PDA

View Full Version : G4 vs. Pentium M


xgsrpg
Aug 20, 2004, 11:23 AM
Since the G4 and the Pentium M are in the similar range of clockspeeds, how does a 1.5 GHz G4 compare to a 1.5 GHz Pentium M?

FuzzyBallz
Aug 20, 2004, 11:26 AM
If you want speed, why not just go w/ Mobile AMD Athlon 64?

xgsrpg
Aug 20, 2004, 01:10 PM
If you want speed, why not just go w/ Mobile AMD Athlon 64?

I was just curious because Apple's processors were always touted (not necessarily by Apple) to be faster than x86s at lower clock speeds. I am just curious of how the Pentium M and G4 compare with some real numbers.

Catfish_Man
Aug 20, 2004, 01:31 PM
As far as I know, the P-M beats the pants of the G4 in both performance/watt and absolute performance for most things. It's actually a very nice chip in many ways, especially compared to the P4. Still probably loses pretty badly at vector stuff though. SSE2 has never been able to stand up to Altivec.

Chaszmyr
Aug 20, 2004, 01:38 PM
I'm pretty sure the Pentium M is a better chip than the G4 in most regards.

jefhatfield
Aug 21, 2004, 01:50 AM
i am not a fan of intel, but the pentium m is possibly the best chip out there for everyday consumers

cb911
Aug 21, 2004, 04:57 AM
my bro just got a PC laptop, Pentium M either 1.5 or 1.7GHz, something like that. Radeon 9700, 512MB RAM i think. i sure plays games very nicely. :D i haven't played with PhotoShop or anything like that on it, but it is a very nice chip indeed. :)

but dont' worry, Apple isn't going to drop the ball. just hang in there for the dual-core G4's. ;)

edesignuk
Aug 21, 2004, 05:23 AM
P-M > G4

/thread.

Corrupted
Aug 21, 2004, 09:31 AM
I love Powerbook. I have owned 3 of them. But the Pentium-M will Spank a PowerBook. If you want speed and a crappy OS go for a Pentium -M notebook. If you want style, elegance and a sturdy OS which isn't the fastest but gets the job done go for a PowerBook.

MisterMe
Aug 21, 2004, 09:47 AM
I love Powerbook. I have owned 3 of them. But the Pentium-M will Spank a PowerBook. If you want speed and a crappy OS go for a Pentium -M notebook. If you want style, elegance and a sturdy OS which isn't the fastest but gets the job done go for a PowerBook.The Pentium-M won't spank anything. It is only a processor. OTOH, the PowerBook is a line of laptop computers.

Abstract
Aug 21, 2004, 10:53 AM
If I bought a PC desktop, I'd want a Pentium-M (or AMD) in there rather than that disgusting and disgraceful P4. I'd rather not support such a bad tech. The P-M is definitely not bad at all, I must admit.

Corrupted
Aug 21, 2004, 11:03 AM
The Pentium-M won't spank anything. It is only a processor. OTOH, the PowerBook is a line of laptop computers.

the new Intel Dothan will spank a powerbook's G4 processor.

Capt Underpants
Aug 21, 2004, 11:42 AM
I love Powerbook. I have owned 3 of them. But the Pentium-M will Spank a PowerBook. If you want speed and a crappy OS go for a Pentium -M notebook. If you want style, elegance and a sturdy OS which isn't the fastest but gets the job done go for a PowerBook.

That's just stereotypical mac/pc poo...
Speed and a decent OS: P-M
ALOT Slower and a good OS: G4

Dude, windows isn't that bad. If windows didn't get the job done, no one would be using it. get real.

edit: I don't want to discuss this mac/pc crap. Just making a point....

Mav451
Aug 21, 2004, 11:50 AM
Yep. In addition to that, there are guides to actually "building your own laptop". Yes, you can do that now.

Here's a link to one a spotted a few months ago:

http://www.legitreviews.com/reviews/whitebox1/

I may end up doing this later myself =D

Chaszmyr
Aug 21, 2004, 12:04 PM
/thread.

Talk about wishful thinking :rolleyes:

MisterMe
Aug 21, 2004, 11:13 PM
the new Intel Dothan will spank a powerbook's G4 processor.Neither the Intel Dothan nor the PowerBook's G4 will do anything until you install them in computers. The resulting performance of either will determined by the hardware and software that supports it. The only valid comparison of processors requires that the rest of the hardware be the same and that the two computers run the same software. Since neither is the case, no valid statement about the relative performance of the two processors can be made.

