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.
Which processor is faster?
- Thread starter CaptainCaveMann
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Sabbath
macrumors 6502a
tveric said:
Ok I don't think you can claim edesign stalks the boards, his posts seem to contribute to about a third of all posts meaning he is the board! hahaha. More seriously the point here is the chip in question is not a P4 we should be carefully not to classify all pentium chips in the same bracket. The pentium M which the initial post is about is a really good mobile chip, and at least the equal of the G4 clock for clock, not a regular p4 which is slower than a G4 clock for clock. The poster asked if which chip was faster and that is what people have tried to answer, the PC chip will be faster, but the iBook is a damn good package and has plenty going for it. Answering the question and saying the PC chip is faster is not being anti-mac.
edesignuk said:
I think it was PC World magazine that called the celeron the "guttless wonder" 🙂
blackfox said:
spoken like a true geek like myself 🙂 I too feel the same way. I have a powermac G4 500 and with its 1GB ram it totally fills my computing needs without too much effort. runs panther at a very usable speed.
UnixMac
macrumors 6502
Sabbath said:
The P4M is indeed a superior chip to the P4, but I was addressing the P4M when I stated that there is a 1.3 differential... as with the standard P4 the differential is 2.0 or so... Again, the G4 with Altivec at 1.33 Ghz is a faster CPU than a P4M period. I say this based on first hand information as a guy living here in Phoenix AZ and having spent quite a lot of time at discussing this with the very engineers who work at both Motorola and Intel here in the valley. Many of them are my neighbors.
Mav451
macrumors 68000
UnixMac said:
That sounds right. Mac's G4/G5's are always better at FLOPs b/c of their architecture differences compared to x86. That said, FLOPs don't always necessitate the best APPLICATION or GAME performance.
I wonder if Apple could have gone AMD's route of using PR ratings. Yes, they are just as mischievously thrown around as Intel's Ghz machine, but they serve their purpose for the general public.
2400+ was generally = 2.4Ghz P4 (actually B cores only though).
Likewise, with the A64, AMD is back on track, with the A64 3200+ easily outmaching a 3.2Ghz P4 in performance (in comparison to AXP 3200+, which was only competitive with 3.0 P4's).
Catfish_Man
macrumors 68030
UnixMac said:
The P4M is not the PM. Very different chips (one is based on a modified P6 core, the other on "netburst"). The P4M is merely a lower power speedstepped P4, rather crappy imo. You're correct that for vector code (especially vector code that fits in the G4's cache, avoiding its rather slow bus), the G4 will win. Probably by a significant margin. However... well optimized vector code that fits in the cache is hard to come by. Usually it's *either* vector (streaming data from memory, operating on it, and streaming it back) *or* it fits in the cache (typically branchy integer code, a compiler or a word processor for example). On non-vector code, the G4 is a fairly mediocre processor; probably slightly better than an equivalent Pentium 3, and moderately better than an equivalent Pentium 4. The performance diff between a 1.5GHz PM and a 1.33GHz G4 should be pretty small though. They're both bad at floating point, one is strong at vector, the other at scalar integer.
Yea but are you talkin laptop p4's or desktop p4's there is a big difference between the laptop version with a 500 meg front side bus and the extremely fast 800 meg frontside bus desktop p4Mav451 said:
Mechcozmo
macrumors 603
They are both nice processors. However!
A Mac ages amazingly gracefully. In a year the only way that you can tell it is not so fast is if you compare it to the latest and greatest out there. I personally have a 6 year old (maybe even older) PowerComputing PowerTower Pro 255. 255Mhz processor. Not even a G3. Runs OS 8.6 like new. I just optimize it every once in a while, make sure it has the right software, and let visitors use it. A guest, who has no idea on how to use anything than your generic Windoze box, can get on it and use it for basic internet browsing and Word 98. They don't say that it is slow-- my grandpa even said, "Wow, this computer is pretty fast, isn't it?" It runs great.
My iMac only seems slow compared to my PowerBook. It blows the socks off of most WinTel computers, despite being 3 years old. (800Mhz G4, SuperDrive).
RAM helps. OS X loves RAM like you wouldn't believe. 512MB is what I recommend, 768MB is a nice preferred amount. I never use the swapfile on my hard disk, (virtual memory, pagefile, etc) due to the amount of RAM I have.
Only difference though... the iBook will stink at games. Unfortunately... sigh... But beyond that the iBook I can see will remain a good computer to use for a number of years. 2.5 years at least. Most likely more. Once you get addicted to Macs, you will keep them all around to use...🙂
A Mac ages amazingly gracefully. In a year the only way that you can tell it is not so fast is if you compare it to the latest and greatest out there. I personally have a 6 year old (maybe even older) PowerComputing PowerTower Pro 255. 255Mhz processor. Not even a G3. Runs OS 8.6 like new. I just optimize it every once in a while, make sure it has the right software, and let visitors use it. A guest, who has no idea on how to use anything than your generic Windoze box, can get on it and use it for basic internet browsing and Word 98. They don't say that it is slow-- my grandpa even said, "Wow, this computer is pretty fast, isn't it?" It runs great.
