My stupid friend

mac15

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Dec 29, 2001
3,099
0
I was just talking to a mate on the phone
and he just recently bought a P4 1.7ghz with 256mb ram and a 17 inch CRT
and he was saying how his computer would blow mine away cause it had a P4 in it and then I just looked over at my computer.
Laughed and said "what the F*ck, your computer is piece of **** compared to my new imac"
and then he started going on the usual MHZ crap
cause his has more its better and I laughed again
and told him his computer is sh*t

Thats why people don't go for macs cause everything sounds slower on paper. Apple should do some adds with the G4 in it. Like pentium did with their P4 and show how much the G4 kills it.

come on apple
 

Taft

macrumors 65816
Jan 31, 2002
1,319
0
Chicago
The only problem is that the G4 doesn't really blow the P4 away. In fact there isn't really a speed comparable G4 for the top level P4s. The G4 does do better than the MHz rating indicates, but it has problems too.

What we really need is for Motorola to get off their hineys and produce a really kick-butt processor.

Or IBM. I'd take IBM processors in Macs too.

Matthew
 
Comment

Catfish_Man

macrumors 68030
Sep 13, 2001
2,579
1
Portland, OR
At anything...

...Altivec heavy, the G4 wins. At anything else a top of the line P4 wins. Against a 1.7GHz P4, figure about an even match for non-Altivec tasks (a 1.7GHz P4 is somewhere around the speed of a 1.2GHz P3, but optimization, and the type of task have a lot of effect on that).
 
Comment

Rower_CPU

Moderator emeritus
Oct 5, 2001
11,219
0
San Diego, CA
Well...I'm not sure if y'all remember the G4 ads lambasting the P3...

Maybe a G5 will warrant some similar comercials...
 
Comment

chibianh

macrumors 6502a
Nov 6, 2001
783
1
Colorado
I had friends who all were Mac haters for one reason or another. Everytime I mentioned something about Apple or Macs, the first things out of their mouths would be "Macs suck!" "Why would you want a Mac?" etc...

That was then... even though I haven't converted any of them, they have respect now. Maybe it's because I would kick their arses at QuakeIII... or maybe because they've spent some time on it. They compliment it and was actually surprised when I told them it was "just 667 mhz." Either way, they aren't so close-minded on the subject of computer platforms anymore.

So, yeah, my point is, have your friend over and play with your iMac... he might rather enjoy it.


Anh
 
Comment

rainman::|:|

macrumors 603
Feb 2, 2002
5,438
2
iowa
Originally posted by krossfyter
my sentiments exactly beej. by the way ..hahahaheh...i dig your avatar.
Yah beej your avatar is cute, i only have to ask, what is it smoking??

;)
pnw
 
Comment

Taft

macrumors 65816
Jan 31, 2002
1,319
0
Chicago
Originally posted by Beej
[Here we go again...]

It depends what you're doing... A G4 will kick a P4s butt at some things, and vicky v.
From all of the benches, articles and studies I've seen, the top performing G4 is not equal to the top performing P4. The Altivec unit helps tremendously, but overall the G4 does lag. It especially lags in DP floating point tasks (though they aren't really important to most people) but also in plain old Integer arithmetic. Dual procs help Macs (especially with OS X's handling of them both) but processor vs. processor the G4 will still come up a bit short.

You can't use the Altivec unit for everything. If only...

This isn't to say the G4 doesn't kick butt--and I love the PowerPC technology. But I still want to see a Motorola processor that really flies. I want to see those little intel guys in the metallic suits burning again!
 
Comment

Mr. Anderson

Moderator emeritus
Nov 1, 2001
22,561
0
VA
Originally posted by Taft
From all of the benches, articles and studies I've seen, the top performing G4 is not equal to the top performing P4. The Altivec unit helps tremendously, but overall the G4 does lag.
There is no doubt that you would all agree that the G4 is showing its age. If Apple doesn't do something soon, they're going to start loosing the momentum they've gained over the past few months with the iPod and new iMac. There needs to be a serious upgrade, and not just a faster G4, especially with the new bus speed Intel's boasting.
 
Comment

Geert

macrumors 6502a
May 28, 2001
513
0
.be
I can tell you exactly the same thing:
My father in law bought a AMD1700+ with everything on it, because he felt like my imac (DV+450) was complicated, go figure...

And you know what he says now after +- 2 months of use on his brand new ***, everything looks so much easier on your computer, how is that. (and then I remind him of me telling him to get a new imac, and that he refused, because his collegues at work really told him that his *** was far better)

If I run os 9.2, compared to his XP, my 450 outruns his 1700+ system, with finder issues (switching apps, opening windows, even smaller apps run REAL fast)
OK, I bet that running photoshop on both would certainly be faster on his brandnew peecee, seen that he's got a 128 MB RAM advantage:D

I can tell you one thing though even my OSX feels more responsive than his XP.
I now have 128MB RAM, I bet if I would add a 512 MB to it, would certainly narrow the gap when running apps like photoshop
 
Comment

Taft

macrumors 65816
Jan 31, 2002
1,319
0
Chicago
Originally posted by Geert

I can tell you one thing though even my OSX feels more responsive than his XP.
I now have 128MB RAM, I bet if I would add a 512 MB to it, would certainly narrow the gap when running apps like photoshop
I try to avoid counting the responsiveness of the UI when judging a computer's speed. If you've ever used BeOS you know that an OS can be incredibly responsive even on very old hardware.

Also, while OS X seems to be a bit sluggish in some UI tasks, for computation intensive apps and general multitasking it seems to perform better than OS 9 did (my opinion). So unless I can see the UI redrawing elements (*that* would be slowwwww), I assume the UI is pretty acceptable. I'm sure other people use different standards though.

Matthew
 
Comment

AlphaTech

macrumors 601
Oct 4, 2001
4,556
0
Natick, MA
Just call that 'friend' Stimpy. See if he gets the reference :D.

I have my G4 500MHz TiBook and a game peecee that I built (AMD T-bird @1.4GHz, 768MB ram yada yada yada... made to play games ONLY). With both of them connected to the same DSL connection, you cannot tell which comes up with ie first. They BOTH load the pages so close to the same amount of time, you can't perceive the difference. I don't have Photoshop or Illustrator on the peecee, since I only have the Mac versions (don't see a need to purchase the peecee versions).

The Mac is running OS X (only) and the peecee has winblows 2000 (latest service back and 'critical update' :rolleyes: ).

The bottom line is that I have found that for the tasks that most home users (not designers or power/heavy users) the speed difference between a G4 chip and AMD/intel chip will be essentially nil. Even if the peecee is rated at 2x to 3x faster then the Mac.

I might be upgrading the processor inside the peecee to one of AMD's XP 2100+ chips in the near future, but haven't decided yet. If/when I do, I will test them again. I hope that I will have a G4 tower again, that has a single processor rated at over 1GHz. I want it to smoke the peecee :D
 
Comment
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.