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.
Mac vs. Window's mhz
- Thread starter dylomel
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
dylomel said:
It toaly depends on what you areusing them for. Different processors are faster at different things. Generally speaking, a PPC processor should vbe more efficient that an x86 processor, and so will perform faster than an x86 at the same speed. But perhaps the biggest difference is a mac doesn't have windows bogging it down. My computer at work is 10 times faster in terms of mhz than my old iMac, but I get more done on my iMac because windows isn't in the way. But I'm not using it to do any heavy lifting.
A PB 867MHz G4 will probably feel like a 2.4 - 2.6 GHz P4. However, when it comes to the hardcore intensive stuff, the P4 will be faster at the processing. But again, in terms of "feel", it'll feel like the P4 I mentioned.
It may also feel a bit slower than the first Centrino chip released. Forgot what it was (a 1.3GHz?).
It may also feel a bit slower than the first Centrino chip released. Forgot what it was (a 1.3GHz?).
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's kind of like multiplying the speed x2 for the mac. So a 1.5 would be a 3.0 P4...
Can't find the article, but PPC chips are Risc while x86 are Cisc. The increased performance is on the way that the chips handle their instruction set. Risc is roughly 2.5 times more effiecent. But the mzh is used by microsoft and x86 chip makers as a propaganda tool to confuse. Don't read into it too much. PPC chips are better than x86.
I have a windows 3.0 GHz P4 HT Dell and a 400MHz G3 that I am going to upgrade to a 128MB Graphics card, a 700MHz G4 and an 80GB Hard Drive. Other than games I will use this computer for almost everything. Even without any upgrades the computer still runs Panther really well. I am truely amazed at how well Macs utilize their power. Score a big one for Apple on this one.
tech4all said:In that case, the 2.7Ghz G5 would be equivalent to a 5.4Ghz PC.....?
I think it's just a bit lower than 2x though. But not sure....
Nah, 2x was with G4's vs. P4s. I'm not the expert here (some others could help me here), but I believe the G5 is much less efficient compared to the G4 (instructions per clock).
the sad but true thing is
ppcs areent that much faster per clock than x86 chips
its about a 1 : 1.55 ish ratio
not 2 ..
the g4 and the g5 arent much different .. and when the g4 reaches higher speeds .. the g5 is much more powerful
2 ghz g4 vs 2 ghz g5 .. the g5 wins
1.6 ghz g5 vs 1.67 ghz g4 .. the g4 wins
now ..
a dual 2.7 would be like a 4.2 ghz pentium 4 (around where AMDs top computers are at right now)
an 867 mhz chip is like 1.35 ghz pentium 4 .. but if it had l3 cache like the 867 mhz quicksilvers did .. then it would be around 1.5 ghz penitum 4
but in the end it all depends on what programs are being tested ..
hjh*
ppcs areent that much faster per clock than x86 chips
its about a 1 : 1.55 ish ratio
not 2 ..
the g4 and the g5 arent much different .. and when the g4 reaches higher speeds .. the g5 is much more powerful
2 ghz g4 vs 2 ghz g5 .. the g5 wins
1.6 ghz g5 vs 1.67 ghz g4 .. the g4 wins
now ..
a dual 2.7 would be like a 4.2 ghz pentium 4 (around where AMDs top computers are at right now)
an 867 mhz chip is like 1.35 ghz pentium 4 .. but if it had l3 cache like the 867 mhz quicksilvers did .. then it would be around 1.5 ghz penitum 4
but in the end it all depends on what programs are being tested ..
hjh*
The MHz myth video is required here I think...
Here is a link for the MHz myth as told by Apple a few years ago.
Click the link and save it to disk if you don't want it to stream instantly.
Mhz Myth Vid
Hope this sorts your friend out regarding Apples, PC's and Hertz.
aussie_geek
Here is a link for the MHz myth as told by Apple a few years ago.
Click the link and save it to disk if you don't want it to stream instantly.
Mhz Myth Vid
Hope this sorts your friend out regarding Apples, PC's and Hertz.
aussie_geek
I don't know, even if the actual multiplier is something like 1.55, as mentioned previously, it always felt like a G4 was equivalent to Intel hardware up to a P4 with at least twice the clock, at least when running Windows on said hardware.
The thing with Windows, in my experience, is that the UI feels fast but then bogs down when processing during application use, etc. Mac OS X, on the other hand, feels a tiny bit slower on some UI things, but stays at roughly the same speed even when doing things in the background (except when beach-balling).
What I am wondering, is how this has changed when comparing to Centrinos, newer AMD chips, etc. Anyone care to comment?
