Hi There
I'm thinking of buying a mac, but wondered if anyone could tell me how a G4/G5 processor relate to the equivalent Pentium or AMD.
I know that a 2ghz G4 will be much faster than a 2ghz Pentium 4, but just wondered whether there is any general conversion rule - is it effectively double?
Also, is it that G5 processors support 64bit and G4 do not?
Thanks for the help
oh, please, people....
Lets not start the speed comparison things here, you should know by now that they are incomparable!
Its comparing apples with bananas (almost literally)
that's what Seph said in another thread 
:P
>_<
There is no right way to say such and such processor will be twice as fast as such and such...
This has been asked and discussed many times before, and it is because of peoples ignorance that such threads turn into flamewars and get closed.
G5 - 64bit | G4 - 32Bit -- This is all that can be stated as a fact.
The rest, it would be all speculations, as i have said before... it is comparing apple's with bananas and then ask which one will taste better on a milkshake.
so funny 
:D
there is no actual "conversion chart" between Apple's G CPUs and AMDs/Intels cause of the difference in architecture.
Gs are RISC processors while AMDs/Intels are x86 which clock per clock is slower but also functions differently.
And CPU is maybe the 40-50% of the overall system performance. The OS and the rest of the components make up for a lot and shouldn`t be dismissed so a direct CPU comparison is pretty worthless and everyone who tells u different is full of crap.
G5s are based on IBM's Power4 series and are full-bred 64bit CPUs with 32bit support while (current) G4s are 32bit.
Also there is no 2Ghz G4 (the top one is 1.67) but a 1.4 G4 is in the same league as a 2Ghz P4 (or maybe even stronger, depends on the rest of the components).
But the point is that you shouldn`t focus just on the CPU, but rather on the whole package (CPU, GPU, RAM, OS).
You forgot to mention that it also depends on the software being used + the os et cetera 
http://www.aqua-soft.org/board/showthread....ssor+comparison
Have a read here as well... (As many other threads about this)
i mentioned OS more than once my dear Sheikh
Thanks very much guys - That really cleared things up. That link was really helpful Seph.
simple compare (i think its from apple site )
Thanks for that - It really helped
simple compare (i think its from apple site )
are you really that naive to fall for a company marketing trick?
not saying it`s false, but it could be misleading.
I`m a marketing student and trust me, i wouldn`t rely SOLELY on ANY company's data.
The raw data is useless unless it specifically suits your needs. What good is fps count in Doom3 to a graphics designer, or a simple home user? Speed, stability and actual usefulness depend on so many things, not only on raw specs, even though they account for a large amount. I also think that no matter what mac you buy, it will kick PC's as$ cause it has more than few comparative advantages that more than fill the (not so important)raw CPU GHz gap.
My advice, stroll down to your Apple store/certified dealer, and try the machine for yourself. Try the apps u`ll be using on it and then judge.
As for the 32/64bit, i`m sure 32bit will stay mainstream/supported for at least 5-6 years. At the moment, there is no practical use for 64bit CPUs, although Tiger might change that
First of all, please don't accuse me of being naive - I said that information was useful, not something I would base spending £400 on. It doesn't take a 'marketing student' to know that companies skew information to work to their advantage.
I can see, and have already been told, that the processor is not the sole aspect of a computer system. That is a very obvious comment - I've built computers for myself, friends and family, and I know that there are plenty of other aspects. The fact is that I was interested in the processor, not the other components, software etc.
I have already tried all the Mac machines available to me, and my local dealer is a PC World branch. Bearing in mind that they only got the new iMac in stock a couple of weeks ago, it will certainly be a long while before I see a MiniMac in there, so unfortunately, trying it out isn't really an option. My nearest Apple store is in London, 300 miles away.
Tiger will indeed change the lack of 64bit support, and I'm planning for the future in buying a Mac, so the 32/64 aspect is very important to me. As it is, I don't think I can justify spending the extra money on an iMac for the 64bit performance.
