G4/G3 Equivalants To PC Proccessors

Discussion in 'Macintosh Computers' started by maraczc, May 24, 2003.

  1. maraczc macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2003
    Location:
    Toronto, ON
    #1
    I think that it would be very helpful to many people to compare Apple's proccessors with "PC processors"*. If you know a reasonable answer, post the equivalant speed for that "PC proccessor"*.

    ie. G4 1 GHZ equivalant Intel Penitum 4 Mobile: 1.6 GHZ (Note: Totally made up).

    G3 800 MHZ
    Intel Pentium 4: ? GHZ
    Intel Pentium Mobility: ? GHZ
    Intel Centario: ? GHZ
    Intel Celeron: ? GHZ
    AMD Athlon: ? GHZ
    AMD Opteron: ? GHZ

    G4 1 GHZ
    Intel Pentium 4: ? GHZ
    Intel Mobility: ? GHZ
    Intel Centario: ? GHZ
    Intel Celeron: ? GHZ
    AMD Athlon: ? GHZ
    AMD Opteron: ? GHZ

    *Term "PC Proccessor(s)" was used for a lack of a beter term.
     
  2. Catfish_Man macrumors 68030

    Catfish_Man

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2001
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #2
    I'm afraid it's not possible to compare them that way. For RC5 a G4 will beat down any other processor (except a 970). For some other tasks (most of them), a 3.06GHz P4 will beat the crap out of it. I suppose you could do an average.
     
  3. maraczc thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2003
    Location:
    Toronto, ON
    #3
    Well that is what I meant. Just generally speaking which is the faster proccessor and the equivalants of both. Which is also why I said just a reasonable answer not an absolute comparision.
     
  4. patrick0brien macrumors 68040

    patrick0brien

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2002
    Location:
    The West Loop
    #4
    One comparison could be made with FLOPs - Floating Point Operations per clock cycle.

    Even though there are still other factors to Computer Performance, I feel that FLOPs comparisons are a better measurement than Hz as irt show how many calculations are being done per clock cycle. It's the other half of the MHz myth.

    Here are the comparisons:

    PIII: 3.2 FLOPs/Hz
    PIV: 1.8 FLOPs/Hz
    G4: 7.5 FLOPs/Hz
     
  5. ZildjianKX macrumors 68000

    ZildjianKX

    Joined:
    May 18, 2003
  6. mac15 macrumors 68040

    mac15

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2001
    Location:
    Sydney
    #6
    hehe in some personaly tests

    my 700imac with 512MB ram was the same a HP 2.4ghz pentium 4 with 384mb ram though (but it was DDR)

    this is personal, so take it how you wish
     
  7. AmbitiousLemon Moderator emeritus

    AmbitiousLemon

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2001
    Location:
    down in Fraggle Rock
    #7
    barefeats has a good recent benchmark with Dual 1.4Ghz pMac 3.06Ghz P4 and Dual 2.4Ghz Xeon. As you can see no one processor wins in all tests and all processors win at least one of the benchmarks. They are all pretty close to one another, anyone who says different doesnt know what they are talking about.

    here is the quote from the analysis:
     
  8. ZildjianKX macrumors 68000

    ZildjianKX

    Joined:
    May 18, 2003
    #8
    http://www.barefeats.com/pentium4.html

    I'm pretty sure they were referring to the two P4s as fighting for the king of the hill... The P4 is 17% faster on average than the G4... and the Xeon is 34% faster than the G4... I'm not sure how you got they were pretty close, since your quote speaks for itself.

    A 3 Ghz P4 is about 34% faster than a 2 Ghz P4... I don't consider that pretty close either. Even the most hardcore mac addicts, including me, agree that Apple needs a better processor (*cough* 970, *cough*).
     
