Performance differences between a Duron- and G4-System?
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
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
Comments
The 667 is killer. Go for it.
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>
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.
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.
<strong>
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.
</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?
Hmm, I dont recall seeing that anywhere. But why exactly is speed per clock cycle actually relevent?
<img src="confused.gif" border="0">
<strong>
Hmm, I dont recall seeing that anywhere. But why exactly is speed per clock cycle actually relevent?
</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.
<hr></blockquote>
Ok, I see now
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.