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.
G4/1.6GHz Vs. Pentium 4/2.8GHz
- Thread starter Sawtooth811
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yeah, I know this already, but what I meant to say is how the G4 was constructed this way.
No, the G4 Dual 1.8GHz and Single 2.0GHz will kill the Intel in AltiVec Tasks. Some of the slowest and oldest G5's used to be better than any other processor in it's time, and it was barely faster than the fastest Sonnet
G4's.
I tend to agree with this based on experience (no factual data), as I still have friends (PC owners) tell me "nice computer" when they see my 4-YR old G5 in action, whether it be burning dvd's, cd's or just looking at the OS
So if you know all the answers, why did you ask this in the first place. I had a Sonnet, what everyone is saying here is that the G4 isn't faster than the P4 no matter how much you want it to be. Yes, the G5's were faster but thats because they had ridiculous enhancements over the G4. You can't possibly make me believe that Sonnet somehow made an incredibly superior processor than Motorola ever achieved.
P4 = 1
G4 = 0
No, I don't know all the answers, but I know that a 450MHz G4 can run Tiger faster than some 2.8GHz P4's can run XP from my experience of using them. It's just like an Apple IIe running faster than a "faster" IBM. And did you have a DUAL 1.8GHz G4? With that belief, I doubt it.
We can wrap this posting up now.
Just wanted to point out that, although speed comparisons will vary drastically depending on what, in particular, you're testing based on (for example the fastest computer to encode video may suck at something), and accurate benchmarks past really general things are impossible, it's not like it's hard to find numbers for these things, especially for older processors.
For example, BareFeats has a test from 2003 that includes cinebench results for a 1.6GHz G4 and a 3.0 P4.
If you do the math it works out to that G4 being about the speed of a theoretical P4 1.9GHz. Faster per-clock, but not that much, and significantly slower than a 2.8 P4.
Or, you can check out the distributed.net numbers; that's a fairly accurate benchmark for one VERY specific type of entirely CPU-bound number crunching (it's such that disk activity and graphics have no involvement);
A P4 2.8 scores a bit over 5M keys per second on RC5-72, and somewhere in the range of 13M keys/s in OGR; there aren't any 1.6 G4s in the database, but a 1.66 shows 17M keys/s in RC5-72 and about 38M keys/s in OGR. So for these VERY specialized types of calculations, the G4 obviously has a huge performance advantage, and actually the P4 has a huge performance disadvantage, both of which add up to a G4 at half the clock running rings around a P4.
If memory serves, the altivec unit was very effective at the RC5 calculations, which is most of the reason why it scored so well.
This doesn't mean that a G4 is three times as fast as a P4 at a way higher clock in most things, it just means that the G4 is/was really good at particular kinds of number crunching.
Anyway, the point I'm getting at is that the P4 is faster in a lot of, if not most, real-world tasks, but you can compare the two, and in some cases the G4's architecture has an advantage.
(Incidentally, a 1.66 Core 2 Duo, using both cores, is roughly twice as fast as a solo G4 at the same clock on RC5 and maybe 30% faster on OGR. Which also illustrates how poorly the P4 does with this particular type of calculation.)
For example, BareFeats has a test from 2003 that includes cinebench results for a 1.6GHz G4 and a 3.0 P4.
If you do the math it works out to that G4 being about the speed of a theoretical P4 1.9GHz. Faster per-clock, but not that much, and significantly slower than a 2.8 P4.
Or, you can check out the distributed.net numbers; that's a fairly accurate benchmark for one VERY specific type of entirely CPU-bound number crunching (it's such that disk activity and graphics have no involvement);
A P4 2.8 scores a bit over 5M keys per second on RC5-72, and somewhere in the range of 13M keys/s in OGR; there aren't any 1.6 G4s in the database, but a 1.66 shows 17M keys/s in RC5-72 and about 38M keys/s in OGR. So for these VERY specialized types of calculations, the G4 obviously has a huge performance advantage, and actually the P4 has a huge performance disadvantage, both of which add up to a G4 at half the clock running rings around a P4.
If memory serves, the altivec unit was very effective at the RC5 calculations, which is most of the reason why it scored so well.
