New intel chips are clock for clock SLOWER than the G4

Discussion in 'PowerPC Macs' started by shyataroo, Feb 12, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. shyataroo macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2003
    Location:
    Hell... Wanna join me?
    #1
    lets look at the differences in speed according to apple the speed increase is 4 times correct? the major differences in the laptops are the System bus speed has been quadrupled (aka 4 times faster) so assuming that the bus is not 4 times faster because only the frequency is 4 times faster and not the acutal bandwith the ram is also faster (which by itself would make up for the latency in bus speed) and than the Hard Drive that Apple used to test was prolly the 100GB 7200RPM (faster yet again than the PowerBook G4's 5400RPM maximum) so that proves it you get a G4 with the same bus speed, ram speed, hard drive it will run just as fast if not faster than the core-duo and thats only 1 procesor... you get a dual-core G4 in there...and than clock it to the same speeds as the core-duo it will prolly smoke it by 50% (this is just my random estimate)



    to help prove this theory I would like to know the maximum output of the g4 processor alone in GigaBytes and the maximum output of the core-duo in gigabytes and while you are at it the G5 as well.
     
  2. Nickygoat macrumors 6502a

    Nickygoat

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Location:
    London
    #2
    Eh?
    And why is this important for you?
    There are no dual core G4 chips available to Apple so any comparison is meaningless. And Freescale can't be bothered to increase the bus speed from 167MHz, so there is no comparison.
    You can compare them in the real world, but a set of benchmarks for anything are useless. You just adjust the test to prove whatever you want.
     
  3. TBi macrumors 68030

    TBi

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2005
    Location:
    Ireland
    #3
    First of all the output isn't measuring the gigabyes, its measured in something like FLOPS.

    Secondly the G4 might be clock for clock faster than the PentiumM but there is no G4 that runs at that speed. Therefore there is no way for apple to make a computer which is clock for clock to let us compare it to. ( I know you can get over drive G4's but that is a different matter).

    Fact is, the G4 in theory could be just as fast but in reality Intel have a chip that is that fast. Why compare something that does not and probably will not ever exist to something that does?
     
  4. shyataroo thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2003
    Location:
    Hell... Wanna join me?
    #4
    I do not like intel. thats why I want to find out what the output of each processor is. say the intels 2.1 dual-core output is 160GB's a second of 1's and 0's and the G4's single core output is 70GB's a second I multiply the output in GB's x 1,073,741,824 to get the bytes per cycle of each processor running at their respective frequencies than I multiply the frequencies in Ghz times 1 Billion and divide the frequency by the output and get the answer which than proves using no benchmarks which is faster.


    why can't you measure the output in GB's?

    I was speaking theoretically.
     
  5. Nickygoat macrumors 6502a

    Nickygoat

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Location:
    London
    #5
    Why not? Does it really make a difference to you, in day to day usage (when all apps are Universal - one day). which chip is under the hood?
    I understand the maths behind it, and did before, but the max for a G4 currently is 1.92GHz. After Apple dumped them Freescale aren't going to be developing the G4 any more.
    Intel chips are the future for Apple, like it or not, and will only keep increasing speed, far more than other companies can overclock the G4.
    But I don't have an numbers for you :eek:
    Is this an academic exercise or a personal preference?
     
  6. ewinemiller macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Location:
    west of Philly
    #6
    certainly would depend on what you're doing

    I have a dual 800 mhz G4. I recently bought a DUAL 1.6ghz upgrade for it. Doing the things I do (rendering in Carrara), it still wasn't as fast as my SINGLE 1.6 Pentium M laptop. I sent it back.

    There might be something out there the G4 does faster, and you might be able to show some benchmark that says so, but I don't sit around running benchmarks, I run applications. The applications I run, run faster on Intel chips. I'm really looking forward to eovia releasing the UB for Carrara so I can order that new Macbook.

    Regards.
     
  7. revenuee macrumors 68020

    revenuee

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2003
    Location:
    A place where i am supreme emporer
    #7
    theories are useless when it can't be put into practice.

    whether or not a dual core G4 clock for clock is faster then a Intel dual core is moot because the dual core G4 won't exist.

    That's the whole point of switching to intel ... Motorola/Freescale (whatever they are called these days) couldn't produce the chips apple needed, and neither could IBM -- Intel delivered.

    go ahead, theorize and calculate all you want about faster G4's, i'm not going to stop you ... but the rest of us are you going to live in the here and now and enjoy our faster intel macs that actually exist
     
  8. ewinemiller macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Location:
    west of Philly
    #8
    more info

    I just went back and checked the numbers on when I compared my dual 1.6 G4 to a single 1.6 Pentium M (dothan I think so not even as fast clock per clock as the new ones). The single Pentium M 1.6 rendered consistently 25% faster than the dual 1.6 G4.
     
  9. Counterfit macrumors G3

    Counterfit

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2003
    Location:
    sitting on your shoulder
    #9
    Because that's not how you measure the performance of a CPU. It's measured in (tera/giga/mega)FlOPS (Floating point Operations Per Second).

    And did you really have to make 5 posts in a row?
     
  10. whocares macrumors 65816

    whocares

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2002
    Location:
    :noitаɔo˩
    #10
    I hear a PowerBook G4 is faster at toasting bread and/or private parts than a Pentium M laptop.
     
  11. johnnybluejeans macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Location:
    New York, NY
    #11
    I don't think you really have any understanding of processor architecture. How many bits move through a processor per cycle is not a meaningful measurement of capability or performance as far as getting work done is concerned. What is important is how many instructions each processor can complete in a clock cycle, and furthermore the amount of work those instructions complete.
     
