solvs said:
Or here www.systemshootouts.org
By the way does anyboy else think it's amazing that there is a 1200mhz Performance difference between the Athlon 64(939) vs. the P4 at the same clock speed.
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
Or here www.systemshootouts.org
By the way does anyboy else think it's amazing that there is a 1200mhz Performance difference between the Athlon 64(939) vs. the P4 at the same clock speed.
The formulas I use have never failed me once:
G4 vs. G5:
There are two formulas, one for lower speeds, and one for higher speeds.
Lower clock speeds = 1.0GHz and less
Higher clock speeds = 3.0GHz and more
Between = Your best guess in the middle of the two...
At lower clock speeds, a G4 will beat a G5 by roughly 25%. This is because a G4 is more efficient than a G5 when it comes to actual processor cycles. Also, lower clock speeds tend to negate the G5s superior memory bandwidth.
Lo Clock G4 -> G5 Conversion: 1.0GHz G4 = 1.25GHz G5 (In Theory)
Higher clock speeds favor the G5 by 50%. At this point, data is usually forced to move in and out of memory faster because of the higher clock. Since the G4s memory bus is so much slower, it will start yielding diminishing returns at higher clock speeds. In other words, a 3GHz G4 will usually be much slower than a 3GHz G5 due to memory bandwidth!
Hi Clock G4 -> G5 Conversion: 3.0GHz G4 = 2.0GHz G5 (In Theory)
If you want some proof of this, try overclocking (experts only!) a G4 some time and comparing the speed to a comparably clocked iMac G5. Then you'll see why the G4 wasn't designed for higher clock speeds.
G4 vs. P4:
As jiggie2g and others have already mentioned, yes, a G4 at the same clock speed as a P4 is roughly 50% faster. This has been observed on lots of hardware from my PC using friends, so this formula is the most reliable.
G4 -> P4 Conversion: 1GHz G4 = 1.5GHz P4
So why does the P4 handily beat the G4? Brute force of a higher clock. The G4 is struggling to hit 2.0GHz, while the P4EE is 3.8GHz. But don't feel too bad, G4 users. The P4EE is very expensive, and is seems to be overclocked as it is. Why else would you need overclock quality components to use them?
G5 vs. P4:
For some reason, the G5 doesn't seem to be that much faster than the P4 in terms of raw clock speed. The G5 is fast, but its not THAT fast. It just feels like a 33% speed advantage to the G5.
G5 -> P4 Conversions:
2.0GHz G5 = 2.66GHz P4
2.5GHz G5 = 3.33GHz P4
2.7GHz G5 = 3.6GHz P4
Of course, a Power Mac G5 will naturally be faster in most tasks simply because it uses two processors. Multiprocessing is its main advantage. In other words, don't expect a G5 to beat a PC in games (mostly single-threaded). It won't.
AMD Processors:
The clever marketing gurus at AMD are actually pretty accurate about making their processor ratings, but only if you knock off 5% of their number. Yes, AMD is very clever to knock Intel's marketing back in their face.
4000+ AMD = 3.8GHz P4
3200+ AMD = 3.04GHZ P4
I don't even bother looking at the GHz of an AMD processor, because I consider it a waste of time. Using the P4 speed name -5% is easier and more accurate to me. Also note that the AMD costs much less than the equivalent P4.
G4 vs. G5:
There are two formulas, one for lower speeds, and one for higher speeds.
Lower clock speeds = 1.0GHz and less
Higher clock speeds = 3.0GHz and more
Between = Your best guess in the middle of the two...
At lower clock speeds, a G4 will beat a G5 by roughly 25%. This is because a G4 is more efficient than a G5 when it comes to actual processor cycles. Also, lower clock speeds tend to negate the G5s superior memory bandwidth.
Lo Clock G4 -> G5 Conversion: 1.0GHz G4 = 1.25GHz G5 (In Theory)
Higher clock speeds favor the G5 by 50%. At this point, data is usually forced to move in and out of memory faster because of the higher clock. Since the G4s memory bus is so much slower, it will start yielding diminishing returns at higher clock speeds. In other words, a 3GHz G4 will usually be much slower than a 3GHz G5 due to memory bandwidth!