Abstract
Aug 22, 2004, 01:47 AM
Neither the Intel Dothan nor the PowerBook's G4 will do anything until you install them in computers. The resulting performance of either will determined by the hardware and software that supports it. The only valid comparison of processors requires that the rest of the hardware be the same and that the two computers run the same software. Since neither is the case, no valid statement about the relative performance of the two processors can be made.

Um....I'm sorry, but since you didn't put a </sarcasm> or similar at the end of your post, so I don't know if you were actually being seriously or not.

Its safe to say, even without testing, that a P-M or Dothan would spank the G4 blue if the rest of the hardware were the same.

Catfish_Man
Aug 22, 2004, 03:13 AM
Um....I'm sorry, but since you didn't put a </sarcasm> or similar at the end of your post, so I don't know if you were actually being seriously or not.

Its safe to say, even without testing, that a P-M or Dothan would spank the G4 blue if the rest of the hardware were the same.

Not at (for example) RC-5. It's a sad day for a processor when you can't find SOME benchmark it wins at. The G4 wins at a few things due to altivec, and basically only due to altivec. That said, you can pry my AlBook out of my cold dead fingers :)

oingoboingo
Aug 22, 2004, 03:31 AM
Not at (for example) RC-5. It's a sad day for a processor when you can't find SOME benchmark it wins at. The G4 wins at a few things due to altivec, and basically only due to altivec. That said, you can pry my AlBook out of my cold dead fingers :)

If it's an AlBook, your fingers are probably quite warm...almost scorched, in fact :)

edesignuk
Aug 22, 2004, 03:36 AM
Talk about wishful thinking :rolleyes:
heh, tell me about it, silly me...:rolleyes:

JeffTL
Aug 22, 2004, 08:58 AM
That's just stereotypical mac/pc poo...
Speed and a decent OS: P-M
ALOT Slower and a good OS: G4

Dude, windows isn't that bad. If windows didn't get the job done, no one would be using it. get real.

edit: I don't want to discuss this mac/pc crap. Just making a point....

And this is the stereotypical "I am not a zealot like I think you are, and if you don't agree with me, you are" troll.

Most of us who speak poorly of Windows do so from experience. I use XP part of the time most days (including right now) and I imagine that I am not the only person who does. Yes, it does often get the job done, but much in the same way MS-DOS does. You can do all your word processing on Wordstar on CP/M if that suits your needs, but that does not meen that it is the best value, or the best way to do your task.

MisterMe
Aug 22, 2004, 09:28 AM
Um....I'm sorry, but since you didn't put a </sarcasm> or similar at the end of your post, so I don't know if you were actually being seriously or not.

Its safe to say, even without testing, that a P-M or Dothan would spank the G4 blue if the rest of the hardware were the same.I am quite serious. The Intel Dothan and Pentium-M are computer parts, not computers. The blue PowerMac G4 is a computer. You can't compare computer parts to computers. Or, is this a concept too difficult for you?

MacRy
Aug 22, 2004, 10:16 AM
I am quite serious. The Intel Dothan and Pentium-M are computer parts, not computers. The blue PowerMac G4 is a computer. You can't compare computer parts to computers. Or, is this a concept too difficult for you?
Yeah but come on mate, seriously, that's just pedantry isn't it. I love Macs but you have to face facts and admit that these Pentium chips walk all over the G4 processor in terms of speed. You can't dodge the argument by offering minutia like that and suggesting that someone can't grasp a concept when you yourself have quite conveniently failed to do so.

Edit: By the way we share the same birthday......there's no point to this statement I just found it interesting.....I need to get out more...

beefcake
Aug 22, 2004, 12:16 PM
If by some freak occurence you could put a Pentium-M chipset into a Powerbook and keep everything else the same, I would never dream of ever buying anything except that product. However, I still wouldn't buy an IBM Notebook purely because I hate Windows and don't have the time to figure out Linux.

zv470
Aug 22, 2004, 01:00 PM
I'm pretty sure the Pentium M is a better chip than the G4 in most regards.

yeah, probably true, but I'd rather use a slow Mac, than a fast PC any day. (well... especially in a mobile arena) :D

Mord
Aug 22, 2004, 03:09 PM
where are these benchmarks that show the pentium m spanks the g4, i have not seen one, if you have seen a FAIR one please post it (the only one a saw was with a old 1GHz powerbook Vs a brand new 1.6GHz p-m.

oingoboingo
Aug 22, 2004, 10:32 PM
where are these benchmarks that show the pentium m spanks the g4, i have not seen one, if you have seen a FAIR one please post it (the only one a saw was with a old 1GHz powerbook Vs a brand new 1.6GHz p-m.