  9. AmbitiousLemon Moderator emeritus

    AmbitiousLemon

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2001
    Location:
    down in Fraggle Rock
    #9
    i don't see that as a huge difference. At least not the huge difference people try to make it out as. Also the G4 does beat the dual xeon and p4 in some tasks, so its not a shut out. Thats why I say its pretty close. I'm not saying we don't need a new processor. Moto's G4 has crippled Apple for years now, and its embarassing. Apple has historically always been the fastest. These last few years have been disgusting. But some people make out the Gap to be much greater than it is.
     
  10. ZildjianKX macrumors 68000

    ZildjianKX

    Joined:
    May 18, 2003
    #10
    True, but one of the other most important factors is price. You'll still pay $700 more for a new G4 tower when its slower than a P4. I just wish apple would either bump their speeds for such a premium price, or lower the price to reflect the speeds... as of right now I'm not going to pay more for a slower machine... just doesn't make sense.
     
  11. AmbitiousLemon Moderator emeritus

    AmbitiousLemon

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2001
    Location:
    down in Fraggle Rock
    #11
    well i disagree. i don't think the powermacs are more expensive. if you build a pc from scratch you might be able to get something cheap. but if you go buy a dell with the same specs as a powermac they come out pretty close to one another. the pc's just sound cheap because they entice people into their stores with promises of $500 computers. then they get people to add all the extras and drive the price up. apple just offers the fully loaded machines to begin with.

    and dont sweat it. seems like new g3s with altivec and 400mhz fsbs are on the way and of course the ppc 970 is also on the way. cheaper chips and faster. apple will be on top of the performace heap once again.
     
  12. patrick0brien macrumors 68040

    patrick0brien

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2002
    Location:
    The West Loop
    #12
    -ZildjianKX

    I've been over this ad nauseum in other threads. When it comes to Video Editing, a PowerMac with FCP is the best thing you can buy for the money.

    $7,000 for the PowerMac and extra HD's w/ FCP.

    $50,000 for a comparible PC system.

    You don't have to believe me, there's plenty of info around the web.
     
  13. ZildjianKX macrumors 68000

    ZildjianKX

    Joined:
    May 18, 2003
    #13
    Well, in the benchmarks done here the PC was faster and $700 cheaper... so that's where I was getting my point from.

    And as the 970 chips go that I've been patiently waiting for... well, it doesn't look like they'll be on top...

    http://thetechnozone.com/macbuyersguide/editorials/Editorial-PPC970.htm
     
  14. topicolo macrumors 68000

    topicolo

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2002
    Location:
    Ottawa, ON
    #14
    There's also a difference between PC processors of the same family. For example, a P4 with a 400Mhz bus will be dramatically slower than a p4 with the new 800Mhz bus and hyperthreading. The same goes for Athlons--the ones running on a 266Mhz bus will be markedly slower than the 3000+ running on a 400Mhz bus.
     
  15. o187em macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 26, 2003
    Location:
    phoenix
    #15
    I believe that a G4 is about 50% faster than a comparable GHZ Pentium 4. Thus a 1ghz imac would perform roughly equivalent to a 1.5ghz P4. Clock for Clock a G4 is faster than a P4 but the slower G4 clock speed is what allows PC to take the edge. all this of course is my assumption based on several articles i've read and from personal use of both Mac's and PC's.
     
  16. Vlade macrumors 6502a

    Vlade

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2003
    Location:
    Meadville, PA
    #16
    Really? what about a top of the line PC system with some SCSI drives and Avids video software, thats not 50000 bucks! It is probably still way more expensive than the mac, but not 50K
     
  17. patrick0brien macrumors 68040

    patrick0brien

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2002
    Location:
    The West Loop
    #17
    -Vlade

    Actually, an Avid system, comparable to FCP4 is the Avid DS Nitris Editor and that costs $78,995 USMSRP.

    I was being nice before.

    One thing that's interesting is if one reads the marketing for the DS Nitris System, they use words like "best in the industry" and "most accuracy of any HD product in the industry". This is true.

    But only because FCP4 isn't shipping until next month.
     
