PowerPC G4 performance against rivals

Discussion in 'PowerPC Macs' started by Zotaccian, Mar 1, 2013.

  1. Zotaccian, Mar 1, 2013
    Last edited: Mar 10, 2013

    Zotaccian macrumors 6502a


    Apr 25, 2012
    This thread contains some benchmark results which compare G4 CPU against x86 offerings.

    *** Machines and operating system:
    iBook G4 : Mac OS X 10.5.6
    Medion MIM 2080 : Windows XP Pro SP3 (this wasted with two different CPU's)
    ThinkPad X40 : Crunchbang Linux (kernel 3.2.0-4-486)

    *** Processor:
    iBook G4 : PowerPC "G4" 7447A, 1.33GHz, FSB 133MHz, L1 cache 64k, L2 cache 512k, AltiVec
    Medion MIM 2080 : Intel Celeron M 320, 1.30GHz, FSB 400MHz, L1 cache 64k, L2 cache 512k, SSE2
    Medion MIM 2080 : Intel Pentium M 1.60GHz, FSB 400MHz, L1 cache 64k, L2 cache 1024k, SSE2
    Thinkpad X40 : Intel Pentium M 710, 1.40GHz, FSB 400MHz, L1 cache 64k, L2 cache 2048k, SSE2

    All machines have DDR SDRAM, iBook G4 and X40 use RAM @ 333Mhz while Medion uses @ 266MHz.

    Note that FSB speed makes difference in these tests, PowerPC G4 is unable to utilize full memory bandwidth available because it only has SDR FSB-design while Intel Celeron and Pentium have Quad Pumped Bus (100Mhz x 4 = 400Mhz). None of the G4 systems had anything else than SDR FSB so it is not that the iBook G4 used this test would be "crippled" or anything, it's just the way it is.

    *** Tests.

    1. Geekbench 2.2.7

    * iBook G4 2005 1.33GHz : 713 (Full result in PDF file http://www.sendspace.com/file/2imx57)
    * Medion MIM2080 Celeron M 320 : 819 (Full result in HTML file http://www.sendspace.com/file/3c2zvw)
    * Medion MIM2080 Intel Pentium M 1.6GHz: 1018 (Full result link http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1740002)
    * Thinkpad X40 Pentium M 710 : 1153 (Full result link http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/view/1711794)

    Higher is better.

    2. Handbrake 0.9.4

    Encoding with default settings (to H.264), the file used can be found here (QuickTime Files -> test 15, 65MB:

    * iBook G4 2005 1.33GHz : 1 minute 56 seconds
    * Medion MIM2080 Celeron M 320 : 1 minute 1 seconds

    Time it took to encode was measured so less is better.

    3. Cinebench R 11.5 (CPU render)

    Running only the CPU render part of this benchmark.

    * iBook G4 2005 1.33GHz : 0.17 (http://aijaa.com/08BtOD)
    * Medion MIM2080 Celeron M 320 : 0.22 (http://aijaa.com/bBQ8nG)

    Higher is better.

    4. Creating a ZIP-file using OS native compression tools

    Testing involved compressing Cinebench installation directory (317MB) using compression tools built in each operating system.

    * iBook G4 2005 1.33GHz : 2 minutes
    * Medion MIM2080 Celeron M 320 : 1 minute 38 seconds
    * Thinkpad X40 Pentium M 710 : 1 minute 25 seconds

    Time it took to create the file was measured so less is better.
  2. jchase2057 macrumors regular

    Dec 6, 2010
    Nice info. 1995 through 2005 are my favorite years for computers. I had a Compaq Armada e500. Held 3 batteries and ran like a champ. Sold it a few years back. I regret that. As far apple computers go, The G3 iBooks and iMacs were amazing. I wish apple would start making their machines in a variety of colors again.
  3. Zotaccian thread starter macrumors 6502a


    Apr 25, 2012
    I'm not familiar with older, classic Macs and when I got introduced to Apple products the first computer used was eMac G4. By that time Apple had already made the switch to Intel (year 2006). The first Mac I owned was iMac G5 1.6GHz, altough I was very impressed by the design and the look of the OS, I was not that impressed with the web and general perfromance (yup, Flash) altough iLife apps ran great. This was of course the first revision of iMac G5 so I was also surpised how noisy the machine got when taxing the CPU. I did not own it for long, my PC had Athlon64 -processor and even though iMac looked nice I decided that it cannot replace my PC and sold it. However, after that I have owned countless G4 laptops, couple PowerMacs, one G4 Mac Mini and couple iMac G5s, usually I buy and repair them, some cases they might of course be fully working or be missing just a hard drive, charger etc. Great looking machines with questionable CPU's.
  4. Wildy macrumors 6502

    Jan 25, 2011
    I have an IBM Thinkpad X40 of similar vintage (2005 1.4 GHz Celeron M processor) - if you are interested I can run the same tests to add to yours?
  5. Zotaccian, Mar 2, 2013
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2013

    Zotaccian thread starter macrumors 6502a


    Apr 25, 2012
    Yes, go ahead, I'll then add them to the original post. Cinebench was painfully slow with both of my machines so you might wanna have coffee or something while test is running :)

    What is the exact model of your Celeron M? Geekbench will probably find that out anyways. Mine was with the Banias core so 512Kb L2 cache, before the test I thought I had newer Dothan with twice.

