Apple vs. PC CPU

[capodeloscapos]

Is there any performance difference between a Macintosh CPU, at the same clock, against a PC CPU?
I think maybe it´s the same difference between a P4 and an Athlon, but, what about an Athlon Vs an Apple CPU?

 

[xype]

The G4 CPU is faster than a simliarly clocked pentium (1ghz G4 outperforms a 1ghz pentium/athlon) mainly because it uses a shorter pipeline. But the Apple CPU is slower with
floating point calculations (like 3D redering) unless the software uses the AltiVec engine of the Apple G4 CPU. The current line of Apple computers however uses a slow bus
compared to anything Athlon or Pentium4 has and many claim that the bus is holding the CPU back.

From my experience a 733 mhz PowerMac G4 is about the same speed as a x86 CPU at 1100-1200 mhz for everyday's work and it runs stuff like Photoshop or QuickTime encoding
quite fast. The Apple CPU is a good design and in theory faster than x86 designs it's just that it doesn't scale all to well (less mhz) and that's why many thinkg a 800 mhz iMac is
slow compared to "normal" PCs. But there actually is not much a difference (at least no drastic one).

Having said that - the Apple computers are sort of a "luxury" item compares to a selfbuilt PC, but they come with a clever design and good components that work. And to some
people the fact that a computer works is worth more than a few mhz.

 

[BDawg]

Nice to see an informed and even handed Mac vs. PC descirption. Congrats, xype.

One change though, when software does access the AltiVec code, it's blazingly fast...many times faster than other comparable processors.

 

[Derango]

<< Nice to see an informed and even handed Mac vs. PC descirption. Congrats, xype.

One change though, when software does access the AltiVec code, it's blazingly fast...many times faster than other comparable processors. >>



We're only two posts in...this could get messy

To tell you the truth, with the advent of OSX (another thing the mac has going for it, a BIG thing) I ALMOST got a powerbook instead of my dell laptop when I was in the market. They've got some nice hardware and software...if only it was less expensive

 

[GTaudiophile]

Apple's hardware is top-notch. It lasts forever. My parent's first Macintosh Plus lasted from 1985-1992. My dad still uses a LCIII that we bought back in 1992.

 

[xype]

<< Nice to see an informed and even handed Mac vs. PC descirption. Congrats, xype.
One change though, when software does access the AltiVec code, it's blazingly fast...many times faster than other comparable processors. >>



Thank you, I always try to be objective! And also true, AltiVec optimised code is blazingly fast.

As for the price of the Macs - I compared Apple for a few other Vendors a few times and if one wants similiarly equipped PCs (gigabit ethernet, firewire
and a nice tower to pack it in) there isn't much of a difference left - but Apple remains a "premium" product. Oh well, it probably means I'll have to go for
a Athlon machine this summer when I start working. But it'd be great if I earned for a Mac until then. hehe!

 

[thorin]

"when software does access the AltiVec core, it's blazingly fast...many times faster than other comparable processors."

ie:

" For the Mac we use the Dnetc3-client v2.8010.462, the Pentium operates with the Windows NT version v.2.8010.463b. In the benchmark the Power Mac G4/450 checks 4.06 million keys per second. With two processors the G4 can increase its performance on 7.58 million keys. The Pentium 4 with 2.09 million keys comes off even worse than an AMD Athlon system with 1200 MHz, which can process more than three million keys. The reason for the superiority of the Power Mac lays especially in the Altivec-support of the software."

Thorin

 

[GTaudiophile]

Can they release a version of Quake III that accesses this Altivec core?

 

[Mingon]

A good site to check out is arstechnica and have a look in the forum called battlefront. always some good info floating around. As for the actual cpu's in question an apple g4 1ghz is rarely quicker than an equivalent 1ghz amd. Its a bit pointless doing a comparison between the two machines as in all honesty you either like apple's or you dont, performance is not an issue when choosing a mac.

 

[xype]

<< Can they release a version of Quake III that accesses this Altivec core? >>



John Carmak actually made a few tests and concluded that optimizing quake3 for AltiVec would mabe bring a few percent faster release but that isn't worth the hassle since
according to him AltiVec doesn't help applications like Quake much.

