apple dual g4 vs. dual amd

[kaltag]

Well i was talking to the mac rep today at work and we got into discussing the dual amd platform and dual g4 platform. the conversation went on for 5 min or so and then he pushed the right button by saying the dual g4 tower would smoke my dual amd system. so we talked to the manager and he's gonna let us set up my system and bench it against the mac!! so my question is is there a benchmarking program that can run on a mac and pc? or any real way to pit the performance of one system against the other?

the next part is your opinion. does anyone out there think my system in sig and beat the dual 1.25ghz with 512 ram? thanx all.

[tbirdkiri]

q3, and seti

[zabomb4163]

Adobe premiere - show them who has the REAL video editing machine

get the trial version

[tbirdkiri]

to elaborate on the seti deal, i would make two new accounts on the seti server, then set each system up to use one.

you should know how to use two clients on a dual system. then start them both at the same time. let them run for 24 hours. then see who got the most units done, and in what time frame.

this isnt the most accurate of ways but you should be able to give a really good idea. as far as raw cpu power at least

[JoT]

I want to see the results of this one :D

AMDAMDAMD!!! *looks around and hides from the Mac users*

[DDR-PIII]

im neither an amd or mac fan but im gonna ahve to go with amd but i wanna see how it goes anyways :D

[Oni]

Good Lord . . . I can see where this is going to go already. How 'bout I speed things up a bit.

1st day: Macs suck! PC's rule!
2nd day: Mac enthusiasts get wind of thread, defend their chosen platform
3rd day: Talk of games and stuff running on one platform and not the other
4th day: Talk of games that run on both platforms
5th and 6th day: Talk of Photoshop and video editing
7th day: Either people agree to disagree, or muscle comes in and locks thread (and on the 7th day, He rested).

Done.

[kaltag]

i don't mean for this to be a flame war or arguments on either side. i simply want to see how they stack up against one another. I do like the macs don't get me wrong, this is just a friendly competion :)

[RedDeathDrinker]

I await the results with anticipation........

(AMD all the way baby!)

[whooping_a_panda]

im pullin for the G4, even though it prolly will loose, and only cause im a mac enthusiast at heart... though my most current apple is a 604e@200mhz

[Doofie27cp2]

as muc has i am not an AMD guy, it is still a PC, and i hate MAC with a passion...

[eli]

OS X is still one of my favorite operating systems. Mac has definately got style.

People should just stop hating and celebrate diversity. :)

[kaltag]

come on guys no hating anyone, can't we all just get along? :)

[zabomb4163]

SETI = bad idea. mac fans will just say it runs better on pc because it was written for pc. it doesnt matter what the facts are on it. you cannot beat macs on your ground you have to beat them at their game.

macs are touted as photo and video editing machines. if you get better marks in those areas they wont care if the program was diff for pc. because thats irrelevant.

don't pull a bunch of stuff out of the bag that mac uses dont use and don't claim to be better at.

one sure way to show superiorty. do some multitasking benchmarks. like import video and encode another at the same time. the mac benchmarks will fall drastically.

[zabomb4163]

http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/07_jul/features/cw_macvspc2.htm

my bets are on you. use the benchmarks these guys used. they got pretty much same comparison

[method().man]

I think for most computer afficianados, it's a foregone conclusion that when it comes to raw computing power, Apples cannot compete with PCs. However, this does not make Macs obsolete. There are other important reasons to use Macs besides pure processing horsepower. A few reasons that come to mind are OSX, Apple's great hardware (including their inimitable LCDs), Apple's heavy penetration into the professional visual arts markets, and some proprietary software.

One of PCs main strengths is its cheap, processing power. I don't think this will be much of a contest. Your AMD will probably crush the G4.

[zabomb4163]

most visual arts studios i have been to lately use pc's. Macs are becoming less and less common in the professional world. it looks like Gates is getting his wish. i only hope apple has the brains to make the os work on AMD's 64bit chip.

[UnseenMenace]

Originally posted by zabomb4163
most visual arts studios i have been to lately use pc's. Macs are becoming less and less common in the professional world. it looks like Gates is getting his wish. i only hope apple has the brains to make the os work on AMD's 64bit chip.

Why is Gates getting his wish? most studios I am aware of are using *nix rendering and applications was'nt Shrek for example done on linux farms ?

