Originally posted by Booga
Multithreading - I would expect the Yonah to win. Intel now has way more experience with desktop dual-core than anyone else, except perhaps AMD. The quad-core G5 is a nice thought, but it would very much depend on the cache architecture to overcome the anemic RAM configuration, and Apple has shown no evidence to be clueful in this regard. (a single threaded app, in contrast, will not take advantage of multiple CPUs, so if you are just running that one single threaded app, then whether you have 1, 2, or 4 cores is irrelevant)
Vector operations - I would expect the G5 to win for scientifically-targeted vector operations, and the Yonah to win for games-oriented vector operations. A lot of opportunities to vectorize games that exist in SSE3 aren't as easy to use (ie. slower) with Altivec with all the data massaging required. On the other hand, Altivec really does scream for certain imaging and scientific apps.
Floating point - G5 definitely wins from what we know so far. It's a super chip for floating point.
Memory bandwidth - Yonah, hands down. Intel is 667MHz DDR2 now, while Apple is stuck at 400MHz DDR. Bidirectional pipes to the CPU are nifty and all, but to then bottleneck them with slow RAM is silly.
Disk access - I don't see how either CPU has an advantage here. Disk speeds will be the bottleneck for virtually any bus or CPU. However, PCI-E is sure as heck better than Apple's northbridge/southbridge at shuffling the data between motherboard components here.
Graphics Card acceleration - Yonah win, easily. AGPx8 is a slow, slow bus compared to PCI-E.
Multithreading: You appear to have misunderstood my point. I am not talking about Hyperthreading, multicores, or anything hardware related. I am simply saying that a multithreaded app will take advantage of multiple CPUs (or multiple cores). Therefore, a well threaded app running on 4 G5 cores clocked at 2.5 Ghz or higher will easily outrun the same app running on 2 Pentium-M cores clocked around 2 Ghz (the targeted clock speed for Yonah's release).
While it may be technically true, it is also disingenuous to state the Intel has more dual core experience than anyone else. What is that, two or three months of experience? IBM has been making dual core chips since they released Power4 in 2001 - they are the pioneers of dual core technology!
Finally, if you think by "quad-core G5" I mean a 4 cores on a single die, that is wrong. A G5 machine with four cores will have two 970MP processors, with two cores per processor. A dual-core Powerbook will have one dual-core Yonah.
Vector operations - Games oriented vector operations, blah blah blah. Get real, pretty much any game that seriously challenges a 2+ Ghz G5 or Pentium-M is going to also require a good graphics card. We don't know exactly what GPU technology will be available next year, but if you look at what's out there today, the fastest chipset that could realistically fit in a Powerbook is the Mobility X700 (the Mobility X800 and the Geforce Go 6800 are only designed for 10+ lb "desktop replacement" laptops...they suck way too much power for a Powerbook). The Mobility X700 isn't bad, but it will be completely slaughtered, chewed up, and spit out by high end desktop cards like the Radeon X850 or GeForce 7800. If you think a 5 lb laptop GPU is ever going to come close to competing with a high end desktop GPU, you are smoking some pretty strong stuff.
Memory bandwidth - Yonah's FSB is expected to be 667 Mhz (167 Mhz quad-pumped). EACH 970 MP will have a 1250 Mhz E-Bus (625 Mhz double-pumped), so even when only one core is being used AND all of the memory usage is in only one direction, the G5 system will still have similar bandwidth to Yonah (5.2 GB/sec for Yonah, 4.9 GB/sec for the G5). Of course, that is the worst case scenario. In general usage, the G5 system will have up to FOUR TIMES the FSB bandwidth of the Yonah system (9.8 GB/sec per 970MP times two 970MPs).
Furthermore, most laptop chipsets do not use dual channel memory. There is no guarantee the Powerbook will.
As for DDR vs DDR2, you are assuming that the G5 chipset will not support DDR2 by next year. You are also ignoring the latency issues with DDR2 that make DDR2/533 benchmark worse than DDR400 in most cases.
Disk access - Hint: it's not in the CPU. Remember, the original poster was claiming that a 2006 PowerMac 970MP is going to be slower than a 2006 Yonah Powerbook. This is demonstrably untrue for many, many important applications.
The PowerMac can use a 4 channel RAID, or even XServe RAID, for hundreds of MB/sec of bandwidth. The Powerbook will at best have a single, small 7200 rpm mobile HD which might max out at 40 or 50 MB/sec at most. Again, the Yonah Powerbook gets slaughtered. And PCI-E is irrelevant...the limiting factor is clearly the drive (and after that, the drive interface), not 133 Mhz PCI vs. PCI-E.
Graphics Card acceleration - Okay, now you're just being completely nuts. You really do believe a POS Mobility X700 is going to outrun an AGP X850 or AGP GeForce 6800GT just because the former has PCI-E. WRONG. The X850 and 6800GT are going to ABSOLUTELY DESTROY the Mobility chip. To think otherwise is to have absolutely no understanding of how GPUs work and what AGP/PCI-E actually do. (let me guess, you also think the PCI-E Radeon X300 will beat an AGP Radeon X850)
Clearly, all of my original points stand. I will assume that you are not completely ignorant, but that you simply had no idea what systems were actually being compared. Next time READ THE THREAD before you respond to someone's post. It will save you some embarrassment!