1 GHz G4 Processor = ?

[kirk26]

I have a 1GHz G4 PowerBook (133MHz FSB) and a 2.4GHz Pentium 4 (533MHz FSB) Dell desktop and they are very evenly matched, regarding Unreal Tournament 2004, Photoshop Elements and general useage.

EDIT: The numbers in the post quoted above don't look right to me. The G4 is much more efficient than the Pentium 4 (7 stage pipeline compared with 20) and is more efficient than even the G5. This means that a G4 should outperform a G5 slightly at the same clockspeed, and significantly outperform the Pentium 4 at the same clockspeed.

I would say that generally..

1 GHz G4 is roughly equal to a 1.3 GHz G5 and a 2.4 GHz Pentium 4.

In other words, don't worry about Macs looking underpowered.

LOL, yeah right. I love my PowerBook too(1.33Ghz), but it will never match the power of the PC laptop for a very very long time.

 

[jiggie2g]

So, all in all...from what I've gathered so far....

Processing speed wise overall, in technology, considering all aspects and basing on very-equal configurations.

1. G5
2. Opteron
3. Pentium 4

and a 1GHz G4 is equivalent to a about 2GHz processing speed of a AMD or an Intel.

Right?

This is why Drugs are bad , because they make people say ridiculous things like this.

no way in hell is a G5 going to match a Athlon 64/FX or Opteron , clock for clock. G5 is a great processor, wayyyyy better than P4 but it's like at least 100-200Mhz slower if equaly clocked compared to a Athlon 64/FX. Chip per Chip.

hence 2.0Ghz G5 = 1.8 Athlon 64(newcastle)

 

[verces]

And what's this? The dual G5@2GHz beats the dual Opteron@2GHz on Bryce and After Effects but loses on Photoshop. I wouldn't call that "owning".

Call me a drug addict, but what do you make of that website gekko quoted?

 

[blodwyn]

Performance is only part of the story for a lot of people. I moved to a Mac a few months ago, not because of performance, but because of stability and ease of use.

I bought a 12"PB G4 1.33GHz with 1.25Gb which I now use at work in place of a new Dell 2.8GHz with 1Gb. Subjectively, the Dell felt a little snappier launching programs, but pretty marginal. My experience has been that Windows systems slow down over a few months use, as disk fragmentation sets in and software installs and upgrades bloat the registry. Don't even get me started on spyware!

After a few months with the PB, it has not slowed up at all, and I use it in a completely different fashion to the Dell system. With the Dell I would open and close applications all the time, because I know that windows does not multi-task particularly well, and stability suffers when you have a lot going on.

With the PB I just open whatever I want and leave it open while I'm working on a particular task. The PB doesn't seem to care how much you've got going on, it just carries on working. I can go to lunch and come back, wake up the PB and it's good to go - I'd never do this with a windows system without making sure everything was saved first.

Also subjectively, the PB feels quicker than my P4/2Gz/512Mb system running Xandros Linux.

So for me the stability counts for a lot. I haven't had to sacrifice performance with the PB, but if I had to I'd rather give up a little performance for a stable system than have to constantly be upgrading and cleaning the crap out of a Windows system.

Of course gamers will probably value performance higher than I do, but this is usually down to the video card as much as the CPU. It's all about horses for courses.

 

[jiggie2g]

Call me a drug addict, but what do you make of that website gekko quoted?

I don't Trust Barefeats or any biased Pro mac sites. I'll go with Tomshardware or Anandtech and a few others. besides how old is that damn 2ghz opteron they are now 2 CPU core generations ahead of that now.

I will only acknowledge a test against the Opteron(Sledge Hammer) , Athlon 64/FX(newcastle) cores.

I mean c'mon AMD now has 90nm Athlon 64 chips at 1.8ghz(winchester) that Overclock up to 2.6ghz(equal perfomance to a 4.0ghz P4), i've even seen someone Overclock an FX-53 to 3.0Ghz(that would be like a 4.5Ghz P4) scores that are completely off that charts. nearly a score of 10,000 in 3Dmark2005 😱

thats not even counting that fact that this is only 1st gen 90nm chips fresh off the wafers. Wait till 2nd-3rd gen tweaks are done , plus they are already the 1st to Publically Demo thier Dual Core Processors(a month ago) while everyone else is selling vaporware. 2005 Apple is going to get Hammerd by AMD if they don't tell IBM to get thier act together or else thier 3yr investment of making the G5 a competitive chip will go down the tubes.

Unless IBM gets the ball rolling it it will simply equate to this:
IBM = Motorolla , G5 = G4 .....and not the other way around like is should be.

