1Ghz G4 vs 2.6 P4 - My own tests...

gargoylegargoyle
Posted:
in Current Mac Hardware edited January 2014
Just cos I am bored, and because I can. I think these are quite good systems to destroy the MHz myth, as they have the same RAM speed, although the PC does have a slightly lower FSB.



This, however, is not ment as a highly technical test - I am just gonna but some of the EVERY DAY software that I use to the test.



I will edit this post as I think of more tests to do...



Mac System: 1Ghz G4, 133FSB, 1Gb DDR266 RAM, OSX 10.2.6

Wintel System: 2.6 P4, 112FSB, 512Mb DDR266 RAM, Win2k SP3



Test 1 - MYSQL 4.0.13

-------------------

The Test: Select benchmark(5000000, password("benchmarking"));

Mac Time: 7.14 Secs

Wintel Time: 7.66 Secs

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 9
    stoostoo Posts: 1,490member
    112MHz soudnds quite low for a P4 FSB clock rate. Remember that P4 transfer data four times per clock cycle, so the effective transfer rate may be equivalent to a 448MHz bus. This is still a bit low, as P4 FSBs these days are (effectively) 533 or 800MHz.
  • Reply 2 of 9
    madmax559madmax559 Posts: 596member
    you also have 1/2 the ram on the win2k box
  • Reply 3 of 9
    gargoylegargoyle Posts: 660member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by madmax559

    you also have 1/2 the ram on the win2k box



    Yes, but the PC wasnt running:- iTunes(not actually playing songs), iCal, Preview, Sherlock, Address book, bbedit, MSN, iChat, Safari, Mail, Transmit and sickies.



    Also, Yeah the P4 is quad pumped, but its not REALLY getting info from the main memory at 400+Mhz... That would be a bloody mirracle since the RAM is only 266Mhz.



    I am not sure, but I figure the quad figure is only for INSIDE the chip, ie it can fetch data from the cache 4 times each clock cycle. For this reason, in everyday examples, I always use the mobo FSB, and the memory speed - Not the quad puped figures.
  • Reply 4 of 9
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Gargoyle

    Yes, but the PC wasnt running:- iTunes(not actually playing songs), iCal, Preview, Sherlock, Address book, bbedit, MSN, iChat, Safari, Mail, Transmit and sickies.



    All of which would take up, what? 25MB RAM, max?
  • Reply 5 of 9
    alcimedesalcimedes Posts: 5,486member
    it'll be pointless in 3 days anyway my friend. should have done your benchmarks a few weeks ago.
  • Reply 6 of 9
    gargoylegargoyle Posts: 660member
    I still have loads of time. Excited as I am about Monday, the national lottery keep forgetting to sell me the winning ticket, and the heavens haven't opened and dropped £4000 in my lap.



    So no 970 for me jsut yet.
  • Reply 7 of 9
    cybermonkeycybermonkey Posts: 604member
    Originally posted by Gargoyle



    Yes, but the PC wasnt running:- iTunes(not actually playing songs), iCal, Preview, Sherlock, Address book, bbedit, MSN, iChat, Safari, Mail, Transmit and sickies.

    All of which would take up, what? 25MB RAM, max?











    Yeah but on a pc all of these running would crash the system.
  • Reply 8 of 9
    anandanand Posts: 285member
    And all those apps unfortuenely take up close to 200-300 MB! I also think the 112 is a typo. Who uses a 112 FSB?
  • Reply 9 of 9
    dobbydobby Posts: 797member
    Any other programs tested eg. excel spreadsheet with calculations or something.

    We were going to benchmark a couple of web sites but got stuck on rock103, icq and madblast.

    We ended up saying that the mac was better but only cos I had installed the latest real and macromedia updates on the mac and that the pc couldn't play a couple of file.



    Dobby.
Sign In or Register to comment.