This doesn't mean that a G4 is three times as fast as a P4 at a way higher clock in most things, it just means that the G4 is/was really good at particular kinds of number crunching.
Anyway, the point I'm getting at is that the P4 is faster in a lot of, if not most, real-world tasks, but you can compare the two, and in some cases the G4's architecture has an advantage.
(Incidentally, a 1.66 Core 2 Duo, using both cores, is roughly twice as fast as a solo G4 at the same clock on RC5 and maybe 30% faster on OGR. Which also illustrates how poorly the P4 does with this particular type of calculation.)
Ok, this wraps up the thread. The G4 is better at what it does from my experience.
From my experience with the OSX on x86, my Dell GX270 running Mac OS X Tiger is about 75% faster at most tasks than my Dual 1 GHz G4 Quicksilver.
Both have 1.5 GB of RAM, 80GB 7200RPM Maxtor HDDs.
The G4 has a 9000 Pro, the GX270 a FX5200 Ultra.
The GX270 is a 2.8 GHz Northwood Pentium4 HT.
I doubt the 1.6 GHz G4 is that much of an increase, due to the lack of losing that nice chunk of L3 cache.
Both have 1.5 GB of RAM, 80GB 7200RPM Maxtor HDDs.
The G4 has a 9000 Pro, the GX270 a FX5200 Ultra.
The GX270 is a 2.8 GHz Northwood Pentium4 HT.
I doubt the 1.6 GHz G4 is that much of an increase, due to the lack of losing that nice chunk of L3 cache.
1. You have a HyperThread Pentium 4 Processor, therefore it will destroy an old G4.
2. A decent G5 will be a fair comparison to an HT P4 2.8.
3. THe G4 would be better if it had L3 Cache.
4. The GX270 has PC3200 RAM, and the old G4 has PC2700.
5. Did you use CINEBENCH, XBench, GeekBench, or other rendering apps?
This is why it runs ABOUT 75% faster.
I do not know what you are smoking? First off, a g4 1.67 ghz is no more faster than a 1.7pentium 4. The g4 can be dual core all it wants and it still wont go beyond a 1.8ghz Pentium 4. Why do you think apple swtiched to a g5? The g5 was like a Pentium 4 it had large pipelines and it clocked higher. Okay, but this was bad for apple because they were still playing catch up. Intel relased intel extreme which was way faster and would run circles on any G5 and Amd at that time would crush any G5. Read the PC world mag, they denounced apple about their claims. All in all, Apple new it could not lie to their coustomers anymore so they swtiched to intel. And my friends this is why apple does not use PPC, dont beleive that more watt per preformance right they swtched because the current macbooska are abotu 10 times faster than any g4 notebook. There you have it!
You say don't believe that performance per watt thing yet you specifically sight an example to support performance per watt.if wattage wasn't an issue apple would have not switched to intel, sorry.
imagine a power6-based processor in a notebook
if wattage wasn't an issue apple would have not switched to intel, sorry.
imagine a power6-based processor in a notebook
It wasnt apples main reason the main reason was that a dual 2.7 ghz 5g did not compete against a single pentium 4 extreme edtion and was crushed by the core duo and I mean slaughted! And at the time AMD, haha, ran circles around both intel and probably did giant circles around PPC. Then, the intel machines were not only priced extremley cheaper. Apple said ohh, wow, our machines are priced really expensive and are really slow, so they decided to switch, but when they switched they noticed that the wattage was less so they came up with this thing of it would be less watts and all and more bull. Until they relased the new intel machines and touted 4-5 times faster and all of this stuff. The main reason all in all, is money! Come on didnt your economics class in highschool teach you this? I mean apple can now run windows natively and run games before that they couldnt they now have the opportunity to gain and they probably will take over the computer market in the next few decades.
I would say that the 2.8GHz Pentium 4 would be faster, but the 1.6GHz PowerPC G4 would still perform well for most tasks.
I would say that the 2.8GHz Pentium 4 would be faster, but the 1.6GHz PowerPC G4 would still perform well for most tasks.
