tell him G4 is behind pentium m. afterall, pentium m is the newest chip.

however, g4 being behind pentium m says nothing about the performance/usability of computers using those chips.

3-22
May 28, 2004, 04:36 PM
i want to see what is faster... the g4 or the pentium m... i was just wondering if anyone can show me some benchmark proof of it... whichever you say

Benchmarks are no better then statistics when it comes to "proof". Most benchmarks you will find usually come down to the eye of the beholder. It's really hard to compare the two...

Try one... And also compare battery life, heat, etc...

The Pentium M will probably be faster it's a much newer chip. But the G4 isn't a dinosaur just yet either. Atleast until the G5 Powerbook comes out, and then people will call the G4 a slug. ;) If your friend is trully "ignorant about computers" you probably won't convince them one way or another. They will only believe marketting hype...

wide
May 28, 2004, 06:02 PM
I just got back from the Apple Store SoHo and I have to say that the 1.5 GHZ G4s were pretty fast. I'm not quite sure if they beat my Pentium-M 1.7 GHZ, or if my Pentium-M is slower. It is true that you can't really compare a Mac's performance to a PC's performance.

One thing is for certain: not all PC's are going to be as fast as each other, even if they use the same chip. Check http://www.cnet.com/, go to the Notebooks section, and look for computers running with Pentium-Ms. They have benchmarks. I believe the Thinkpad T42 is currently among the fastest.

legion
May 28, 2004, 06:07 PM
because i have a friend who is very ignorant when it comes to computers... and i just want to offer some concrete proof that the g4 isnt years behind... and is actually similar to pentium m

He is not ignorant and he's right. Since no one is giving you a benchmark, let me point you to barefeats.com. This is a mac-centric site and they even admitted that the G4 was walloped by the P-M. They were comparing the top of the line powerbook (17" PB 1.33) of the time to the lowest-end regular Pentium M (1.3Ghz) They've since edited out the test (they made a note of taking the test out and I'll see if I can find a Google archived version--- seems they got too many complaints about the fact that the Centrino killed the PB) It's annoying I can't point to it, but understandable as they still have to make money advertising to the mac community. Now the 1.3 was a Banias Pentium M. Today there is a 2.0 Ghz Dothan Pentium M which has double the L2 cache of the original and runs 4Watts cooler at max (21Watts)

There is this test too, but it isn't quite as even a test as the one they removed. (BTW, the 1.8 Pentium M listed is actually a 1.6 typo because there was no 1.8 version until just this month and that test is from 9/23/03)
barefeats.com (http://www.barefeats.com/al15b.html)

Still annoyed they were pressured to remove the original test...

legion
May 28, 2004, 06:25 PM
If you look here (http://barefeats.com/al15.html) you'll see at the date 9/19/2003 after the semicolon, the fact that he removed the Centrino info.


And right here (http://www.internet-nexus.com/2003_09_14_archive.htm), and yes I know I'm going to hell for pointing to this site but it was one of the few I could find that had quotes from the original review, and look about a fifth way down the page for "more benchmark fun", you'll see some tidbits from the barefeats review.

MisterMe
May 28, 2004, 06:29 PM
He is not ignorant and he's right. Since no one is giving you a benchmark, let me point you to barefeats.com. This is a mac-centric site and they even admitted that the G4 was walloped by the P-M. They were comparing the top of the line powerbook (17" PB 1.33) of the time to the lowest-end regular Pentium M (1.3Ghz) They've since edited out the test (they made a note of taking the test out and I'll see if I can find a Google archived version--- seems they got too many complaints about the fact that the Centrino killed the PB) It's annoying I can't point to it, but understandable as they still have to make money advertising to the mac community. Now the 1.3 was a Banias Pentium M. Today there is a 2.0 Ghz Dothan Pentium M which has double the L2 cache of the original and runs 4Watts cooler at max (21Watts)

There is this test too, but it isn't quite as even a test as the one they removed. (BTW, the 1.8 Pentium M listed is actually a 1.6 typo because there was no 1.8 version until just this month and that test is from 9/23/03)
barefeats.com (http://www.barefeats.com/al15b.html)

Still annoyed they were pressured to remove the original test...Oh, crap. There is exactly one metric for the determination of a computer's performance. It is as simple as this:

How fast does the computer do the job that you need done?