Hi Clock G4 -> G5 Conversion: 3.0GHz G4 = 2.0GHz G5 (In Theory)
If you want some proof of this, try overclocking (experts only!) a G4 some time and comparing the speed to a comparably clocked iMac G5. Then you'll see why the G4 wasn't designed for higher clock speeds.
G4 vs. P4:
As jiggie2g and others have already mentioned, yes, a G4 at the same clock speed as a P4 is roughly 50% faster. This has been observed on lots of hardware from my PC using friends, so this formula is the most reliable.
G4 -> P4 Conversion: 1GHz G4 = 1.5GHz P4
So why does the P4 handily beat the G4? Brute force of a higher clock. The G4 is struggling to hit 2.0GHz, while the P4EE is 3.8GHz. But don't feel too bad, G4 users. The P4EE is very expensive, and is seems to be overclocked as it is. Why else would you need overclock quality components to use them?
G5 vs. P4:
For some reason, the G5 doesn't seem to be that much faster than the P4 in terms of raw clock speed. The G5 is fast, but its not THAT fast. It just feels like a 33% speed advantage to the G5.
G5 -> P4 Conversions:
2.0GHz G5 = 2.66GHz P4
2.5GHz G5 = 3.33GHz P4
2.7GHz G5 = 3.6GHz P4
Of course, a Power Mac G5 will naturally be faster in most tasks simply because it uses two processors. Multiprocessing is its main advantage. In other words, don't expect a G5 to beat a PC in games (mostly single-threaded). It won't.
AMD Processors:
The clever marketing gurus at AMD are actually pretty accurate about making their processor ratings, but only if you knock off 5% of their number. Yes, AMD is very clever to knock Intel's marketing back in their face.
4000+ AMD = 3.8GHz P4
3200+ AMD = 3.04GHZ P4
I don't even bother looking at the GHz of an AMD processor, because I consider it a waste of time. Using the P4 speed name -5% is easier and more accurate to me. Also note that the AMD costs much less than the equivalent P4.
I have to agree , Single G5's are not efficient CPU's and would benifit huge form a Dual core conversion. as yoy see it works every well in Dual CPU Config , but is not very affordable to most people in this setup.
I think once Apple gets a single DC PM G5 out they will sell like crazy provided apple doesn't start price gouging.
G5 is great for apple but is not the Atlhlon 64's Equal clock 4 clock.
I think once Apple gets a single DC PM G5 out they will sell like crazy provided apple doesn't start price gouging.
G5 is great for apple but is not the Atlhlon 64's Equal clock 4 clock.
Mav451 said:
it was with the g4 Vs the p4 not the g4e which has a 7 stage pipeline compared with the 4 stage pipeline, it's slightly made up by the on die cache and L3. but it still is less efficient clock for clock, which is why a dual 533MHz g4 beats a dual 733MHz G4e in a few things. (see www.xlr8yourmac.com there is an article somewhere about it).
with the g4 a 500MHz g4 was about the same as a 1GHz p3 or a 1.3GHz p4 or a 633MHz G4e.
however the g4's bus has not scaled well at all a 1.5GHz G4e is not twice as fast as a 750MHz G4e thus reducing the amount the g4 is faster clock for clock, it's still way faster than the p4 clock for clock but no where near as much as it was.
now the G5 has a 20 stage pipeline but is massively more efficient in other ways, http://www.barefeats.com/g4up.html here is a 2GHz G4 Vs 2GHz G5 benchmark but it's more complicated than that, with a 2MB L3 cache the g4 dose much much better as it makes to slow ass bus less of an issue.
wrldwzrd89 said:I thought you meant that Windows has more programs than the Mac in ALL areas (knocking out part of my point), so I came back with the argument that Mac cuts out all the garbage
Oh...well I meant that Mac has a lot and good FREE games
Until recently I was running a dual PIII-800, a dual G4-800, a PIII-1ghz laptop, and a P4 2.26. There was no noticable difference for the things I did (3D modeling and rendering) between the two dual 800s. The PIII-1ghz was a little snappier for modeling, but slower to render. The P4 was snappier still and smoked everything at render time. However if you were doing email, web, itunes, word processing, you couldn't tell what you were working on.
