thorshammer88 said:
Thanks for all the replies, Ive never had this many responses so fast on any forum. So what you are all telling me is that mhz ratings dont mean anything? two 1.8 ghz computers can run very differently? So what is the point in this rating if it means little besides marketing? Manzana, that is pretty amazing to hear that you feel your 1.33 pb is running more efficiently than the 3.6 pc, are you speaking about running the same apps on each? In regards to PC's winning on price and quality, I kind of figured that since they probably are putting in a ton more money into R&D. One last thing though, if the whole mhz rating is a marketing ploy, why isnt apple doing what they can to get theirs up to compete better with pc's? Thanks again for the help
The difference really has to do with architecture, and the inherent give and take between those different architectures. Simply enough, the Pentium IV is very fast, but has a long pipe. This is great so long as the code has no gaps, which means the processor has to wait for that 'bubble' to clear for the next set of code. The longer the pipe, the faster the chip has to work to move the same amount of data.
The PPC has a short pipe, but lower frequency (what mhz really refers to) and so can deal with gaps or 'bubbles' in the data much easier. Most code has lots of 'bubbles.'
So, while the PPC chip has a lower frequency it can process as much or more data depending on the code or compiler. Very clean code on x86 runs like a cheatah, but any data bubbles will still slow it down.
Furthermore, the speed of the chip is also tied to the bus (here the G5 with its 1ghz bus is actually faster than the PIV's best at .8ghz) and the speed of the computer is tied to the hard-drive, video-card, memory, and even on some applications the speed of the optical drive.
This is ignoring the OS which can also have optimizations which allow it to take advantage of certain parts of the machine better than another.
It gets to the point where you're arguing which would win in a fight, Wolverine or the Punisher? (Or two other comic book heroes, take your pick).
Intel made the choice to go x86 because it had the high-potential for short-term fabrication of higher megahertz and then used that to market their chips. Apple, at one time had faster chips from Motorola, but that lead was lost as Intel pulled ahead. Motorola could never quite figure out what to do, and ultimately failed to make the G4 PPC comparable to Intel in the megahertz rating. IBM, who made the G3, had similar problems, but these appear to have been solved by the different architecture of the G5 PPC. Apple has never made the chips for their equipment and thus cannot be totally blamed for this, except for their decision to go with PPC rather than the x86 designs.
As for R&D, most PC makers put very little R&D into creating their machines, because most are cut and paste jobs from Intel and Nvidia designs. What's the real difference between a Compaq/HP or Dell desktop? The color of the case.
Apple, however, puts more R&D in real dollars than almost anyone else. Dell has put millions into R&D, but much of that money has been spent in supply-chain, order-on-demand efficiency, which is great, but it doesn't make your computer any better. (I'm not saying Dell hasn't tried to design their servers and high-end equipment, but that Dell Inspiron isn't exactly state-of-the-art either).
IMHO, Apple tries to put together the best machine with parts that will compliment each other (good drivers, low heat, light weight, performance) and create a great experience rather than slapping in the 'best' and hoping it all works.