Unless your job is running benchmarks, no standard benchmarking program can answer that question. It matters not whether barefeats.com or anyone else is pro-Mac or anti-Mac.

wide
May 28, 2004, 06:35 PM
Check out this comparison from barefeats.com

I dont understand how the 1 GHZ AlBook 17 inch scored soooo much lower than the 1 GHZ AlBook 15 inch. can this be right? or could the machine just have a bad day? :(

dragula53
May 28, 2004, 06:48 PM
Call a G4 pretty close to a pentium M (last years revision). 1.5 G4 is pretty close to a 1.5 Pentium M.

but considering they don't even make a pentium M that slow.

and the new pentium M with 2 meg of L2 cache is a bad mammer jammer.

Wyrm
May 28, 2004, 08:28 PM
Anyways, benchmarking a Wintel and a Mac is like comparing Apple and Oranges (pun intended)... either side can and will finagle the test/results.

You mean Apples to Lemons? :D
(sorry)
The easiest way to compare these 2 for a purchase decision is to write the pros and cons for the 2 devices... a lot of these can be very subjective (ie "looks cool"), and therefore only applies to you. An objective comparison is flawed at best for the reasons stated by Krimson.

-Wyrm

Wyrm
May 28, 2004, 08:34 PM
Check out this comparison from barefeats.com

I dont understand how the 1 GHZ AlBook 17 inch scored soooo much lower than the 1 GHZ AlBook 15 inch. can this be right? or could the machine just have a bad day? :(

The Benchmark is OpenGL - and since the 15 inch was sooo much after the 17 PB it had a better video processor. Not much really to do with the cpu.

-Wyrm

wide
May 28, 2004, 09:23 PM
The Benchmark is OpenGL - and since the 15 inch was sooo much after the 17 PB it had a better video processor. Not much really to do with the cpu.

-Wyrm

ohhh thanks...i didn't know the two computers were released at different times

Wyrm
May 28, 2004, 10:44 PM
ohhh thanks...i didn't know the two computers were released at different times

Yeah, to the chagrin of all.
The first Hammerhead was a nvidia 440Go Spec (http://www.theapplemuseum.com/index.php?id=tam&page=portable&subpage=pbg4_17&skin=specs)

The first 15 Al was an ATI 9600 Mobility... Spec (http://www.theapplemuseum.com/index.php?id=tam&page=portable&subpage=pbg4_15fw800&skin=specs)

As the benchmarks show - night and day OpenGL performance.

-Wyrm

ifjake
May 29, 2004, 07:02 AM
apple needs a mobile chip. sticking a G5 in a laptop sounds hot and loud and power-consuming. my Ti G4 powerbook is hot as it is. i think there could be something better than putting a G5 in a laptop. i hope apple has a cool practical solution in the works.

edesignuk
May 29, 2004, 07:05 AM
A Pentium M will crush the G4. But what OS do you like? That's really what it come down to.

Wyrm
May 29, 2004, 07:15 AM
apple needs a mobile chip. sticking a G5 in a laptop sounds hot and loud and power-consuming. my Ti G4 powerbook is hot as it is. i think there could be something better than putting a G5 in a laptop. i hope apple has a cool practical solution in the works.

Yeah, true - same with the Al book... gets nice and toasty! I haven't heard too much from IBM... but even a 1Ghz 970 was like 10W or something right? Maybe some of the FX series or the mystical 975 would be able to maintain that power level with a little more oomph. Oh well, there's a long summer ahead and a new PowerMac should be coming out first.

-Wyrm

Wyrm
May 29, 2004, 07:35 AM
A Pentium M will crush the G4. But what OS do you like? That's really what it come down to.

:rolleyes: I'm not sure "crush" is a good word to describe the performance difference... the G4, in it's recent incarnations, is a pretty capable cpu. No complaints here...