    EDIT: Is it really Celeron M ?

  6. jchase2057 macrumors regular

    Dec 6, 2010
    It would be interesting for us all to run the same test on our 2005 and older laptops. Not that we haven't done similar threads but it would be cool to see peoples results from non iBooks and PowerBooks and compare them with apples offerings from that same time.
  7. Wildy macrumors 6502

    Jan 25, 2011
    I meant Pentium M, I happened to be reading your post while I was writing and accidentally put down Celeron. It's the Dothan core.
  8. Goftrey, Mar 2, 2013
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2013

    Goftrey macrumors 68000


    May 20, 2011
    Wales, UK
    Had a 1.6 Pentium M in an old Dell Latitude a while back. From my experience, (unfortunately) it really totally blew my 1.67 PowerBook out of water in pretty much every aspect bar the graphics department. Integrated Intel chipsets have really come a long way in a few years.

    PS. Of course this is talking 2005 tech, which was a time when the G5 was really beginning to show it's age, Apple couldn't quite shoe-horn a G5 into their laptops & Intel were continuing to evolve their low wattage notebook CPU's.
  9. Wildy, Mar 2, 2013
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2013

    Wildy macrumors 6502

    Jan 25, 2011
    Thinkpad X40 (1.4 GHz Pentium M Dotham core, 512MB DDR RAM) Crunchbang Linux results:

    mike@thinkpad:~$ uname -a
    Linux thinkpad 3.2.0-4-486 #1 Debian 3.2.35-2 i686 GNU/Linux
    mike@thinkpad:~$ cat /proc/cpuinfo 
    processor	: 0
    vendor_id	: GenuineIntel
    cpu family	: 6
    model		: 13
    model name	: Intel(R) Pentium(R) M processor 1.40GHz
    stepping	: 6
    microcode	: 0x18
    cpu MHz		: 600.000
    cache size	: 2048 KB
    fdiv_bug	: no
    hlt_bug		: no
    f00f_bug	: no
    coma_bug	: no
    fpu		: yes
    fpu_exception	: yes
    cpuid level	: 2
    wp		: yes
    flags		: fpu vme de pse tsc msr mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss tm pbe bts est tm2
    bogomips	: 1196.12
    clflush size	: 64
    cache_alignment	: 64
    address sizes	: 32 bits physical, 32 bits virtual
    power management:
    mike@thinkpad:~$ glxinfo | grep -n OpenGL
    33:OpenGL vendor string: Tungsten Graphics, Inc
    34:OpenGL renderer string: Mesa DRI Intel(R) 852GM/855GM x86/MMX/SSE2
    35:OpenGL version string: 1.3 Mesa 8.0.5
    36:OpenGL extensions:
    Geekbench 2.2.7 Linux: 1153 - http://browser.primelabs.com/geekbench2/view/1711794
    Handbrake: 34 seconds (could only get hold of 0.9.8 - will try to find sources for 0.9.4)
    Cinebench: Couldn't run (OpenGL crash with Wine - even with -cb_cpu1 option)
    Zip compress: 1 minute 25 seconds (this thing has a pitiful 1.8" HDD - I suspect that is why this score is not better).
  10. Zotaccian, Mar 2, 2013
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2013

    Zotaccian thread starter macrumors 6502a


    Apr 25, 2012
    Yes it would be nice if I could include Pentium III -tests but I don't have anything that old, Intel of course had Pentium 4-M between that and Pentium M. I could test against desktop Athlon 1.4GHz but after that I'm out of options, I do have Core 2 -based systems but it's quite obvious that they are much faster :rolleyes:

    EDIT: Wildy I added your ZIP result. It would nice to have same versions of all software, although of course when running ZIP benchmark that's definitely not the case. Very impressive result in Handbrake compared to others, I can see why Pixar and others use Linux -machines to render. I'm not sure how big role L2 cache plays in rendering? I remember looking some Intel Celeron benchmarks in the Pentium 4 era and there was some render tests where Celeron fared pretty well despite having only pitiful 128k of L2 cache.
  11. Wildy macrumors 6502

    Jan 25, 2011
    Of course, I wasn't expecting you to add the Handbrake result until I re-did it with the same version.

    I'm not sure what to make of the encoding result as it seems too good to be true - though I used default settings so there shouldn't be anything wrong with it. Not sure about the effect of L2 cache sizes. This benchmark doesn't show much of an improvement with 4MB over 2MB for Cinebench: http://www.anandtech.com/show/2045/4

  12. Zotaccian thread starter macrumors 6502a


    Apr 25, 2012
    Upgraded the processor on the Medion. Upgrade brought 300Mhz more, twice the L2 cache, Speedstep and more active fan (which is sad :( ) Temperature seems to be just at the limit very often, the fan starts to spin and almost immediately shuts down, no change that it actually impacts temperatures noticeably :)

Share This Page