Now we've added an ibook G4 to the mix, a Pentium M 1.6 and a dual Xeon 3ghz. The ibook is fine for modeling, but renders real slow, the Pentium M is snappy for both, beating the old P4 by quite a bit in the render dept, the dual Xeon destroys everything at render time.
Nearly anything built in the last 5 years with enough memory is fast enough to run a modern OS and do web, mail, listen to music, etc. just fine. We still have an 8 year old dual PII-266 with 128meg of RAM running win2k here being used for the basics. That is why you can say that a slow G4 FEELS like a faster P4, but when it comes to really crunch the numbers, MHZ does matter, don't let the RDF fool you.
There is no simple conversion, each platform has its strengths. The key is figure out the applications you want to run, if they are only for one platform, then your choice is easy. If they are available on both, find someone to run some benchmarks for you, figure out the total costs of each platform and do the math according to your needs (i.e. are you looking for best performance, best bang for the buck, etc).
Just a quick note here, contrary to what many of the folks here will tell you, an XP installation is not an expensive time drain to keep safe and secure. Get a virus scanner installed, run the built in firewall, keep up with your service packs and patches (they can be set to install automatically), don't execute email attachments, don't run IE as a browser, and you'll be just fine. You can get free virus scanners (AVG) for non-commercial use and Norton can be had for dirt cheap if you watch the sales and rebates. I paid $5 each machine for virus scanning this year. Last year I made money on virus scanning because of the rebates.
Now we've added an ibook G4 to the mix, a Pentium M 1.6 and a dual Xeon 3ghz. The ibook is fine for modeling, but renders real slow, the Pentium M is snappy for both, beating the old P4 by quite a bit in the render dept, the dual Xeon destroys everything at render time.
Nearly anything built in the last 5 years with enough memory is fast enough to run a modern OS and do web, mail, listen to music, etc. just fine. We still have an 8 year old dual PII-266 with 128meg of RAM running win2k here being used for the basics. That is why you can say that a slow G4 FEELS like a faster P4, but when it comes to really crunch the numbers, MHZ does matter, don't let the RDF fool you.
There is no simple conversion, each platform has its strengths. The key is figure out the applications you want to run, if they are only for one platform, then your choice is easy. If they are available on both, find someone to run some benchmarks for you, figure out the total costs of each platform and do the math according to your needs (i.e. are you looking for best performance, best bang for the buck, etc).
Just a quick note here, contrary to what many of the folks here will tell you, an XP installation is not an expensive time drain to keep safe and secure. Get a virus scanner installed, run the built in firewall, keep up with your service packs and patches (they can be set to install automatically), don't execute email attachments, don't run IE as a browser, and you'll be just fine. You can get free virus scanners (AVG) for non-commercial use and Norton can be had for dirt cheap if you watch the sales and rebates. I paid $5 each machine for virus scanning this year. Last year I made money on virus scanning because of the rebates.
Platform said:But I was thinking about Apple's products
" Powered by a Freescale (formerly Motorola) 1.6GHz 7447A Processors"
But it is good to see that it is comming up to speed
Yeah, I figured you were. I just thought you might be interested.
rmanger said:
the p4 EE is at 3.73GHz and the g5 is nearly exactly the same clock for clock as the K8, AMD's performance rating do tend to hold with the non EE p4's and the EE p4's are a fair bit faster with there 2MB L3 cache, a 2GHz G5 is about the same as a 2GHz (3200+) socket 939 K8, this is shown in various barefeats benchmarks, the k8 wins in some areas and the g5 wins in others.
now G5-p4
2GHz G5 = 3.2GHz p4
2.3GHz G5 = 3.6GHz p4
2.5GHz G5 = 3.9GHz p4
2.7GHz G5 = 4.2GHz p4
i know these p4's dont exist it's just a p4 over/underclocked would be about the same, if you want to compare duals you just multiply by .9 as the xeon has a huge cache which helps allot.
Aish, the one problem I have with the OCed G4 is that the bus speed is still low as hell.
Such high clock speeds, and the memory bus remains unOCed. What the hell is the point then? Like the Athlon XP, multiplier OCing is ok, but when you are held back by craptastic memory bandwidth, it doesn't matter.
Remember when AMD finally got to 2Ghz? That was using 166Mhz x 2 = 333Mhz effective FSB. If AMD had done 2Ghz @ 100Mhz...those chips would have been downright worthless.