  18. ac2102 macrumors member

    ac2102

    Joined:
    May 12, 2003
    Location:
    Bristol - England
    #18
    The fella did say comparable system. Anyway, as far as im aware, a decent AVID system is predominantly hardware based, and that racks up the price. Plus, when video editing, you want an interface that you can work with for the hours needed to complete a project, a perk not offered by most PC systems. FCP rules the roost and should continue to do so.
     
  19. Raiwong macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    #19
    FCP is just about the same as the competitors, it is much cheaper though. Arguably a PC is much more cheaper if you built it and probably only a little cheaper if you buy from branded companies.

    Heres a bit of info and can someone do maths? I don't know about how much slower the G4 is to G3 Sahara in same mhz without altivector.

    G4 No-altivec: ?mhz
    G3 Sahara: 800mhz
    Pentium: 1700mhz

    G4 No-altivec: ?mhz
    G3 Sahara: 900mhz
    Pentium: ?mhz

    This is from a review site I can't remember where search for ibook review. It was benchmarked on a engineering fansite I think ssing the floating point rule and other similiar engineerer's tests.
     
  20. markomarko macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2002
    Location:
    Edmonton, Alberta
    #20
    Wrong.

    Charlie's main beef was with the After Effects times. After Effects is only using ONE of the two processors available. For proof of this see http://www.creativemac.com/2003/04_apr/tutorials/aerender030408.htm.

    I wrote Charlie and asked him if he used this technique in his benchmarks. He hadn't. Dave's technique sees a 55-65% decrease in render times. More than enough to see the mac compete with the P4 3.06.
     
  21. funkywhat2 macrumors 6502a

    funkywhat2

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2002
    #21
    Personally, I think that it's impossible to correctly compare the processors the way ya'll are. I compare processors of similar ages. So, I would compare a G3 to a PII or early PIII/K62, etc. and the G4 to a PIII or a very early PIV, and an Althon from that period. The G4 could only beat a new PIV or Athlon in menial tasks, or tasks that not everyone does each day (think DNA sequencing).
     
  22. PyroTurtle macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2001
    Location:
    10 Minutes from Disneyland
    #22
    to jump in head first...

    waht about speed vs reliability? i know that comes up alot...
    my mac is more reliable than my PC, period, that's just my experiance. even when they run the same OS, my powerpc machines are more reliable than my x86 machines...

    or quality vs quantity...one thing the G4 does is quality control of the data going through the chip, the P4 just lets it all pass through, creating errors at times, all be it it recalculates but that adds time, power, and anoyance...not to mention crashes...

    just my thoughts, flame me as you wish...
     
  23. G5orbust macrumors 65816

    G5orbust

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2002
    #23

    well...

    your link says that the I/O is 6.4 GBps...

    Thats the same as the new P4's that run the 800MHz bus. Just thought Id toss that into your little discussion.
     
  24. Cubeboy macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2003
    Location:
    Bridgewater NJ
    #24
    Flops is used to test the Floating Point performance of a processor at the core level this is primarily useful for scientific and engineering apps. If you look at the official flop results, you can clearly see that the Pentium 4 makes a very strong showing in this test, beating even Opteron and UltraSparc III server chips in most tests. The G4's FPU is relatively weak and it's system bus is quite slow. It won't make a strong showing here. Patrick O'Brian, could you please provide a link as to where you got those data and tell me why it's not listed in modules. I can't find any benchmark results for the G4 on this.

    Known Flop Results
    Pentium4@ 2.8 |Opteron@ 1.80|UltraSparc III@ 1.2
    Module 1: 1138|Module 1: 1079|Module 1:0865
    Module 2: 0461|Module 2: 0701|Module 2:0525
    Module 3: 2058|Module 3: 1696|Module 3:1956
    Module 4: 2299|Module 4: 1769|Module 4:1901
    Module 5: 2022|Module 5: 1489|Module 5:1668
    Module 6: 2330|Module 6: 1872|Module 6:1846
    Module 7: 0324|Module 7: 0388|Module 7:0247
    Module 8: 2265|Module 8: 1786|Module 8:1801

    From SPEC CPU2000, you can get a good idea of G4 Floating point performance.