 

[Chaszmyr]

I'd say a 1ghz G4 is about equivalent to a 2ghz P4

 

[gekko513]

besides how old is that damn 2ghz opteron they are now 2 CPU core generations ahead of that now.

I will only acknowledge a test against the Opteron(Sledge Hammer) , Athlon 64/FX(newcastle) cores.

You obviously don't know what you're talking about, so I don't see any reason to put any weight on your other statements.

 

[JeDiBoYTJ]

www.pricewatch.com
you should be able to get all the prices you need off there.

If not, I'll gladly benchmark my ageing Athlon 1GHz based system against any G4 based computer. (Note this computer is approaching 3.5 years in age, but I think it will give the G4's a run for their money 😉)

I have a 1.5ghz G4 Powerbook, and I guaran-damn-tee that it is faster that that 1ghz Athlon POS... wanna know how I know... I also own a 1ghz Althon desktop that my dad currently uses. 🙂

It was just recently formated, and I installed XP Home on it, followed by Photoshop, specificly just for a test. Now I dont have hard numbers, because I just wanted to do a quick test, but basically I rendered a 10MB PSD Image with a few heavy filters, and while my Powerbook just chugs away, the PC is struggling. So basically, the powerbook finished about a whole minute faster than the 1ghz Althon. And just for kicks, both machines had 512RAM at the time (recently bumped the PB to 1gig).

*yawn*... anyway, im not saying that my machine is the BEST machine on the market, in fact it is far from it, especially when compared to the PC market, but it does what its told, and in a timely fashion too.

 

[jiggie2g]

You obviously don't know what you're talking about, so I don't see any reason to put any weight on your other statements.

your ignorant remark is based on what???


I said i wanted to see a benchmark against a current processor not a 2yr old Opteron , the new Opteron processors have Different core's(meaning faster and more efficient Calculations per cycle). the G5's core hasn't changed but the opterons have. the original 2ghz Opteron was based on the Hammer core and not the newer Sledgehammer core. so yes i do know what i am talking about. i don't care about last years beanchmarks i want to see current stuff.


Look at the newer beanch marks(barefeats) only in 1 test does the 2.5ghz G5 beat a much older and outdated Dual opteron 2.0ghz by a large margin , everything else the G5 just barly beats it. I hate to see how a dual 2.5ghz G5 would fair against a Dual 2.4Ghz Opteron.

 

[J.Allen]

1GHz G4 is equivalent to a about 2GHz processing speed of a AMD or an Intel.Right?

I have a 1GHz 200MHz FSB athlon system (512MB SDRAM) form 3.5 years ago (dam thing cost $440AUD just for the proc) and It walks over the uni's Brand new 1.25GHz emacs, with 1GB of DDR333.

OSX takes up a huge amout on RAM and proc power just to be on the screen. Win XP takes very little, hence the system can dedicate more resources to more important tasks.

 

[J.Allen]

I have a 1.5ghz G4 Powerbook, and I guaran-damn-tee that it is faster that that 1ghz Athlon ... wanna know how I know... I also own a 1ghz Althon desktop that my dad currently uses. 🙂

I never said it would "Beat" any G4 system. Just give it a run for it's money.

That's all. please don't twist my words.

 

[johnnyjibbs]

OSX takes up a huge amout on RAM and proc power just to be on the screen. Win XP takes very little, hence the system can dedicate more resources to more important tasks.

I agree that OS X does eat up RAM and stuff, but Windows XP is hardly light on resources. All the bloat tends to make it slow and unstable.

 

[gekko513]

your ignorant remark is based on what???

It is based on the fact that it's the other way around. The Opteron core has stayed unchanged since it was introduced in spring 2003. The Opteron 246 @ 2.0 GHz was added to the line in August 2003. The best Opteron available today is the Opteron 250 which is running at 2.4 GHz and it's still the same 130nm core.

The G5 has moved from the PowerPC970 on 130nm to the PowerPC970FX on 90nm within that timeframe. Although there are no significant changes to the core, at least it has had a revision which is more than the Opteron has had.

When you miss completely on these basics, there no need for me to consider your other claims which are also without any source or links.

 

[J.Allen]

I agree that OS X does eat up RAM and stuff, but Windows XP is hardly light on resources. All the bloat tends to make it slow and unstable.

I don't have stability issues with WinXP or 2000 (the same can't be said for ME, and 98) however I belive your point is valid. And it in many regards comes down to haw you maintain your system.
I keep mine clean, and reformat every 6 months or so. Any system (Apple/Win or Linux) left unchecked over time will slow down. OSX in my experience tends to consume more resources than other operating systems. (I think it has alot to do with the on screen animations😛.