"most tasks" that statement is really false. I understand you are a hardcore mac fan, so am I, but I am not going to lie. A 1.67 ghz G4 is so slow compared to todays standard. I mean the G4's really can not be compared to a pentium 4 in anyway. That is why apple made the G5. See look, the main reason also other than money apple went with intel is because intel is a multi billion dollar company so they are going to produce products frequently, and they are going to invest millions and I mean millions of dollars into these chips. IBM and motorola do not have millions like intel does. They merely invest thousdans of dollars into their PPC chips i mean it was only 700 mhz in l;ike waht 8 years? I mean come on it took them that long? This is why apple left PPC, G4's were really supposed to be compared to P3. Then when intel introduced P4 apple made up stuff and totued the MHZ myth which is ture to some extent! See the G4 was like the p3, lower pipelines but did not clock as much. A 1ghz P3 is not faster than a 3 ghz P4. It is the same with the G4. The g4 may be faster than the Pentium 4 at the same clock that I will admit but it is only 100mhz or 200mhz at the most. And ativelotic or w/e bullshi* apple calls it is not in realworld applicaitons. Since when are games ati-velotic optimized and photoshop. It is bullshi*, jsut like intel with their hyperthreading crap that only two games were every optimized. Okay getting back on topic, so Apple introduced the G5 which was liek the Pentium 4, and it clocked higher, had more pipleines and generated more heat. See PPC and intel are really alike. Okay but apple was still playing catchup, why? Because intel released the Intel extreme edtion which slaughted the G5 it was sometimes over 50 percent faster than the g5. Then intel released the pentium 4 3.8ghz Extreme which crushed and I mean crushed the G5 so badly that apple could not lie anymore. What was even worse was that AMD at the time crushed intel and when AMD crushed intel, it masacured the PPC. So there you have it history summed up, for those mac super fans. It is okay to be a fan, but to lie is another thing!
I would say that the 2.8GHz Pentium 4 would be faster, but the 1.6GHz PowerPC G4 would still perform well for most tasks.
Yeah, but like I stated, the P4 rapes the G4, even with the huge L3 cache and all.
Of course it does it is like comparing the p3 to a p4. Guys this thread is nonsense. I really can not believe I joined to argue with somone who thinks that a 10 year old cpu is better than intel once prime tech. Come on, whent he g4 was totued the mhz myth i can not beleive steve jobs was not laughing when he was presenting.
hahaha sometimes you mac fans get me. PC World "Apple Power Macs did well on Photoshop, but the 64-bit AMD-based systems won handily on most tests." http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,112749-page,8-c,athlon/article.html Now please stop with these funny comments. Ohh also, "The debate between PC and Macintosh partisans over which platform performs better reached an interesting impasse this week when longtime Apple Computer partner Adobe Systems published a document on its Web site that supports claims that the PC is indeed faster." Now can we stop because everytime i find stuff on the internet i really cant stop laughing.
Wow, didn't Apple claim they had the Fastest Computer in the World?
Everything Apple says appears to be bull-****.
I sound like an apple-fan-boy but I always ignored the speed of these computers. Even if a PC is faster, I'd rather use a Mac because of the OS behind it.
Apple realized that PowerPC couldn't keep up so they ditched it.
And my Core 2 Duo rapes the Pentium 4.
There is always something "bigger and better" coming out. While I enjoy a fast processor like the rest of you folks, it is all about the OS to me. So if I had to decide between a PowerPC G4 based computer running Mac OS X and a Pentium 4 based computer running Windows- the G4 would win in a heartbeat.
And my Core 2 Duo rapes the Pentium 4.
There is always something "bigger and better" coming out. While I enjoy a fast processor like the rest of you folks, it is all about the OS to me. So if I had to decide between a PowerPC G4 based computer running Mac OS X and a Pentium 4 based computer running Windows- the G4 would win in a heartbeat.
well yes I would agee if it were on a laptop if I had to chose between a p4 laptop or a g4 notebook I would rather have the g4 even though it is really slow. But for the desktop I would have the extra heat. . But please dont think I am a troll or anti mac for speakijng my mind. I do that I lot! Im a lawyer!