Performance differences between a Duron- and G4-System?

far · February 28, 2002 11:06AM

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

eman · February 28, 2002 2:01PM

The Powerbook will definately be fatser than a 700MHz Duron. Also, Windows ME sucks.

brian j. · February 28, 2002 2:24PM

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.

tarbash · February 28, 2002 4:54PM

I own a PowerBook G4/500, and it feels much faster than a 700 Duron laptop.

The 667 is killer. Go for it.

matsu · March 1, 2002 6:29AM

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.

stimuli · March 1, 2002 9:45AM

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 ]

dartblazer · March 1, 2002 4:28PM

celeron < duron < P4 < G3 < P3 < Athlon < 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.

far · March 2, 2002 11:06AM

Thanks to all of you for your answers!

jeremiah rich · March 2, 2002 2:29PM

The Powerbook is much faster...

serrano · March 2, 2002 5:13PM

much.

johnsonfromwisconsin · March 6, 2002 1:18AM

[quote]celeron < duron < P4 < G3 < P3 < Athlon < G4

imo

<hr></blockquote>

Personally for what I do:

G3 < Celeron < Duron < G4 < P4 < Athlon.

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

anders · March 6, 2002 3:45AM

[quote]Originally posted by johnsonfromwisconsin:



Personally for what I do:

G3 < Celeron < Duron < G4 < P4 < Athlon.

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

<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?

johnsonfromwisconsin · March 6, 2002 2:39PM

[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">

anders · March 6, 2002 2:55PM

[quote]Originally posted by johnsonfromwisconsin:



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

<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.

johnsonfromwisconsin · March 6, 2002 3:03PM

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

<hr></blockquote>

Ok, I see now

johnsonfromwisconsin · March 6, 2002 3:08PM

[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.

Performance differences between a Duron- and G4-System?

Comments