Try this page:

http://barefeats.com/al15b.html

For the Unreal Tournament 2003 test, a 1.8GHz Centrino, with integrated Intel 855PM graphics was able to score 42 FPS in the Antalus botmatch. The 1.33GHz 17" PowerBook scored 24 FPS, and the 1.25GHz 15" PowerBook scored 23 FPS.

In the Cinebench 2003 CPU Render test, a 1.3GHz Centrino completed the test in 150 seconds, and a 1.6GHz Centrino completed it in 124 seconds. The 1.33GHz 17" PowerBook took 214 seconds, and the 1.25GHz 15" PowerBook took 227 seconds.

Obviously the clock speeds are not comparable in all cases (except in the Cinebench 2003 test, comparing the 1.3GHz Centrino to the 1.33GHz 17" PB, where the Centrino wins anyway), but this also reflects the fact that Centrino systems are available at higher clock speeds than G4 based systems are.

Maxx Power
Aug 22, 2004, 11:45 PM
Try this page:

http://barefeats.com/al15b.html

For the Unreal Tournament 2003 test, a 1.8GHz Centrino, with integrated Intel 855PM graphics was able to score 42 FPS in the Antalus botmatch. The 1.33GHz 17" PowerBook scored 24 FPS, and the 1.25GHz 15" PowerBook scored 23 FPS.

In the Cinebench 2003 CPU Render test, a 1.3GHz Centrino completed the test in 150 seconds, and a 1.6GHz Centrino completed it in 124 seconds. The 1.33GHz 17" PowerBook took 214 seconds, and the 1.25GHz 15" PowerBook took 227 seconds.

Obviously the clock speeds are not comparable in all cases (except in the Cinebench 2003 test, comparing the 1.3GHz Centrino to the 1.33GHz 17" PB, where the Centrino wins anyway), but this also reflects the fact that Centrino systems are available at higher clock speeds than G4 based systems are.

I agree with the majority this time. Pentium M is a sweeeeeeeeeeet chip. Think about the powersavings. The fastest Ultra Low Voltage pentium m chip runs at 1 volt and at full blast it consumes 5 watts. That's not thermal dissipation, that's total processor consumption figure. And, AND, it runs at 1.1Ghz with the current ULV chips. Intel's roadmap shows a release of the 1.2ULV soon, possibly coinciding with their new chipsets.

If I can have a decent desktop, I'd take the 1.2ghz ULV, slot loading mobile CDRW/DVD, mini-itx board, mobile harddrive, this thing will make less noise than me when i sleep, as well as not heat up my room in the summer, and gently reminding me the efficiency of the system is helping to slow the devastation on the environment....the benefit goes on...

hjhhjh
Sep 30, 2004, 04:27 PM
where are these benchmarks that show the pentium m spanks the g4, i have not seen one, if you have seen a FAIR one please post it (the only one a saw was with a old 1GHz powerbook Vs a brand new 1.6GHz p-m.

lol think,

mac os X panther vs windows xp

widows is really slow when browsing the os interface, plus its so bold

plus pcs are made for games, macs are made for luxury

its sorta like saying which is faster a rolce royce, or a ferrari enzo

abviously the ferrari, but it takes a hell of a lot of time to get to that speed, and i doubt its as comfortable as the smooth, safe, luxury ride of the rolz roice

u just cant compare em

FelixDerKater
Sep 30, 2004, 04:40 PM
The Pentium M will outrun a G4 at the same clockspeed without question.

Mav451
Sep 30, 2004, 04:44 PM
And this is the stereotypical "I am not a zealot like I think you are, and if you don't agree with me, you are" troll.

Most of us who speak poorly of Windows do so from experience. I use XP part of the time most days (including right now) and I imagine that I am not the only person who does. Yes, it does often get the job done, but much in the same way MS-DOS does. You can do all your word processing on Wordstar on CP/M if that suits your needs, but that does not meen that it is the best value, or the best way to do your task.