My iMac only seems slow compared to my PowerBook. It blows the socks off of most WinTel computers, despite being 3 years old. (800Mhz G4, SuperDrive).
RAM helps. OS X loves RAM like you wouldn't believe. 512MB is what I recommend, 768MB is a nice preferred amount. I never use the swapfile on my hard disk, (virtual memory, pagefile, etc) due to the amount of RAM I have.
Only difference though... the iBook will stink at games. Unfortunately... sigh... But beyond that the iBook I can see will remain a good computer to use for a number of years. 2.5 years at least. Most likely more. Once you get addicted to Macs, you will keep them all around to use...🙂
Hopefully they will upgrade the pb to that really good new gp the other guy was talking about.128 standard would be shweet!Mechcozmo said:
Mav451
macrumors 68000
Aging gracefully is all about perspective and the respective performance thresholds.
If you're doing word processing, email, browsing (excluding heavy flash)? You could get away with < 300Mhz Intel/AMD's or G3 and lower for Apple.
When you want to have the CPU power to multi-task (CPU strong enough to play with a gig of RAM or more), then you're starting to move to the 800Mhz+ Intel/AMD range or G4's and up for the Apple side.
You wanna Photoshop or do other 2D/3D Content Creation tasks? You're gonna need a lot more grunt. I'd say minimum, bare minimum 2000+ or 2Ghz P4's, and for Apple you will want a dual CPU box (2 x 867's and up).
Gaming? Unfortunately that threshold is dynamic =D.
You could have said that 3.2Ghz P4's were top of the line about 1.5 years ago, but that was before the FX-series was released. You could have said that the FX-series was enough, but that was before Doom3 and HL2/Source was released. Do you know that even CS:Source is CPU-LIMITED!?
Insane. That is why gaming is an expensive hobby. Consequently, that is also why PC hardware is so affordable (but ironically quicker to become "obsolete" if you are looking from a gaming perspective).
Because people are upgrading to newer motherboards and faster, more overclockable RAM, good deals are always easy to find. My 9800 Pro that runs at XT speeds (with a VGA Silencer installed) was found for $170. My 1 Gig of CH-5 RAM was found for only $120. Just a year ago, 9800Pro's sold for close to $350-400. That is how quickly the industry moves people--and that is why I can get such insane deals.
If you're doing word processing, email, browsing (excluding heavy flash)? You could get away with < 300Mhz Intel/AMD's or G3 and lower for Apple.
When you want to have the CPU power to multi-task (CPU strong enough to play with a gig of RAM or more), then you're starting to move to the 800Mhz+ Intel/AMD range or G4's and up for the Apple side.
You wanna Photoshop or do other 2D/3D Content Creation tasks? You're gonna need a lot more grunt. I'd say minimum, bare minimum 2000+ or 2Ghz P4's, and for Apple you will want a dual CPU box (2 x 867's and up).
Gaming? Unfortunately that threshold is dynamic =D.
You could have said that 3.2Ghz P4's were top of the line about 1.5 years ago, but that was before the FX-series was released. You could have said that the FX-series was enough, but that was before Doom3 and HL2/Source was released. Do you know that even CS:Source is CPU-LIMITED!?
Insane. That is why gaming is an expensive hobby. Consequently, that is also why PC hardware is so affordable (but ironically quicker to become "obsolete" if you are looking from a gaming perspective).
Because people are upgrading to newer motherboards and faster, more overclockable RAM, good deals are always easy to find. My 9800 Pro that runs at XT speeds (with a VGA Silencer installed) was found for $170. My 1 Gig of CH-5 RAM was found for only $120. Just a year ago, 9800Pro's sold for close to $350-400. That is how quickly the industry moves people--and that is why I can get such insane deals.
Yotabyte
macrumors member
Quite true. Some non-apple stuff rocks, like Linux... unless we're talking about a PC running windows XP. I can go on for hours like an old man recalling a fishing trip with regards to the strange viruses I have caught with this PC and the big hairy spyware I fought off with my bare hands etc, but I wont. Regardless, PC's "own" I have 3. 😀 Shame they are burdened by windows XP, hopefully longhorn (Windows 2012?) will be better...
combatcolin
macrumors 68020
I would hazard a guess in saying that most Mac owners also have a pc knocking around somewhere.
But because Macs age so well you keep them around and there still in use.
After a year or so Windows is so bloody slow even with repeated Virus/Trojan scans that the only thing to do is to re-install Windows.
But because Macs age so well you keep them around and there still in use.