The Apple OS is actually based on open source products and is currently available for the x86 processors which should mean that it works on the AMD 64bit platform as well.. The OS itself is actually a *nix called Darwin, it is only the OSX GUI which is not open source and is only available for the MAC

[drunkmonkey]

mmm, i wanna see this.make sure ya OC a lil bit b4 the lil contest to give ya a winning edge:)

I can't believe there are no popular benchmark proggies to compare the pc and mac:(

[kaltag]

i know it's getting real hard to find a bencher for both platforms. and as much as i would like to oc a bit to give me as much of an edge as possible i want to keep it a fair competition so no oc for me this time at least not until the results are in :)

[eli]

Originally posted by UnseenMenace


Why is Gates getting his wish? most studios I am aware of are using *nix rendering and applications was'nt Shrek for example done on linux farms ?

The Apple OS is actually based on open source products and is currently available for the x86 processors which should mean that it works on the AMD 64bit platform as well.. The OS itself is actually a *nix called Darwin, it is only the OSX GUI which is not open source and is only available for the MAC

I think most 3d movies are rendered on Linux. Sun systems "rents" out rendering farms.

That is why i like OS X so much, it's because I know it was based on a form of Unix.

[zabomb4163]

you processors are not already overclocked? at least have the ram at agressive timmings. i think an overclock would be more than justified since the mac does cost more and you would have had higher clocked athlons if you had spend the extra $.

[kaltag]

this tyan board doesn't really have anything for overclocking except for the program cpufsb which i won't be using for this test.

[deRusett]

Originally posted by eli


I think most 3d movies are rendered on Linux. Sun systems "rents" out rendering farms.

That is why i like OS X so much, it's because I know it was based on a form of Unix.

I thought Windows XP was now based partially on Unix as well??

[kaltag]

windows xp was based on windows 2000 and the NT kernel, no unix as far as i understand. correct me if i'm wrong.

[Titan386]

I think that XP and 2k have some BSD code in them. I'm not sure, but I think the stuff MS borrowed was networking related.

[Mr. $T$]

If you can do a fresh Install of windows and do not install anything you will not need for the benchmarking. Do as minimal as possable no background pictures or anything. That should give you the edge. And see If you can get your hands on an other 256mb of ram so you can get 1gig.

[RichardLizzard]

Go amd go, macs are grossly under-powerd at the moment,
your pc should beat it hands sown at most things,
but sum apps have still got rediculously optimised code
for apple, and not pc...
Tweak ur system up as to impose maximum embaressment
to the apple rep, the sooner apple make sumthing decent the
better, cos I can use osx and a good (hopefully amd based) mac.

[RichardLizzard]

ps, or that nice new IBM 64/32chip..
more likely, methinks... maybe,...

[nealric]

After reading this- I was thinking that thats not really a fair competition. That dual 1.25 costs well upwards 3 grand. For that you could do dual xp2400 on phase change. That would make the mac go running out of the room begging for mercy ;)

[kaltag]

that's one point i would like to campare is dollar per performance.

[RichardLizzard]

yeah but you have to remember you are paying the extra money for the apple *cough cough* reliability...

:) hehe

[illwillchill]

if you do lose (that's a BIG if) just show all the games you can play on the pc :D :D

[AMD'er]

Rent to of the same DVD's from your local movie store....or bring them from home...same lenght..see which machines Ripps the dvd and encodes it the fastested...that could be one form...but I would really stick to something like video editing, rendering, etc...if not you will be involved in an arugment with no end...like someone stated before...beat them at their own game...

[Stumpjumper5200]

Mac is soooo dead.

Intel's got hyper-threading, AMD's coming out with the Athlon64.........gimme a break, MAC can't hold out against that.

How about a dual setup of hyperthreading CPU's? 2 physical CPU's, but 4 logical ones! Or a dual setup when the Athlon 64 comes out!

Good luck Mac. Kinda like the rice burner of the computer world. "We don't need REAL speed, we just need to make it look pretty and trendy!!!!"

[DemonicAardvark]

If he is allowed spend $999999999 on a comp, can't you? Get vapo-chill, 2x2800+, 512mb pc3500 ram, radeon 9700, etc etc...