": Freude Am Fahren" - Da h&auml;tte ich auch Freude am Fahren

 

[ed21x]

actually if performance and stability were an issue, and you're into graphic designing, a g3 can render images quite fast. Yeah, I still have an old 25mhz performa that has yet to crash. But simply due to compatability reasons, it's difficult not having a PC.

 

[BDawg]

<< Can they release a version of Quake III that accesses this Altivec core? >>



Since most of the computations that would be enhanced by AltiVec are shuttled to the video card, it wouldn't be that big of an increase. Unfortunately, Macs (even high end ones) are not as capable in a 1st person shooter as a cheap pc is. Because of the bus, a 733 G4 with a GF3 is outpaced by a 700 MHz Coppermine with a GF2 GTS.

 

[BDawg]

FYI, from the dual 1GHz G4 review at XLR8YourMac.com

RC5 Processor Comparison
Processor MHz CPU's Key Rate
PowerPC G4 1000 2 21,129,654
DEC Alpha 21264 725 8 11,536,680
AMD Athlon Thunderbird 1533 2 10,807,034
Intel Pentium 3 1333 2 7,559,280
Intel Xeon 1000 2 5,835,597
Intel Pentium 4 1800 2 4,870,420
Sun UltraSparc III 750 2 2,977,968
Sun UltraSparc II 450 2 1,458,333

 

[silent tone]

<< Apple's hardware is top-notch. It lasts forever. My parent's first Macintosh Plus lasted from 1985-1992. My dad still uses a LCIII that we bought back in 1992. >>


This was true in the past, but some of the current customers will tell you otherwise. For instance the ipod has a 90 day warranty.
If you're thinking of buying, hold off until the g5(and a new motherboard) is released. The desktops aren't a very good value right now and motorola isn't in the best of shape.

 

[xype]

<< This was true in the past, but some of the current customers will tell you otherwise. >>



I experienced a weird thing with the G4 733 (actually with 5 different 733s) - it had a built in ZIP 250 drive and after putting a ZIP100 into it OS9 completely locked up,
refused to start or eject the ZIP. The case had to be opened and the disk "forced" out of the ZIP drive. Just to have someone do it with anothe G4 the next day.

 

[Czar]

Apple is SLOOOOOWWWWWWWWW

I'v been working on g4 macs in school and its HORRIBLE.
Before that I always thought that macs were good for what they do best, graphics and video editing. Now I'v been doing both on both systems now and I'v totaly changed my mind. Macs suck for everything.

 

[xype]

<< Apple is SLOOOOOWWWWWWWWW. Macs suck for everything. >>



Dunno, but the G4 733 we have at school are really great at Photoshop, Flash, Freehand and Dreamweaver. I used all of them extensively and the overall impression was
much "sleeker" than on my home PC. And Lightwave renders ok too. Unless you want a flamewar.

 

[imgod2u]

First, it's not Apple who makes the CPU, I don't know why people are giving Apple the credit. Motorola and IBM make the PowerPC processor. The G4 (generation 4) of the PowerPC featured AltiVec, the PowerPC's version of SIMD, similar to SSE/SSE2 and 3dNow!. With the same properties that it must be optimized for. The PowerPC is a RISC processor and hence, comparing it to an x86 processor is somewhat difficult. As far as performance, the memory bottleneck of most Macs will make your gaming a nightmare. As seen by Apple's own benchmarks of Q3A posted on their website. As far as non-memory intensive tasks, a properly optimized piece of code can be quite fast on the PowerPC. Comparing performance directly is hard to do and certainly subjective. To say one is faster than the other would be a skeptical statement at best.
Would the PowerPC be faster clock for clock than an Athlon or P4 using its native code? Yes. Does that really matter? No. Once you cut through all the PR and dogmatic rants of "mine is faster", you'll realize it's a computer, like all the others and the difference isn't night and day.