Thanks for the comments guys - You've helped my considerably in this area
i wasn`t saying that to you adppleyard, i was saying to Nicolor
why do pple always presume i`m a mindless n3wb killer? 
i was trying to be helpful and your "tone" was like i was just flaming :/
i guess i should go back to being mean, old me
- Understood
I see that the fact Mac aren't as fast as Pentiums Mhz-wise isn't
enough an indicator performancewise, but since the combination of CPU with other
maincomponents is, then why do Mac contain such crappy videocards?
Ati 9200's are kinda ancient by now and 32mb gpu memory...come on!
What's the filosophy here?
Apple only puts low end video cards in their low end systems.
The PowerBooks and G5 series desktops all have much nicer stock video cards.
Remember... you get what you pay for.
Low-end system = cheap parts.
High end system = quality parts.
I see that the fact Mac aren't as fast as Pentiums Mhz-wise isn'tenough an indicator performancewise, but since the combination of CPU with other
maincomponents is, then why do Mac contain such crappy videocards?
Ati 9200's are kinda ancient by now and 32mb gpu memory...come on!
What's the filosophy here?
well GPUs are used differently on Macs. Every educated, non spec-*****, non-gamer would tell you that a 32mb GPU will be just enough for your regular OS usage.
There are two big differences between OSX and Win.
Games and OS usage of the GPU.
Games are obviously the only (?) processes that use GPU on Win. Most of the time GPUs just lie in your comp doing almost nothing and are being used to their full potential only in games. All GUI work is stuck on RAM and CPU while wasting GPU cycles and slowing down the whole system (compared the way OSX uses GPUs).
OSX uses graphics cards in a totally different way. It offloads the GUI work onto the GPU and that is why OSX has more iCandy than Win, and also explains why (on paper) slower CPU can give you the same or better result than a Win box with much (MHz wise) more powerful CPU. CPU is free to do real claculations (apps you`re running) and not being bogged down by GUI. Also Macs don`t require beastly GPUs cause most of Macs users are doing something productive, not wasting their time on games. Not that i`m saying a more powerful GPU would hurt, but it`s not the same as on a PC.
Tiger will move the border of GPU usage with CoreImage but we still have to see how that turns out (to have all the iCandy in Tiger, you will have to have a CI compatible card, which R9200 is not :/ )
Thanks UB - Some really good comments there
So does that suggest that the older machines won't support Tiger?
I'd be surprised if that was the case, as it's being released in under 6 months - Surely Apple can't be so blindsighted to release a machine that will become obsolete so quickly?!
Oh - Just read this on the Apple site - Apparently, the Mini supports Halo:
Lock the Target
Or one 3D game. Go ahead, just try to play Halo on a budget PC. Most say they’re good for 2D games only. That’s because an “integrated Intel graphics” chip steals power from the CPU and siphons off memory from system-level RAM. You’d have to buy an extra card to get the graphics performance of Mac mini, and some cheaper PCs don’t even have an open slot to let you add one.
I never said older Macs won`t support Tiger, it`s just the CoreImage component of Tiger (CoreImage requires GPU with PixelShader 3) It`s not a big thing anyways (but it would have been a nice touch )
CoreImage will be the framework for the new iCandy and in charge of the gfx in Tiger. If the GPU isn`t CI compatible, Tiger will move the extra work on CPU (and cut out the GPU heavy iCandy) but if you don`t know about these kinds of things, you probably won`t notice the difference.
As i said, not a big deal, but would have been nice
Interesting read.. might explain why Intel no longer puts CPU speeds on their chips anymore.
well Win is not yet capable of distributing workload this way. although Avalon should change this when it comes with Longhorn in year 2384 (unless they drop it like they did with WinFS and Indigo LOL )
OI!! You lot!
http://www.barefeats.com <-- Mac benchmarks. They have lots of machine comparisons, including x86.
You might also want to consider multi tasking capabilities and compatibility. Lots of computers you cant really do two intensive things like encode video and play a game at the same time without noticing a big difference. Not sure how apple solves this kind of problem, but intel HT has kinda made it less of a headache. But i can only encode music using half my cpu power so it takes twice as long as it should, but i can do anything else i want at the same time without any noticeable slow down. I wish i could turn off HT when im doing that stuff.
I have a hard time believing a 32 mb ati 9200 card can support halo 2 worth a darn. I think thats a bit of ommission there. Ill believe it when i see it
Aqua-Soft Forums