[kaltag]

well stumpjumper for one thing xp pro only supports 2 cpus to my knowledge not 4 so two logical cpus would be wasted. you'd need 2000 server to get it working on all 4. correct me if i'm wrong though.

[kaltag]

well stumpjumper for one thing xp pro only supports 2 cpus to my knowledge not 4 so two logical cpus would be wasted. you'd need 2000 server to get it working on all 4. correct me if i'm wrong though.

edit: stupid double post :(

[XWRed1]

Originally posted by Stumpjumper5200
Mac is soooo dead.

Intel's got hyper-threading, AMD's coming out with the Athlon64.........gimme a break, MAC can't hold out against that.

How about a dual setup of hyperthreading CPU's? 2 physical CPU's, but 4 logical ones! Or a dual setup when the Athlon 64 comes out!

Good luck Mac. Kinda like the rice burner of the computer world. "We don't need REAL speed, we just need to make it look pretty and trendy!!!!"

Intel's had hyperthreading for over a year now and Apple didn't die. Its not right to say "Mac is soooo dead". Thats like saying "Pentium is soooo dead".

Athlon64 won't make much of an impact for most people besides being effectively yet another faster x86 cpu. If you're worried about 64bit that badly, Apple is getting a 64bit Power4 derivative called the PPC970.

I think the hardware used in Macs is mostly fine, the big clincher is that its a closed hardware platform, although just recently its become possible (http://www.terrasoftsolutions.com/products/boxer/teron_cx.shtml) to buy a normal ATX PowerPC motherboard w/ cpu at a somewhat reasonable price through normal channels.

At any rate, you should benchmark with rc5 and make sure the cpus are at the same clock speed! I.e., dual 1250mhz G4 vs. dual 1200mhz Athlon, or dual 1300mhz Athlon.

[Stumpjumper5200]

You can't build a mac.

Boooooooooooooring. You're basically buying a Dell with different hardware :rolleyes:

And is there anyone here who would buy a Dell over building their own system? nope. And if they would, they're in the wrong place, since you can't overclock them.

Can you overclock a mac? I don't know, but I haven't seen a major company that you can buy a system from and then overclock it.

[XWRed1]

No, you can't build a Mac unless you scavenge the likes of eBay for parts. But you can build a normal PowerPC box to run LinuxPPC or maybe even OSX.

And yes, you can overclock Macs.

[nealric]

At any rate, you should benchmark with rc5 and make sure the cpus are at the same clock speed! I.e., dual 1250mhz G4 vs. dual 1200mhz Athlon, or dual 1300mhz Athlon.

How is that fair?
Thats like benchmarking an xp1600 vs a celly 1.4 and saying that its fair since theyre running at the same clock.

[XWRed1]

How is it unfair? Would the Athlon spank it? Lets find out.

[nealric]

My point is- there are many more factors to performance in a cpu besides clock speed.
Different proc architecture.
Benchmarking an athlon 1.2 vs motorola 1.2 achieves absolutely nothing. Pricewise there is no comparison. They are running on different chipsets. In that case- yes the mac would most likely win. But a duron 1.2 can be had for about $30.
This competition is like comparing a dodge viper to a ford tarus and saying that doge is faster.
A a viper vs a mustang cobra would bea bit more fair.

[LittlePiggie]

Originally posted by nealric
My point is- there are many more factors to performance in a cpu besides clock speed.
Different proc architecture.
Benchmarking an athlon 1.2 vs motorola 1.2 achieves absolutely nothing. Pricewise there is no comparison. They are running on different chipsets. In that case- yes the mac would most likely win. But a duron 1.2 can be had for about $30.
This competition is like comparing a dodge viper to a ford tarus and saying that doge is faster.
A a viper vs a mustang cobra would bea bit more fair.


A "bit" more fair? The viper would stomp the cobra.

On the note of mac vs. pc, I want the mac to win simply because they are so....uhh....nevermind. AMD!!!!!!!!!! AMD!!!!!!!!!! if an AMD can beat a P4, think what it'll do to a G4:sn:. Talk about ninja skillz.

I have nothing against macs, in fact, my favorite game of all time is a mac-only game (EV-Override). I was looking into getting a mac box soley for that game for a while.

I agree that you should whup it in it's home stadium. go for some heavy graphics progs.

