In my experience that's probably right on the borderline. If you really paid attention, like sitting down with one of each and doing some compute-intensive tasks, you'd probably notice. But in everyday use, no. Of course, faster is always better.
"Big" difference? No. Noticable? Probably a little.
A general rule of thumb is anything under a 10% clock speed difference is not noticable. This difference is 17%, so there should be should be something noticable at times. But definitely not big by any means.
What they said. Depending on where you're buying the upgrade CPU, the extra cost of the 1.5 GHz means that you're spending over a hundred dollars on a subtle difference. Some people need and use that extra little boost in speed, most do not.
Think of the 1.5 GHz G4 as buying a CPU that goes to "11". The difference is mostly psychological, but a bit of it is real.
Also, look for differences in cache size on the CPU. I know on some of the Giga Designs CPUs I looked at recently, the real fast ones (1.8 GHz) lacked a L2 cache, and so performed about the same as the 1.5 GHz CPUs with a big honkin' L2 cache.
Comments
A general rule of thumb is anything under a 10% clock speed difference is not noticable. This difference is 17%, so there should be should be something noticable at times. But definitely not big by any means.
Think of the 1.5 GHz G4 as buying a CPU that goes to "11". The difference is mostly psychological, but a bit of it is real.
Also, look for differences in cache size on the CPU. I know on some of the Giga Designs CPUs I looked at recently, the real fast ones (1.8 GHz) lacked a L2 cache, and so performed about the same as the 1.5 GHz CPUs with a big honkin' L2 cache.