After a year or so Windows is so bloody slow even with repeated Virus/Trojan scans that the only thing to do is to re-install Windows.
Westside guy
macrumors 604
Hey edesignuk,
I haven't noticed you stalking the forums either - but maybe I've just been distracted by those photos of Kiera. 😛
I haven't noticed you stalking the forums either - but maybe I've just been distracted by those photos of Kiera. 😛
Dunepilot
macrumors 6502a
CaptainCaveMann said:
Is this actually true? In 1999 when the Chernobyl virus rendered a lot of motherboards useless by overwriting the BIOS, the manufacturers were totally uninterested. I know because I saw the numerous angry customers who were offered no assistance first-hand.
Sabbath
macrumors 6502a
UnixMac said:
I'm not sure if you are now talking about the P4M which was a mobile version of the pentium 4 (I'm not sure if they still make it?) or the pentium M which is the processor part of a the centrino package. My feeling was the general consensus when the 1.5Ghz G4 powerbook came out, was when compared against 1.5Ghz centrinos the G4 was at best equal and sometimes a little slower, obviously it depends on what you are doing and what apps you're using, particularly if the mac app takes advantage of Altivec. However I am quite happy to be wrong (I'd love to be wrong in fact 😀 ) and I'm sure your sources are more reliable than my "general consensus" if you're talking about the pentium M and not the P4M.
UnixMac
macrumors 6502
Sabbath said:
on par until the Vector optimized code apps come into play in the Mac.. iApps (many), FCP, QT, etc..
As for which Pentium we're talking about.. The problem is Intel can't make up their mind what to call something and they have too many names the same thing.
I know the Centrino model you're talking about and the larger L2 cache etc.. of the Pentium-M is a better chip than the mobile P4, but clock for clock I have been told "on average" the G4 is 1.3 times faster in most apps. The G4 is 2X faster than the mobil P4 and more.
There are always going to be exceptions to all of this... some apps will run a lot slower on a G4 than a P4 because they were coded for PC and ported (portable) to the Mac.. but never optimized on the Mac, which is the case for too many apps out there no written specifically for the mac.
Mav451
macrumors 68000
UnixMac said:
The Pentium M is getting Photoshop numbers that compete with the A64 FX-series chips as seen here:
http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=dothandesktop&page=13
The 2.0 Dothan is just 4 seconds shy of the FX-53.
Considering the FX-series chips are in the same realm as the G5's, I have a hard time believing that the G4 is "1.3x faster" or even just being competitive to the Pentium M (Dothan core). I'm not talking bout the Banias core, but the better 2MB L2 Cache Dothan core.
http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=dothandesktop&page=11
Likewise, in gaming, the Pentium M "735" 1.7Ghz model (lowest one) is getting better frames in Doom3 than a Prescott 3.4Ghz (123.3 vs. 122.4). Even more suprising is that in Far Cry, the Pentium M 735 1.7Ghz gets higher frames than even the 3.4EE (extreme edition aka Xeon) >> 110.6 vs. 107.7
With those kind of numbers being produced by the Pentium M, I don't think a G4 is even marginally close. Only the G5 will be able to close in on those numbers.
UnixMac
macrumors 6502
Mav451 said:
The data you cite shows the 3.2 P4 to be 32% faster in photoshop than the PM 1.7 so if you apply this ratio to the G4 using Apples photoshop test... The G4 at 1.5Ghz is faster.
This quote from this link sums it up better: ( http://gflpraxis.no-ip.com/mvp-price.html )
"The Dell has a 1.6 GHz Pentium M, while the Mac has a 1.33 GHz G4. Note that the G4 is actually a desktop processor, but is energy efficient enough that the PowerBook can get up to 6 hours battery (more than almost any mobile processor except the Pentium M, although 4 hours would be more realistic if you have max screen brightness, wireless, and bluetooth all running). Being a desktop processor, and being a G4 (with the velocity engine, and doing more calculations per clock cycle), the G4 would outperform a 1.6 GHz Pentium 4. However, the Pentium M has double the cache of the Pentium 4 (giving it a performance boost over it) and has a faster bus than the G4. Actual speed difference? Difficult to say. I'd guestimate that they're about equal. The cache would give the Pentium M an edge in games if they have equivilant graphics cards, while the architecture of the G4 gives it a boost in video/photo editting. I declare a tie."
And he is comparing a 1.6PM to a 1.33G4...
The 2MB L2 is a huge help for the P4, there is still a 1.3 differential in flops. That is unchangeable.
johnnyjibbs
macrumors 68030
CaptainCaveMan, why not just go ahead and get that iBook? You've been ummming and aaaring about it for some time in several threads. Mac's aren't always quite as fast as PCs in raw speed, but they are not so much slower that it's worth getting the PC just for speed. The Mac has plenty of other useability and productivity advantages to warrant getting it over the PC, as edesignuk said at the start of this thread.