[zabomb4163]

i think it'll be close as every benchmark i have seen puts them very close. remember the mac is heavily optimised.

check the hardware that the dual mp needed to beat the mac. it aint cheap.

[drunkmonkey]

I'd be nice If you could put linux on both machines then run the benchies from there (Wouldn't the code then not be that optimized?). Then do audio/video encoding, a few select games, 3D rendering, and folding. Would that be code-biast at all?

[XWRed1]

You can put Linux on both machines. Don't know about optimized though. Of course, if everything on the Mac side is super optimized (which I doubt), wouldn't that be regarded as a benefit of and contributor to the platform?

[funnyperson1]

Originally posted by XWRed1

At any rate, you should benchmark with rc5 and make sure the cpus are at the same clock speed! I.e., dual 1250mhz G4 vs. dual 1200mhz Athlon, or dual 1300mhz Athlon.

i dont think that is fair because the mac 1250 costs 3 grand and is the top of the line, the 1300 athy is obsolete in the pc world.....

and it is well known that the macs are 64bit cpus and clock per clock should be faster

[LittlePiggie]

Originally posted by XWRed1
You can put Linux on both machines. Don't know about optimized though. Of course, if everything on the Mac side is super optimized (which I doubt), wouldn't that be regarded as a benefit of and contributor to the platform?


no because mac is optimized for ONE type of cpu, a small set of hard drives, a small set of vid cards, a small set of ram, and one type of mobo. Windows has literally thousands of different products it has to support, so it can't optimize it's code as far. Code that is optimized for a pentium for instance might be slow as sh*t on an AMD.

[Stumpjumper5200]

Ok, so the mac's are 64-bit.

Then do a shootout: Mac vs Athlon64 vs Itanium2
(When they're available)

[kaltag]

i like the debates going on here but other than rc5 (which is what?) i'm having a hard time finding a mac compatible benchie like 3dmark. any ideas on this?

[RichardLizzard]

the motorola chips aint 64bit,
but they have that 128bit altivec (velocity engine) instruction
set thing going on...
dont make it a 64bit chip though, or 128bit,...

[XWRed1]

But IBM's chip *will* be 64bit, and it *will* be backwards compatible like AMD's x86-64. Not gonna be here for a while though.

[Stumpjumper5200]

Intel's most likely going to go the 64-bit route also, the processor is codenamed "Tejas"

But Tejas will come after Prescott, so we're going to be waitng quite a while before we see that.

Then again there's Itanium2 but that's gotta cost some serious $$$, and it's 64-bit only.

[XWRed1]

Intel already went 64bit years ago, and they decided to brute force it with a better architecture rather than limp along catering to the millions of people who need to support an unjustifiable dependence on old, legacy software.

Besides, for most people who use x86 machines now, being 32-bit won't be an issue for several years at least.

[Fedorenko]

Originally posted by Stumpjumper5200
You can't build a mac.

Boooooooooooooring. You're basically buying a Dell with different hardware :rolleyes:

And is there anyone here who would buy a Dell over building their own system? nope. And if they would, they're in the wrong place, since you can't overclock them.

Can you overclock a mac? I don't know, but I haven't seen a major company that you can buy a system from and then overclock it.

People dont buy Dells becasue you can get Windows to run on just about any x86 hardware you can throw at it. People buy Apple because MacOS only runs on Apple hardware. Macintosh users have a tight night community with their god being Steve Jobs and his reality distortion field. Heck, I own an old mac yet I am captivated by Steve :).

You can overclock G4's, one site is http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/. There are plenty of other ways. Sure, I enjoy and encourage this Dual Apple vs Dual AMD comp, its intereasting and respectful to both sides, you on the other hand, is being direspectul to the mac community, and degrading a computing platform that has been in the past a powerful force in computing, and it continues to be.

Ever used a firewire port? Ever used a GUI (I know, Apples claim to it is shady at best)

Regards,
Fedorenko

[deRusett]

>Ever used a firewire port? Ever used a GUI (I know, Apples claim to it is shady at best)

The GUI was developed by Xerox, Apple took it from Xerox, and then attemted to sue MS when they took it, but the judge rules they could not sue because they stole it from Xerox,

Xerox did nothing and did not care.