  12. johnnybluejeans macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Location:
    New York, NY
    #12
    Furthermore, your "experiments" are already biased because all you want to do is try to come up with some computable number (which may or may not be completely meaningless) that shows a G4 sporting a bigger number than an Intel processor.

    And if you are going to compare processors, why choose the G4 vs. Core Duo? Why not a G5 vs. Core Duo? Oh I bet I know, because you have a G4 and you need to make yourself feel better. I understand.
     
  13. whocares macrumors 65816

    whocares

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2002
    Location:
    :noitаɔo˩
    #13
    And if I have this RISC/CISC thing right, shyataroo point is obvious:

    * RISC processors have a smaller instruction set (sic) and hence need more cycles to perform the same operation;
    * RISC processors "get through" more data on each cycle to make up for this apparent drawback

    So the bottom line is, you measure performance in FLOPS and not the amount of bits that pass through the processor each cycle. My understanding of processors is pretty sketchy, but I think my post makes sense.
     
  14. BakedBeans macrumors 68040

    BakedBeans

    Joined:
    May 6, 2004
    Location:
    What's Your Favorite Posish
    #14
    Firtsly, its all about system speed - and my system smokes any G4 system out there it also smokes any single G5 systems (and many dual G5 systems too)

    Whats the big deal?
     
  15. xPismo macrumors 6502a

    xPismo

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2005
    Location:
    California.
    #15
    :eek: Dang it. I just spit out my milk. :)
     
  16. edesignuk Moderator emeritus

    edesignuk

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2002
    Location:
    London, England
    #16
    What is the point of all this? There is not, and will not be G4's in Apple machines from here on, which makes this whole "argument" void :confused: :rolleyes:
     
  17. RichP macrumors 68000

    RichP

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2003
    Location:
    Motor City
    #17
    LOL!

    The PowerPC is dead to us now, get used to it. No comparison, no miracle, etc is going to change the decision made a year ago.

    All that matters to me in the end is that the new machine runs faster than the earlier ones.

    Just wait to see what the Powermac becomes (I have heard Apple wants to continue its entrance into corporate/educational sectors, so many cores may be the norm) and what new portable devices Intel can allow.
     
  18. TheMasin9 macrumors 6502a

    TheMasin9

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Huber Heights, OH
    #18
    core duos

    its all about the whole system. The g5 was slower than the g4 at lower clock speeds often in cases a 1.5 ghz g4 could beat out a 1.6 or 1.8 g5. But when the g5 got dualed and into the upper clock speeds it rocked the socks off of the g4. apple knows what its doing, i trust my steveness.
     
  19. Winstonp macrumors 6502a

    Winstonp

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Location:
    Boston
    #19

    What in the hell are you talking about?!?
     
  20. whocares macrumors 65816

    whocares

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2002
    Location:
    :noitаɔo˩
    #20

    Can you pls repeat that, I'm a bit deaf.
     
  21. Catfish_Man macrumors 68030

    Catfish_Man

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2001
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #21
    peak FLOPS, unfortunately, is also completely meaningless. Average FLOPS during a real task is more useful, but even that is difficult to compare due to the difference in how much work is done per "op". For example, a PowerPC maddfp instruction does a multiply and an add at the same time. Is that one FLOP or two? What if the multiply is by 1 (i.e. no effect)? An x86 instruction might load the value from memory and then add it. How many FLOPS is that. (answer: it's actually broken down into a load and an add internally, much like a RISC processor, so it would count as a FLOP and a memory op. Older x86 processors didn't do this, though, they executed it as one instruction)

    Even if they were comparable, it still only measures floating point performance (heck, a lot of FLOPS-fans for PPC are quoting peak Altivec FLOPS, so even more specialized).

    The conclusion you can get from this is that it's impossible to measure a processor's speed with a single number. Consider this:

    Compiling Adium on my 1GHz G4 takes 10-15 minutes.
    Compiling Adium on a CoreDuo iMac takes 2 minutes and 49 seconds.
    My 1GHz G4 can run RC5 at least as fast as the iMac.

    Which one is faster? They both are. The only useful benchmark is how well it works for what you do. If you can get the job done 20% quicker with one machine, use it. If the program you need doesn't run on one machine, don't use it.

    <edit>
    and yeah, the OP is ridiculous
    </edit>
     
  22. topicolo macrumors 68000

    topicolo

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2002
    Location:
    Ottawa, ON
    #22
    Seriously, how can anyone measure processor performance in terms of BANDWIDTH?!?!?! That means absolutely nothing because it doesn't show how many operations the processor is applying to the data its receiving. You can design a chip that just lets data pass through it without doing much and get insane throughput compared to a general usage processor like the core duo or G4. According to this logic, you can start comparing RAMDACs to CPUs based on throughput but that RAMDAC will be useless for anything other than converting digital video data to analog format for display on a monitor.
     
  23. iMeowbot macrumors G3

    iMeowbot

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2003
    #23
    Horses would be faster than jets, if only the horses could run faster.
     
  24. whocares macrumors 65816

    whocares

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2002
    Location:
    :noitаɔo˩
    #24

    Dunno, my G3 iBook is networked is connected to 2 Meg DSL but my [hypotheical friend's] intel iMac is only on dial-up. So I guess the G3 is faster than the Core Duo.


    :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
     
  25. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #25
    Wow. :D That was nice. I think the thread is offically over now.


    Lethal
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page