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
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.
Are there any benchmarks anyone could show me to compare G4 and Pentium M
- Thread starter Soc7777777
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
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 mjxyama said:
oh and apps.. maybe like photoshop, or ms office.. or some other basic video or word processing or internet program that everyon uses oftenjxyama said:
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.
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.
Soc7777777 said:
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.
Soc7777777 said:
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...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.
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.
Soc7777777 said:
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
Still annoyed they were pressured to remove the original test...
If you look here you'll see at the date 9/19/2003 after the semicolon, the fact that he removed the Centrino info.
And right here, 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.
And right here, 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.
Oh, crap. There is exactly one metric for the determination of a computer's performance. It is as simple as this:legion said:
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.
G4 vs Pentium M
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.
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.
krimson said:
You mean Apples to Lemons?
(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
wide said: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
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.
ifjake said:
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
edesignuk said:
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!
-Wyrm
Well... As it happens.
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.
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.
Well according to Macrumors they were considered but they found out it wasn't a good PC architecture