[LittlePiggie]

Originally posted by deRusett
>Ever used a firewire port? Ever used a GUI (I know, Apples claim to it is shady at best)

The GUI was developed by Xerox, Apple took it from Xerox, and then attemted to sue MS when they took it, but the judge rules they could not sue because they stole it from Xerox,

Xerox did nothing and did not care.


typical. Gates stole the pc and windows, Jobs stole the GUI. Lmfao.

[Stumpjumper5200]

Mac's need to get in the mainstream.

The whole incompatibility thing is such a load of BS. At least Microsoft's stuff run on more than one type of computer.....so in a way, Mac is more evil......

[Fedorenko]

Mac isnt evil, its a hardware manufacturer. Microsfot only handles software. If it is suddnely released for standard PC's, Apple is walking dead.

On the other hand, if Appple wanted to go x86 they could release it using AMD, but have a properiety motherboard type. That way they would still have hardware control. Thats the only way it will ever be released on the x86.

On the topic of GUI, Apple stole it from Xeorx and developed it. Microsoft. stole the GUI of Apple. Then some linux companies stole the GUI off windows. Lets pretend I never made the point about gui :). Firewire on the other hand.....

[DocClock aka MadClocker]

Motorola should stick with making radios, not chips.
I know this ain't supposed to be a mac bashing thread, but I think everybody should have a mac to kik around..I have one in my shed, and I take it out once in a while kik it a few times, smile,and go back to my PC with renued enthusiasm.
Mac's are just plain ugly,especialy the Imac...looks like a fancy doorstop.

When doing the test, keep it as fair as possible, if not everybody will raz you for it. Photoshop or some video rendering software should give you good benchies to compare....something that crunches a ton of numbers is what you should be after for the bench tests.

Did I mention that I hate mac's? I do...I really do

[Fedorenko]

Motorola is really screwed, Apple is going IBM soon enough.

I know this ain't supposed to be a mac bashing thread, but I think everybody should have a mac to kik around..I have one in my shed, and I take it out once in a while kik it a few times, smile,and go back to my PC with renued enthusiasm.

That is just pathetic, to let you know.

[Stumpjumper5200]

ROFL.

Mac's double as trendy soccer balls.

[LittlePiggie]

Originally posted by Stumpjumper5200
ROFL.

Mac's double as trendy soccer balls.

soccer boxes.

[Fedorenko]

hrmmm

[RichardLizzard]

I spy with my little eye, on mac FAN, Fedorenko, it's ok,
some ppl have to be wrong and like dumb things...
Hope u didnt like the cube though...

Hopefully apple will take the IBM/amd route, anything is better than overclocking your own cpus at manufactue because they cant compete with real computers....
(as they did with the 1.25ghz g4s)

[nealric]

so- back to the original topic-
Has this competition taken place yet? Who won?

[XWRed1]

There is no company named Mac. It annoys me to no end when people keep using the word Mac like it is a company or organization. Its the name of a product, like the word Pentium or Athlon.

Does it sound very silly when someone says that Athlon is in the toilet because they are losing money and firing people?

[LittlePiggie]

Originally posted by XWRed1
There is no company named Mac. It annoys me to no end when people keep using the word Mac like it is a company or organization. Its the name of a product, like the word Pentium or Athlon.

Does it sound very silly when someone says that Athlon is in the toilet because they are losing money and firing people?


we know, we know. their name is Apple and one of their models of comps is macintosh It only sounds funny to someone who pays attention to apple a lot. I mean Athlon (as a company name) would sound normal to the average person because that is the name touted all over the place. I think people using the name "mac" for Apple is caused by laziness. there is no short term for "Apple" i mean it's two syllables for god's sake, who would want to say, much less type two whole syllables?!?!?! Plus, what kind of name is Apple? At least "AMD" and "Intel" have some pizazz. There is no object named "AMD, or "Intle", but "Apple" on the other hand is a non-threatening ball of juicy goodness. An "Apple" just sits around and rolls when kicked. no fun. An "AMD" on the other hand...it...well...bursts into flame at the sight of light. how cool is that. everybody loves fire :p. I don't know what an "Intel" does that's cool, but I'm sure they do something.

Seriously though. I think it does have to do with laziness. I don't know how, but it does. two more letters isn't hard.

Crap. My main thought was obscurred by bad jokes and dumb analogies.