The thing with Windows, in my experience, is that the UI feels fast but then bogs down when processing during application use, etc. Mac OS X, on the other hand, feels a tiny bit slower on some UI things, but stays at roughly the same speed even when doing things in the background (except when beach-balling).
What I am wondering, is how this has changed when comparing to Centrinos, newer AMD chips, etc. Anyone care to comment?
After G said:
A few months ago one of my colleagues brought their new Sony VAIO in for show and tell. I know it had a Centrino chip - there was an Intel sticker on the palmrest
. Application launch times were pretty much the same as my PowerBook when it opens an app for the first time after reboot. One thing about Apple's have is an application cache. I don't think PC's have this feature. When I opened Safari the second time it beat the VAIO hands down in opening IE.
Another workmate has a 3.2Ghz Toshiba that is really bogged down with tonnes of apps and probably heaps of spy / mal ware. Considering what has been said in the other posts it should have eaten my PowerBook. The PowerBook beat it hands down.
Mac's are meant to multitask and people are doing this more often these days. It is not uncommon for someone to be doing more than 2-3 things at a time. You should consider this when comparing the two systems.
aussie_geek
QUOTE:
e thing with Windows, in my experience, is that the UI feels fast but then bogs down when processing during application use, etc. Mac OS X, on the other hand, feels a tiny bit slower on some UI things, but stays at roughly the same speed even when doing things in the background (except when beach-balling).
Absolutly right.
It took me a few weeks to get used to this change in particular, and it can be disconcerting having a slower user interface, but all the processing in the background seems much more powerful.
On a windows PC if you ask it to do 5 things at once, you'll have hangs, slowdowns, moans and groans. If you do the same thing on my emac (Low spec comparitivly speaking) it happily churns away at these tasks.
I love the Mac OS. It is at the moment how a computing experience should be. It makes you blissfully unaware of the processing, and lets you actually be productive.
e thing with Windows, in my experience, is that the UI feels fast but then bogs down when processing during application use, etc. Mac OS X, on the other hand, feels a tiny bit slower on some UI things, but stays at roughly the same speed even when doing things in the background (except when beach-balling).
Absolutly right.
It took me a few weeks to get used to this change in particular, and it can be disconcerting having a slower user interface, but all the processing in the background seems much more powerful.
On a windows PC if you ask it to do 5 things at once, you'll have hangs, slowdowns, moans and groans. If you do the same thing on my emac (Low spec comparitivly speaking) it happily churns away at these tasks.
I love the Mac OS. It is at the moment how a computing experience should be. It makes you blissfully unaware of the processing, and lets you actually be productive.
dylomel said:
If your friend is really into games (ie likes playing the latest/greatest with high FPS) then tell him to stick with PCs. Only a few games are ported over to Mac, and they don't tend to be optimised for the Mac so the FPS aren't great.
Macs are great and, on current offerings, I'm unlikely to buy a PC for the house again but the one class of computer user that they're still not great for is the hardcore gamer.
You're right when it comes to commercial games. However, for shareware games, the situation is the exact opposite. The Mac shareware game community has always been quite lively; if you search well enough, you're bound to find something you like. Many of these shareware games are Mac-only, too.Applespider said:
As everyone says, it depends on what you're doing as to which processor is more efficient. As an example of the PPC being better than a P4, my 800MHz G4 iBook rips music from CDs at about the same speed as my 1.7GHz P4 desktop. That's using iTunes, which is obviously much better on a Mac, it chugs on PCs.
Just thought you might like a piece of solid evidence.
Just thought you might like a piece of solid evidence.
it speeds also depend on how the software you are using has been written. almost all games will run faster on a pc. my dell machine with a 2.4 ghz porcessor 128mb 5200 graphic card and 768 ram performs much better at UT2004 than my powerbook does (1.5ghz 64mb 9700 512 ram).
but on my powerbook moive encoding and multitasking is faster than my pc. but comparing disk instesive tasking with my laptop mac and my desktop pc is not a very fair test, but i do find my powerbooks disk performance far better when it is reading files off my external firewire drive.
but on my powerbook moive encoding and multitasking is faster than my pc. but comparing disk instesive tasking with my laptop mac and my desktop pc is not a very fair test, but i do find my powerbooks disk performance far better when it is reading files off my external firewire drive.
Fair enough. However, the Mac doesn't have so much of the lousy shareware programs and has plenty of good ones.Platform said:Yes that is so good...many more than for XP
hjhhjh said:
Yes, but notice how you need DUAL 2.7GHz chips for a 1.55 factor for this difference in the speed of the system (using your factor of 1.55).
The G5 is not as efficient as the P4 or Centrino. A single 2.7GHz PPC 970 chip would probably not be as fast as a single AMD chip rated at 2.7GHz.