Problem is that while I do have an iBook, my desktop is just THAT much faster. And my experience has been just fine (I'm not going to say better/worse b/c there's a distinct parity in processing power) with XP. If my experience was bad, wouldn't you be hearing it? You have to remember that whoever has a good experience and no problems, probably is NOT posting on a forum b/c they have no need to. Remember that when you hear about problems with XP--there may be just as many, or more people who do NOT have problems. The same with Linux, OSX, or apply this to car forums, etc. etc.

Forums like these, you will of course hear about the trouble cases--that is the reason we have the forums in the first place, to communicate solutions to those people.

patrick0brien
Sep 30, 2004, 07:02 PM
-Do you guys realize that the Pentium M is really a Pentium III with a larger Cache and power-stepping right?

Note that I said is not esentially is in the above sentence.

Capt Underpants
Sep 30, 2004, 08:17 PM
-Do you guys realize that the Pentium M is really a Pentium III with a larger Cache and power-stepping right?

Note that I said is not esentially is in the above sentence.

Yes, I did realize that:). The chip's performance matters, though, not the architecture the chip is based on.

paxtonandrew
Sep 30, 2004, 10:07 PM
I have used both the Pentium M and the G4 chip almost simultaneously. My dad has a 'M' chip in his Dull Latitude, which is 1.2 ghz. In real world calculations, my G4 PowerBook (1.33) is FASTER than his 'M' by a long way, even though we have the same amount of Ram, and he has a faster FSB. I have to say, it depends on what the computer is to be used for.


Finally, I get the last laugh anyway, I have a longer battery life (what was that about never un-plugging your Laptop?).

Mav451
Oct 1, 2004, 12:47 AM
-Do you guys realize that the Pentium M is really a Pentium III with a larger Cache and power-stepping right?

Note that I said is not esentially is in the above sentence.

I know that...of course the hilarious part is if the Intel users know this too (especially those tricked by the high clock rates of the P4's). The last Pentium III made, the Tualitin, was actually very competitive (finally) with Athlons. Of course, b/c P4's were being released then, this was hush hush.

Of course that's with Slot A Athlons, not Socket A ones that ran the FSB at Full Speed (poor Intel).

5300cs
Oct 1, 2004, 01:54 AM
If I can have a decent desktop ... this thing will make less noise than me when i sleep, as well as not heat up my room in the summer, and gently reminding me the efficiency of the system is helping to slow the devastation on the environment...

Get a G5 then :D I love how quiet it is.

Uh, do I need to put sarcasm tags in here or are people gonna jump all over me?

patrick0brien
Oct 1, 2004, 10:45 AM
-I discussed this thread with one of my cohorts here who was a chip designer during those days. This was his two bits.

(Get your propellers on fellas)

"Advantage is it runs much, much cooler than the equivalent performance P4 at about Ĺ the clock rate. Which when you think about it is just sad. Technically, itís the final rev of the P6 architecture that they started with in the PPro thus, itís a P3 with a slightly larger pipeline microarchitecture is designed for power savings rather than clock, which is pretty novel for Intel.
The one thing that they really borrowed from the P4 is the branch predict in fact, itís a bit better than the stock P4 branch predict in that itís got loop detect and indirect branch predict, which is getting into, say, a powerPC chip circa 1996. The BP history table is actually quite a bit larger than the P4 version, Northwood rev., anyway. The branch predict in the northwood cores is really hamstrung by the relatively small size of the branch history tableóthey made that a lot larger in the M series. Thatís one of the ways you get the low power, since youíre not spending time spinning in the speculative execution pipeline, which is expensive to run and very expensive to flush, which by its nature you do a lot of.
A couple other neat things in the microoperations side, but thatís window dressing, the rest is the bigass cache. Power wise, itís a decent story....at same process (0.13um), itís a bit more than half the wattage of a comparable PowerPC 970-series for the same core voltage, but with nearly another 20 million gates, which is a heck of a story, especially for intel. Now, that PPC970 will run rings around it, but thereís not a lot they can do about that with the freakishly low register count and other baggage that comes along with the x86 instruction set. In the industry, we regarded it as a neat hack, rather than anything evolutionary...the pipeline architecture is vastly inferior to IBM and AMD.
"

Crikey
Oct 1, 2004, 12:30 PM
( . . . ) If I can have a decent desktop, I'd take the 1.2ghz ULV, slot loading mobile CDRW/DVD, mini-itx board, mobile harddrive, this thing will make less noise than me when i sleep, as well as not heat up my room in the summer, and gently reminding me the efficiency of the system is helping to slow the devastation on the environment....the benefit goes on...

I achieve the same beneficial effects for the environment, right now with my giant dual-processor tower, by simply putting my system to sleep or turning it off when I'm not using it.

I agree with your overall point: efficient computers are cool (heh - didn't intend that one) and quiet computers are very nice. I'm glad to see that the industry seems to be taking steps away from 120W CPU chips and towards engineering quieter hard disks.


Crikey

Cubeboy
Oct 1, 2004, 01:24 PM
-Do you guys realize that the Pentium M is really a Pentium III with a larger Cache and power-stepping right?

Note that I said is not esentially is in the above sentence.

Sure, if you consider that the latest Pentium-Ms have 4x the L2 Cache of the last Pentium 3s, 2X the L1 Cache (this itself is enough for most companies to rebrand their cpus), and 3-4x the FSB speed (depending on the variant of Pentium 3). In terms of other changes (all of them quite major you'll find), the Pentium M employs far more advanced branch prediction (Pentium 4 based?), a slightly longer pipeline (read the technical paper on Ars and you'll find that this implementation is primarily for scaling and micro-op fusion), the P4's SSE2 enhancements+FSB, and Micro-op fusion which is also implemented in the PPC970 (the typical performance increase from this feature alone is 5% on integer code and 9% on FP code according to Ars Technica).

I'd recommend looking up some reviews comparing the Pentium M and Pentium 3. You'll find the Pentium M to be quite a bit faster clock-to-clock.

Mav451
Oct 2, 2004, 12:06 AM
I achieve the same beneficial effects for the environment, right now with my giant dual-processor tower, by simply putting my system to sleep or turning it off when I'm not using it.

I agree with your overall point: efficient computers are cool (heh - didn't intend that one) and quiet computers are very nice. I'm glad to see that the industry seems to be taking steps away from 120W CPU chips and towards engineering quieter hard disks.


Crikey

First, both these things exist. My Athlon XP-M is ALOT of power, for little voltage. (another reason it overclocks so well using stock DESKTOP voltages vs. Laptop voltages).

The big advantage is, because you can run at laptop voltages, you can get away with much, much quieter cooling (i.e., almost none or 5-volting your fans and still getting load temps lower than 45C).

Quieter HDs? They already exist in laptop drives. Compare laptop drives to desktop drives--there is a CLEAR difference. Of course, the big hurdle is the cost. Count how many people have 200-300GB of desktop HD storage (not uncommon for media storage). Compare that to laptops...um, yeah, those laptop models don't exist.

An 80GB Seagate PATA ATA/100 8MB Cache 7200RPM? $67.
80GB Toshiba ATA/100 8MB Cache 4200RPM (Mobile)? $149.

Not only is cost a factor, but the RPM's are significantly lower.
The only 7200RPM Mobile HD with even close to that capacity (80GB is not much in the desktop world, but its huge in laptops):
>> the Hitachi 60GB (w/ 8MB Cache) >> $166.
http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDetail.jsp?ProductCode=100519-1

Cubeboy
Oct 2, 2004, 09:25 AM
and just in case any of you fellas are wondering how a Pentium-M based laptop stacks up against desktop P4 and Athlon64 systems, heres a review:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2129&p=7

Please note the Pentium M is actually very competitive clock-clock with the Athlon64 and even significantly better in some programs (Business Winstone, UT 2004, etc). The same certainly can't be said about the Pentium 3 to the original Athlon and the Athlon64 is a hell of alot better clock-clock than the latter processor (which was beaten fairly believably by the Pentium 4 in the end, even after significant enhancements). The Pentium M certainly beat the 3.2 GHz Pentium 4 in almost every applications, sometimes by 10+%.