Here is the gem: I have many friends who, when asked what kind of comp they have say "Windows." or "Windows 98." or my favorite "Windows ME." This is no different than an Apple being called a Macintosh.

[jacheatamobits]

Originally posted by nealric
so- back to the original topic-
Has this competition taken place yet? Who won?

what he said...

if this doesnt happen, this thread will either get deleted, or moved to debates. (i hope it will be the former)

ive been following this thread for a little bit, but im a bit annoyed by the fact that nobody has posted any benchmarks...

bah..whatever

[Fedorenko]

There is a debates forum!

Learn something new everyday...

[RichardLizzard]

Results results, we definately need them, I've been looking on the web for results Its getting that bad...

Each website/company normally limits its benchmarks to whatever platform it prefers, so they look better...
Gflops my arse, "supercomputer on a chip" it is not, lets have some unbiased results...
I'll be happy to admit the altivec code helps some apps and that huge backside cache helps for others....

[n2]

i find it amusing that most of the replies in this thread don't even touch on the technical differences between these processors. :rolleyes:

way back in the day, i started a thread on this, and it was Quite alot different. :(


The "clock-speed controversy"
That's the debate between the meaning of "MHz" and now "GHz."

All things being equal, the faster the clock speed, the more powerful the computer, because more instructions can be processed in the same amount of time when the clock runs faster.

However, all things are not equal.

Most people know that Macs send instructions to the processor in a protocol called RISC, or Reduced Instruction Set Commands.

PCs send the same instructions in a protocol called CISC, or Complex Instruction Set Commands.

It does this by:

1) reducing the number of steps through which instructions must go in order to be solved,

2) combining them into 128 bit chunks, rather than the 32- of 64-bit chunks common in PCs.

CISC is the traditional design philosophy. Make lots of instructions based on what engineers think is cool, and then compiler writers use a small sub-set of those instructions and the rest sit around taking space or are occasionally used by assembly programmers. But once added these instructions can not be removed (legacy) - so most CISC designs are saddled with 20 year old instruction sets, complex instruction designs, lots of gates (switches and space on chip) to get work done, and are often forced into using micro-code (an emulator for hardware -- which slows down execution) to get all the instructions on chip in the time or space requirements.

RISC is the design concept of simplifying the instruction sets complexity (not necessarily the number of instructions) so that designers can use those freed up gates (switches - which equals space on the chip) to do other things. Usually those gates are put to work making the whole chip faster (like using super-scalar, super-pipelining, caches, branch prediction, caching, etc.). Simplifying the instruction set also means that you can bring a chip to market faster and take advantage of newer processes with less costs... or that you could design multiple specialized flavors of a chip for the same cost

CISC can be fast, or CISC can be power-efficient - but it is hard to do both with CISC (compared to RISC). CISC machines just flat out require more gates to get the same work done - that means more heat/power. RISC is better for laptops and low end consumer machines where power consumption matters. (Why almost all PDA's and home appliance computers are RISC).

RISC machines have less complex instructions and a lot larger amounts of their real-estate devoted to Cache. Cache is easier to create (map out) than instructions, and less likely to have bugs. RISC machines therefore are less expensive to design and will have fewer bugs (for same effort) than CISC.
Memory and chip capabilities are growing dramatically. As the manufacturing keep growing the chip that is the easiest to design (RISC) CAN be the first to implement that technology (that does not mean they will always do so, just that they could be if they start from the same point). This is part of the reason why most of the big jumps in process or performance are seen on RISC first, and will continue to do so. Money can compensate for some of this - but time is continuous.
MMX is a way to make a processor MORE CISC like and MORE proprietary. Intels MMX philosophy is to add MORE complexity to the instruction set (which they will have to carry around forever). Those instructions will only be executed a small fraction of the total time. A better design philosophy is to instead of using $50 of gates on your processor to do this work (and tie up your processor in the process), use a $50 dedicated chip (and evolve it separately) to off load this task, do this task faster, and to leave your processor free to do other work during that same time. In other words - an MMX based Pentium will be slower at both processor and DSP functions than two chips specialized to do each. They will likely cost the same (possibly)- but the Intel approach ties each tasks evolution to redesigns of the other (you can only scale the technologies together). It also makes it harder to split the tasks up, and have multiple processors or DSP's. