G5s are similar to Pentium 4s in just this manner... The fact that both Intel and Apple at the time were only caring about clock speed and wanted to win that race.Given the G5 is a far more complex chip and had one monstrous frontside bus at the time, I feel like this demonstrates how apple made significant sacrifices for higher clock freqs and 64-bit computer marketing. Actually, did Apple pay as much attention to any other product line as they did with the PowerMac G5, before Intel macs came out?
Given this is a performance per watt comparison, there's also the fact the 7455 is a chip from 2002 on a 180nm process, while the 970mp is a 2005 chip on a 90nm process. Dynamic powermanagement not being fully relevant to this is also disabled on every dual G4 machine but always enabled on G5s (I mean nap, not DFS).
Okay, I'm done totally being partial to the G4.
Well.. it actually wasn't about clock speed for Apple....G5s are similar to Pentium 4s in just this manner... The fact that both Intel and Apple at the time were only caring about clock speed and wanted to win that race.
Personally I think G5s are way faster than P4s are, but in that respect they aren't that much faster than a G4 would be at the same speed. Not unlike a PIII being more efficient and possibly faster than a similar speed P4.
I think the Dual Core G5s did a way better job and had they continued development couldv'e become even greater. But by the time those came out Apple knew for a fact they would be the last PPC macs...
Not back then. By the time they were making G5s, and announcing the undelivered 3GHz PowerMac G5 it was. I did say the G5s are faster than the P4s they went up against.Well.. it actually wasn't about clock speed for Apple....
I'd say it depends. The OS in general definitely feels faster and more responsive on the G5 but for me it heavily depended on what I ran. I haven't used a P4 as much as a G5, though. And the P4 was more on the low-cost sideI did say the G5s are faster than the P4s they went up against.