Mord
Oct 2, 2004, 06:33 PM
lol think,

mac os X panther vs windows xp

widows is really slow when browsing the os interface, plus its so bold

plus pcs are made for games, macs are made for luxury

its sorta like saying which is faster a rolce royce, or a ferrari enzo

abviously the ferrari, but it takes a hell of a lot of time to get to that speed, and i doubt its as comfortable as the smooth, safe, luxury ride of the rolz roice

u just cant compare em

wtf dose that have to do with anything?, i want to see a proper benchmark and you blathering on about how great OS X is dose not mean ***** as i use OS X every day and not even if a pentium m is five times faster than a powerbook would i buy one purely because i'm to lazy to put linux on it windows pisses me off and i'm much happier with OS X, what i would like to know is how the speed compares in a fair test so i dont just chat bull ***** to my friends when there buying a laptop and need advice.

don't patronize someone that has over 1k posts at a forum you are a newb in.

Pixeled_Apple
Nov 15, 2004, 05:40 AM
Most of you, are talking about the Megahertz, yes; it might be a contributing factor to peformance, but what about the Pipeline Stages
(which apparently... which kicks bum) , and the Cache isn't that important as well, and most of all the R.A.M, if have more, the more stable its gonna be. Windows or Mac. G4 might not be the geeks dream (but G5 might :P ) , but it certainly gets the job done without hassle, and has a good processor architecture.

I hope you think beyond the MHz.

gekko513
Nov 15, 2004, 08:32 AM
I'm not sure if that barefeats test really says much. The first test is a game, which is OK if you want to test game performance, but we all know that all game s are optimized for PC/Win but for Mac they are just ported so that they barely work. Games aren't good benchmarks for the performance potential of processors.

The cinebench test is more disturbing, but still: "The tool is set to deliver accurate benchmarks by testing not only a computer's raw processing speed but also all other areas that affect system performance such as OpenGL, multithreading, multiprocessors and Intel's new HT Technology."

Which means that it doesn't just test the cpu speed. I also find it very strange that the four PC laptops that were used in the first test are not the same as the three that were used in the second test :confused: Overall a very little documented test that really doesn't say much.

I'm not really disputing the claim that the Pentium M is a very good chip, my understanding as also that it is good, but we haven't really seen any benchmarks that compare the Pentium M and the G4 in meaningful ways.

hjhhjh
Nov 23, 2004, 01:29 AM
I'm not sure if that barefeats test really says much. The first test is a game, which is OK if you want to test game performance, but we all know that all game s are optimized for PC/Win but for Mac they are just ported so that they barely work. Games aren't good benchmarks for the performance potential of processors.

The cinebench test is more disturbing, but still: "The tool is set to deliver accurate benchmarks by testing not only a computer's raw processing speed but also all other areas that affect system performance such as OpenGL, multithreading, multiprocessors and Intel's new HT Technology."

Which means that it doesn't just test the cpu speed. I also find it very strange that the four PC laptops that were used in the first test are not the same as the three that were used in the second test :confused: Overall a very little documented test that really doesn't say much.

I'm not really disputing the claim that the Pentium M is a very good chip, my understanding as also that it is good, but we haven't really seen any benchmarks that compare the Pentium M and the G4 in meaningful ways.

i wasnt insulting ne one ... jeez, plus what would a 1.33 ghz g4 compare to pentium m wise?

BornAgainMac
Nov 23, 2004, 06:19 AM
I found the machines that have the Pentium-M respond more slower than my Powerbook G4 1.5Ghz. The Pentium-M may be faster but it's poorly implemented with Windows. I haven't tried it with Linux yet.

Also my G5 spanks the Pentium-M.

dragula53
Nov 23, 2004, 07:11 AM
jeez folks.

I get tired of reading internet forums sometimes.

The pentium M is a far superior architecture to the G4.

Honestly, the PPC 970 is not so good in comparison to anything that intel/AMD have to offer, either.

A DUAL G5, runs close to what a SINGLE Athlon64/Pentium 4/Pentium-M as far as raw number crunching goes.

Hopefully, the new PPC970GX with 1MB of L2 cache will narrow the gap.. Even better, if Apple decides to go with the PPC 970MP. drool. dual dual-core chips. that would be very nice, and quite probably enough to take the processing crown away from the AMD64.

All of the specifications for the above chips are available on spec's site. The integer/floating point capabilities of these chips. I'm not trying to troll or spread FUD.

The operating system that these chips run... that is something that you have control over. And the overall snappiness of your interface has a lot to do with how much system overhead there is.

OS X is plenty use-able on a 1GHz G4. Windows XP is not.

Just chill out. It's a computer. Usability is what matters to the average user. If you are crunching numbers, or making movies, or compiling code... That is when all of the above stuff really matters.

Moo