or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Performance differences between a Duron- and G4-System?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Performance differences between a Duron- and G4-System?

post #1 of 16
Thread Starter 
Hello,

does anybody know the performance differences between these two systems or has experience with similars?

Apple Powerbook G4
CPU: PPC G4 667 MHz
Bus-Speed: 133 MHz
Memory: 512 MB SDRAM
Graphic: ATi Radeon Mobility 16 MB
HDD: 30 GB HDD Ultra ATA/66
OS: Mac OS X

Selfmade Desktop PC
CPU: AMD Duron 700 MHz
Bus-Speed: 133 MHz
Memory: 378 MB PC-133 RAM
Graphic: nVidia Geforce 2 MX 32 MB
HDD: 20 GB HDD IDE (?)
OS: Win ME

Background is I want to purchase a Powerbook but there must be this "new speedy feeling" when I buy a new hardware.

I'm very thankful for any answer!

Best regards,
Far
post #2 of 16
The Powerbook will definately be fatser than a 700MHz Duron. Also, Windows ME sucks.
post #3 of 16
I've never used a TiBook, but I've used a Duron, and it's really slow. Even ignoring the speed, the TiBook looks so much "sexier" (well, from what I've seen on the Internet). Get the TiBook.
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: one way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no...
Reply
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: one way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no...
Reply
post #4 of 16
I own a PowerBook G4/500, and it feels much faster than a 700 Duron laptop.

The 667 is killer. Go for it.
"We're not gonna stop."
- Steve Jobs
Reply
"We're not gonna stop."
- Steve Jobs
Reply
post #5 of 16
OSX + Powerbook 667 will not give you that 'new speedy thing' feeling. While it will crunch all your apps just fine, the interface still has a touch of annoying lag. If your users experience depends on the 'snappiness of the interface' you should wait untill the TiBook is bumped.
IBL!
Reply
IBL!
Reply
post #6 of 16
From a chip perspective, the G4 is a lot beefier than the Celery. It has phat SIMD Units (Altivec) that plow through certain kinds of data... just try encoding an Mp3 on a G4.It also has more full speed (IE 667mhz) on-chip memory that crams data into the processor, considerably more than a celeron.

I don't consider myself biased towards Mac hardware, and would bet the G4 beats the Celeron handily in every task.

In terms of performance per processor cycle, here's a lucky guess:

celeron - P4 - duron - g3 - athlon - g4

So though the clock speeds are close, the instructions per clock aren't

[ 03-01-2002: Message edited by: stimuli ]</p>
No, the bazaar cannot satisfy users. Neither can the cathedral. Nothing can satisfy users, because software is written to enable rather than satisfy, and because most users are mewling malcontents...
Reply
No, the bazaar cannot satisfy users. Neither can the cathedral. Nothing can satisfy users, because software is written to enable rather than satisfy, and because most users are mewling malcontents...
Reply
post #7 of 16
celeron &lt; duron &lt; P4 &lt; G3 &lt; P3 &lt; Athlon &lt; G4

imo.

You can't really compare apples and oranges though, and you cant compare OSX and Me. OSX will feel slower than Me because of aqua but your tasks(if you could do the same exact thing on each machine) will be faster on the PowerBook. Now if you went with OS9, everything would feel faster, but you lose OSX's advantages.
dartblazer
<a href="http://www.openoffice.org" target="_blank">openoffice.org</a>
<a href="http://www.openbeos.org" target="_blank">openbeos.org</a>
Have a good-cold day
Reply
dartblazer
<a href="http://www.openoffice.org" target="_blank">openoffice.org</a>
<a href="http://www.openbeos.org" target="_blank">openbeos.org</a>
Have a good-cold day
Reply
post #8 of 16
Thread Starter 
Thanks to all of you for your answers!
post #9 of 16
The Powerbook is much faster...
1 Peter 1:6-7
Powerbook G4 12" 1.33ghz, 60gig hd, 1.25 gigs ram.

Powermac G4 "Sawtooth" 400 mhz, 80gig hd, 384mb of ram, Rage 128 Pro graphics.
Reply
1 Peter 1:6-7
Powerbook G4 12" 1.33ghz, 60gig hd, 1.25 gigs ram.

Powermac G4 "Sawtooth" 400 mhz, 80gig hd, 384mb of ram, Rage 128 Pro graphics.
Reply
post #10 of 16
much.
post #11 of 16
[quote]celeron &lt; duron &lt; P4 &lt; G3 &lt; P3 &lt; Athlon &lt; G4
imo
<hr></blockquote>

Personally for what I do:

G3 &lt; Celeron &lt; Duron &lt; G4 &lt; P4 &lt; Athlon.

It's rather close between The Duron and G4, but the P4 & Athlon are ahead by a rather large distance.

rm -rf /bin/laden
Reply
rm -rf /bin/laden
Reply
post #12 of 16
[quote]Originally posted by johnsonfromwisconsin:
<strong>

Personally for what I do:

G3 &lt; Celeron &lt; Duron &lt; G4 &lt; P4 &lt; Athlon.

It's rather close between The Duron and G4, but the P4 & Athlon are ahead by a rather large distance.

</strong><hr></blockquote>

I think people were talking about how fast each processor is per clock cycle not how fast the processors are in performance. I don´t know much about processors but the celeron surely doesn´t make more per clock cycle than the G3.

Am I right if I say that for each new generation the PPC is more effective instruction/mhz-vise while the "other side" is less effective?
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #13 of 16
[quote]I think people were talking about how fast each processor is per clock cycle not how fast the processors are in performance.<hr></blockquote>

Hmm, I dont recall seeing that anywhere. But why exactly is speed per clock cycle actually relevent?

<img src="confused.gif" border="0">
rm -rf /bin/laden
Reply
rm -rf /bin/laden
Reply
post #14 of 16
[quote]Originally posted by johnsonfromwisconsin:
<strong>

Hmm, I dont recall seeing that anywhere. But why exactly is speed per clock cycle actually relevent?

:confused: </strong><hr></blockquote>

See Stimulis post above. He started the cross chip comparison:

[quote] In terms of performance per processor cycle, here's a lucky guess:

celeron - P4 - duron - g3 - athlon - g4 <hr></blockquote>

The reason why it matters to me is because it tell something about how effective the chip is with what it got. Since I am into portable and low noise computers this very important. I believe Apple makes the best laptops because they don´t have to use things like SpeedStop or HUGE Dell fans. They don´t have to pack their "desk top replacement" portables so they look like a mini tower on its side like this:
And they can thank the effective G4 processor for that.
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #15 of 16
[quote]See Stimulis post above. He started the cross chip comparison:

<hr></blockquote>

Ok, I see now
rm -rf /bin/laden
Reply
rm -rf /bin/laden
Reply
post #16 of 16
[quote]The reason why it matters to me is because it tell something about how effective the chip is with what it got. <hr></blockquote>

Well, I'm not sure there must be that correlation between IPC and Power Consumption

[quote]
Since I am into portable and low noise computers this very important. I believe Apple makes the best laptops because they don´t have to use things like SpeedStop or HUGE Dell fans. They don´t have to pack their "desk top replacement" portables so they look like a mini tower on its side like this:
And they can thank the effective G4 processor for that.
<hr></blockquote>

Indeed the PPC is a good chip in this area due to low power consumption, and I do like the Apple portables right now. This is the area that Apple can compete on a somewhat equal price/performance scale.
rm -rf /bin/laden
Reply
rm -rf /bin/laden
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Performance differences between a Duron- and G4-System?