 

[imgod2u]

<< FYI, from the dual 1GHz G4 review at XLR8YourMac.com

RC5 Processor Comparison
Processor MHz CPU's Key Rate
PowerPC G4 1000 2 21,129,654
DEC Alpha 21264 725 8 11,536,680
AMD Athlon Thunderbird 1533 2 10,807,034
Intel Pentium 3 1333 2 7,559,280
Intel Xeon 1000 2 5,835,597
Intel Pentium 4 1800 2 4,870,420
Sun UltraSparc III 750 2 2,977,968
Sun UltraSparc II 450 2 1,458,333 >>



That's quite strange seeing shows it lists the P4 in MP solutions when it cannot be put in MP solutions. It's also weird they have a T-Bird 1.53 GHz or a P3 1.33 GHz for that matter.

 

[BDawg]

<< First, it's not Apple who makes the CPU, I don't know why people are giving Apple the credit. Motorola and IBM make the PowerPC processor. >>



Well, Apple is involved in the design process; they're part of the Power PC consortium. They even thought about buying the chip making part from Motorola earlier this year.

 

[fastcarr]

<<

<< FYI, from the dual 1GHz G4 review at XLR8YourMac.com

RC5 Processor Comparison
Processor MHz CPU's Key Rate
PowerPC G4 1000 2 21,129,654
DEC Alpha 21264 725 8 11,536,680
AMD Athlon Thunderbird 1533 2 10,807,034
Intel Pentium 3 1333 2 7,559,280
Intel Xeon 1000 2 5,835,597
Intel Pentium 4 1800 2 4,870,420
Sun UltraSparc III 750 2 2,977,968
Sun UltraSparc II 450 2 1,458,333 >>



That's quite strange seeing shows it lists the P4 in MP solutions when it cannot be put in MP solutions. It's also weird they have a T-Bird 1.53 GHz or a P3 1.33 GHz for that matter. >>




The dual Pentium 3 1.33ghz is mine BTW, I submitted that benchmark to distributed.net a few months ago. The processors started life as PIII 1.0ghz @ 100mhz bus, cD0 stepping. I have them running at 133mhz bus @ 1.9v.

Steve

 

[FishTankX]

Anyone with an AthlonXP 1500+ or so wanna feel how it feels to have a mac?

I have the perfect sollution. Turn on all of windows XP's graphics glory. Then turn off your grahpics acceleration. That's right, do what I told you. Turn that bar *ALL THE WAY DOWN* and I *dare* you to use that setup for more than an hour. You'll probably have shot yourself by then.

OSX lacks all but the most basic graphics hardware acceleration. It's the dark secret of OSX. For purely computational tasks, it's allright, but for every day use it feels sssllllooooowwwww...... Mac's CPU's are blazingly fast, and have better IPC than a thunderbird. They can crunch intergers like nobody's buisiness. But when they have to handle *all* the graphics acceleration on their FPU the whole system feels crappy and slow
.

 

[BFG10K]

The G4 has a higher IPC than a K7 or a P4 but it still lags behind significantly in overall performance because of its' massive clock speed deficit and slow PC133 SDRAM. Pay no attention to Jobs' three magical photoshop filters and RC5 benchmarks because they mean nothing in terms of overall system performance in the real world.

Macs are not super computers; they are slow and overpriced computers.

 

[GrumpyMan]

Slow for general use.

 

[krackato]

I used OS X on a Powerbook G3 500mhz, and while it wasn't superfast, it wasn't horribly slow. It reminded me of when Windows 2000 had just been released and I installed it on my somewhat aged 466 Celeron. It wasn't superfast, but I decided that I prefered the stability of W2k the the additional performance of Windows 98. I enjoyed the stability of OS X. I've used OS X on a G4 machines (500mhz to Dual 800mhz), and it's definetly fast. Maybe not as fast as an Athlon machine, but I've never had an issue with how fast Internet Explorer and other programs open. Besides, OS X is a huge OS migration and it's going to take some time for Apple to fine-tune it. In fact, every new update Apple has released thus far has increased the responsiveness of the OS. It just needs some time to mature and for Apple to release some faster processors.