It's package, it's presentation, it's feel, it's status, it's the cool factor, it's eye-candy, it's being different, it's taking the other road, it's style, it's the brand, it's the buzz, it's being hip, AND it's not being affected by the %@^$ Sasser! :D

-Wyrm

bishopdante
Jun 8, 2005, 07:55 PM
Apple seem to think that the Pentium M is so much better that they're going to put the dual core ones in the new macs next year. Shocking! OSX for intel will probably run better than longhorn, but the hardware will inevitably cost more. What is happening to the world? Apple and Microsoft using the same hardware architecture! The G5 is a superb chip, but costs a small fortune, pumps out loads of heat and needs the same amount of power as a tungsten lightbulb. That's because the original version of the chip is about 6 inches across.

It's all about the laptop these days.

But why didn't apple choose to use the cell? I'm disappointed.

It seems weird that apple developed the PowerPC architecture, and now it's in all of the new consoles, one of which is made by Microsoft, and Apple are now switching to X86 chips. It's just surreal.

runninmac
Jun 8, 2005, 08:58 PM
Well according to Macrumors they were considered but they found out it wasn't a good PC architecture

Major highlights:

- "They run Windows fine. All the chipset is standard Intel stuff, so you can download drivers and run XP - on the box."
- Game devs optimistic. "They look forward to the day they don't have to support PPC."
- Cell and AMD were evaluated. Cell not intended for PCs; AMD with supply constraints.

law guy
Jun 8, 2005, 10:16 PM
A Pentium M will crush the G4. But what OS do you like? That's really what it come down to.

My daily experience doesn't bear that out. My 1.7 GHz Pent M ThinkPad T42 15" with an ATI 9600 vid card and XP Pro (about a month old and the machine I using on as I write this from my Times Square hotel room thanks to my newish Verizon Wireless Broadband card) appears to run generally slower (opening programs, opening OS windows [e.g., control panel]) than my 1.5 GHz 15" PB G4 running 10.4.1 with an ATI 9700 with 128 MB vram (over a year old at this point). Now, if I had a 2.3 GHz Pent M, perhaps it would be as zippy as my short pipelined PB g4, but I don't see the crushing you suggest between the two systems I have - I see the opposite at the speeds I am able to observe.

Darwin
Jun 15, 2005, 07:57 AM
My daily experience doesn't bear that out. My 1.7 GHz Pent M ThinkPad T42 15" with an ATI 9600 vid card and XP Pro (about a month old and the machine I using on as I write this from my Times Square hotel room thanks to my newish Verizon Wireless Broadband card) appears to run generally slower (opening programs, opening OS windows [e.g., control panel]) than my 1.5 GHz 15" PB G4 running 10.4.1 with an ATI 9700 with 128 MB vram (over a year old at this point). Now, if I had a 2.3 GHz Pent M, perhaps it would be as zippy as my short pipelined PB g4, but I don't see the crushing you suggest between the two systems I have - I see the opposite at the speeds I am able to observe.

Remember that your PowerBook is using both the CPU and that GPU for using OS X and in general OS X has been more optimized for its hardware then Windows

shady28
Jun 15, 2005, 10:16 PM
Remember that your PowerBook is using both the CPU and that GPU for using OS X and in general OS X has been more optimized for its hardware then Windows


This is exactly right.

Most typical routine tasks on any PC are more affected by components other than the CPU, such as chipset, disk drive, RAM, and drivers. A Radeon 9700 is considerably faster than the 9600, for example. The hard drives in the new PowerBooks are aslo pretty speedy; the older powerbooks were no slouches either compared to most PC laptops.

Apple builds a quality machine so all those other components come together to give you a pretty good user experience - except in those (rare) instances where you really do need CPU power. It's been my experience that most people don't know how to differentiate what factors are slowing down their PC / Mac, however for pretty much everything from loading an app to browsing the net to watching a DVD - PCs and Macs have had more than suffucient CPU power for 3-4 years. It's the other components that make the difference.

savar
Jun 15, 2005, 10:45 PM
Benchmarks are no better then statistics when it comes to "proof". Most benchmarks you will find usually come down to the eye of the beholder. It's really hard to compare the two...

What an odd statement. First, benchmarks typically *are* statistics. (Don't know if you implied this or not.) Second, proper statistics can provide very compelling proof.

I will agree with you, however, that benchmarks are typically not proper statistics, since they fail to control for numerous exogenous variables.