I would be a heckuva lot more interested in seeing a G4 when it is either at, the VERY least, 266Mhz or 333Mhz FSB. I don't care how exotic the cooling is on the northbridge/CPU. The fact is that all those benches don't matter until we finally see what a G4 can do with its legs stretched.
Right now, 2Ghz @ 100Mhz is like riding in coach class on an airplane.
Somone once told me a rule of thumb. When you divide clock speed by effective FSB, that number should never be higher than 9 or 10. Never. You can see with the last XP 3200+ (2.2Ghz / 400 = 5.5) that it followed that rule still. A64's? If you consider the effective FSB to be 1Ghz, the FX-55 (2.6Ghz) is doing just fine. P4's? Even at 3.8Ghz/800 = 4.75, they still follow that rule.
The 2.0 G4? Nope. Its not only much greater than 9 or 10, its double. Now a 266Mhz bus? That would reduce it to a factor of 7.52X from 20X. 333Mhz bus? Even better 6.006X.
Such high clock speeds, and the memory bus remains unOCed. What the hell is the point then? Like the Athlon XP, multiplier OCing is ok, but when you are held back by craptastic memory bandwidth, it doesn't matter.
Remember when AMD finally got to 2Ghz? That was using 166Mhz x 2 = 333Mhz effective FSB. If AMD had done 2Ghz @ 100Mhz...those chips would have been downright worthless.
I would be a heckuva lot more interested in seeing a G4 when it is either at, the VERY least, 266Mhz or 333Mhz FSB. I don't care how exotic the cooling is on the northbridge/CPU. The fact is that all those benches don't matter until we finally see what a G4 can do with its legs stretched.
Right now, 2Ghz @ 100Mhz is like riding in coach class on an airplane.
Somone once told me a rule of thumb. When you divide clock speed by effective FSB, that number should never be higher than 9 or 10. Never. You can see with the last XP 3200+ (2.2Ghz / 400 = 5.5) that it followed that rule still. A64's? If you consider the effective FSB to be 1Ghz, the FX-55 (2.6Ghz) is doing just fine. P4's? Even at 3.8Ghz/800 = 4.75, they still follow that rule.
The 2.0 G4? Nope. Its not only much greater than 9 or 10, its double. Now a 266Mhz bus? That would reduce it to a factor of 7.52X from 20X. 333Mhz bus? Even better 6.006X.
no i ment single to single, got some kind of benchmarks to prove it then go on http://www.barefeats.com/pentium4.html http://www.barefeats.com/macvpc.html
some cpu's have an advantage in some area's (xeons's in cinebench for expample), but it's hard to find software that is equally optimized for both platforms, you just have to do a few different tests and compare by what margin each platform wins by.
just like a 3GHz P4 Vs a 3000+ one cpu wins a bunch of tests when the other wins a different bunch of tests but in the end no one sits and applies photoshop filters all day, rendering is probably the most important test.
the fact of the matter is that there are not many benchmarks compareing these cpu's and if we look at singular tests they will be biased to the cpu that is most efficient at that task, like if toms hardware did a review of the X2 compared to the pentium extreme edition and focuses on cinebench.
i have had this arguement far too many times and as someone who has owned pc's and macs over the years i find myself useing my 600MHz ibook most of the time.
if you want to find someone with a 3GHz P4 and an imac G5 with equal specs bar the cpu feel free but it's harder than it sounds.
also those comparisons i gave were to the normal P4 not the EE just the vanilla prescott
some cpu's have an advantage in some area's (xeons's in cinebench for expample), but it's hard to find software that is equally optimized for both platforms, you just have to do a few different tests and compare by what margin each platform wins by.
just like a 3GHz P4 Vs a 3000+ one cpu wins a bunch of tests when the other wins a different bunch of tests but in the end no one sits and applies photoshop filters all day, rendering is probably the most important test.
the fact of the matter is that there are not many benchmarks compareing these cpu's and if we look at singular tests they will be biased to the cpu that is most efficient at that task, like if toms hardware did a review of the X2 compared to the pentium extreme edition and focuses on cinebench.
i have had this arguement far too many times and as someone who has owned pc's and macs over the years i find myself useing my 600MHz ibook most of the time.
if you want to find someone with a 3GHz P4 and an imac G5 with equal specs bar the cpu feel free but it's harder than it sounds.
also those comparisons i gave were to the normal P4 not the EE just the vanilla prescott
rmanger said:If you meant this...
now (Dual) G5-(Single) p4
(Dual) 2GHz G5 = (Single) 3.2GHz p4
(Dual) 2.3GHz G5 = (Single) 3.6GHz p4
(Dual) 2.5GHz G5 = (Single) 3.9GHz p4
(Dual) 2.7GHz G5 = (Single) 4.2GHz p4
then I'd believe the numbers.
Why....I know that the 2.0Ghz G5 "NOT DUAL" is a lot faster than a 2.8Ghz P4 at least so why not a 3.2
Sorry, I should've been more specific.
I meant to compare the G5 to P4EE and the G4 to the vanilla P4.
Yes, the G5-vanilla P4 numbers would match up, but not to the P4EE. The P4EE just isn't that slow! But the vanilla P4 is...
As for Barefeat's testing methods, are the single processor tests turning off a processor, or is it just doing single-threaded apps?
Besides, I use conservative estimates to make up for the different software optimizations on the PC compared to the Mac. In ideal situations, the Mac can crush the PC, but the same holds true for the other side as well. Why would different benchmarks give different results? And how does Apple come up with their numbers?!!
I meant to compare the G5 to P4EE and the G4 to the vanilla P4.
Yes, the G5-vanilla P4 numbers would match up, but not to the P4EE. The P4EE just isn't that slow! But the vanilla P4 is...
As for Barefeat's testing methods, are the single processor tests turning off a processor, or is it just doing single-threaded apps?
Besides, I use conservative estimates to make up for the different software optimizations on the PC compared to the Mac. In ideal situations, the Mac can crush the PC, but the same holds true for the other side as well. Why would different benchmarks give different results? And how does Apple come up with their numbers?!!
i was told you add seven.....if you go to
pc shootout.com it adds 7mhz to mac, like 1.5 G4 is a 2.2 P4!! Ive heard from hardcore techies that is pretty accurate.
So a 2.7mhz G5 would be a 3.4 P4
pc shootout.com it adds 7mhz to mac, like 1.5 G4 is a 2.2 P4!! Ive heard from hardcore techies that is pretty accurate.
So a 2.7mhz G5 would be a 3.4 P4
Abstract said:
I think that value may be stretching it a bit. I think an 867MHz G4 will be more like a 1300-1500MHz P4. Of course, it varies with the type of program running and whether or not it has been optimized for the chip on which it is running.
An 867 G4 will, however, be as fast or faster than a 2.4GHz Celeron. My 1GHz G4 w/512mb RAM is always faster than the 2.4 and 2.6GHz Celerons (at 768mb RAM) that I've personally used.
thats extremely inaccurate, even most hardcore techies dont know jack about most things they tend to be hardcore in there area, these comparisons should be in %, even then they are still inaccurate due to weather the bus and ram scales with clockspeed and weather tests are gfx card or cpu bootlenecked.
for the G5 Vs P4 EE i'll do a little research and edit the findings to this post
for the G5 Vs P4 EE i'll do a little research and edit the findings to this post
Hector said:
Don't waste your time with that. I don't know a single person that would dare to waste their money on that overpriced chip...be it here, any techies I know, hell most of the PCPer and [H] community. Most know that paying about 70% gets them a much better FX chip.
no **** sherlock, this is for comparisons sake, there still are people out there that refuse to work on a computer unless it has "an intel inside"
AMD owns intel thats pretty established, and compareing the G5 to AMD cpus is dead easy, they are about the same on average clock for clock.
strangely enough most of my techie friends currently have 2.8GHz northwood p4's at the moment because a friend of mine got a crate of them for what came out as £50 each.
i also have not seen personally one good OC attempt on a K8, best i have seen is a winnie 3000+ at
AMD owns intel thats pretty established, and compareing the G5 to AMD cpus is dead easy, they are about the same on average clock for clock.
strangely enough most of my techie friends currently have 2.8GHz northwood p4's at the moment because a friend of mine got a crate of them for what came out as £50 each.
i also have not seen personally one good OC attempt on a K8, best i have seen is a winnie 3000+ at