    Motorola G4e 1.00 Ghz
    Spec FP base:147
    Spec FP peak:187

    Motorola G4e 1.45 Ghz (estimate)
    Spec FP base:240
    Spec FP peak:300

    AMD Opteron 1.8 Ghz
    Spec FP base:1122
    Spec FP peak:1219

    UltraSparcIII 1.2 Ghz Cu
    Spec FP base: 1074
    Spec FP peak: 1344

    Intel Pentium 4c 3.0 Ghz
    Spec FP base:1213
    Spec FP peak:1229

    Now, it should be noted that the G4's compiler is pretty bad, but no compiler can excuse such poor performance. Even the best compiler won't get the G4 close to the performance of a Pentium 4 or Athlon in floating point. This is why many analyst predict that the PPC970 will absolutely trounce the G4 in floating point performance. Again the combination of a a weak FPU and slow bus simply means that the G4 won't perform well in floating point.

    Dhrystone and Whetstone measure raw integer and Floating Point performance, they both display similar results.

    As can be seen by the Barefeats benchmarks, a single Pentium 4 is faster than dual G4s in all but altivec optimized programs even though the G4 was using special configurations that aren't available to the public. The Dual 2.4 ghz Xeon was over twice as fast as the dual 1.45 ghz G4 in Cinebench. In games which are a very good measure of system performance, the Pentium 4 beats the G4 by large amounts in every benchmark. Combine this with the thoughts of reviews done by Aces Hardware and Digital video review and you've got a pretty good idea of how things stand right now.

    In conclusion, processor to processor, a P4 or Athlon will beat a G4 pretty badly, the combination of weak FPU, slow system bus, low clock rates, and insufficient IPC to make up for it (Athlon is clock to clock superior to the G4 and it scales higher) means that the only applications the G4 might exceed in are Altivec optimized ones. With two G4s and well threaded applications, it depends on what application the Pentium 4 is running. A dual G4 system running FCP will be about even with a single 3.06 ghz Pentium 4 running Aftereffects, and be beat by a single 3.06 ghz Pentium 4 running Combustion.
     
  25. patrick0brien macrumors 68040

    patrick0brien

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2002
    Location:
    The West Loop
    #25
    -Cubeboy

    Interesting.

    Right about now I wish I still had that research and could give you links, but I'm afraid I can't. They were NDA'ed at my old job so I had to turn it over. But if memory serves, this was based on total chip output as measured by the manufacturer and I had to do some weaseling to get them.

    The project was kicked off to try to answer client's inquiries as to why the P4 performed less work than the P3 at comparable clock rates. The Motorola performance was thrown in as a bonus to that measurement.

    As for Spec2000 measurements, I'm highly suspect of them as they measure aspects don't directly impact the user, and that was the point of the project I'm referring to above. The Spec2000 test may be accurate to the module and the numbers stated, but we couldn't use them because that actually hurt our conclusions by distracting the clients obsevation that the P3 was in fact faster in real world performance than the P4. It was counterinformative. While true in their own right, the Spec2000 numbers were not indicative of overall performance.

    This, as they say is the crux of all of these speed discussions. If there were a clear leader, would we even be having this discussion?

    <edit>

    I just rememebred something else. You're probably not going to like it as it's not supported by Spec tests but if you may recall the Sawtooth G4 400mhz when introduced in 1999 was cedited as the "First Mainstream Supercomputer" because according to government (NSA I think) tests the computer produced a real-world performance of >1GFLOPs sustained and spiked to >4GFLOPs a second, thus Apple had a great marketing angle, but couldn't export the machines until they petitioned the goverment to up the bar of export. So if we do some dirty math on that we'd get 400/~1024=~2.56FLOPs/Cycle and 400/~4096=~10.24FLOPs/Cycle

    I know it's not elegant, I know it's not Spec, but these were the legal and certified findings of the time.
     

Share This Page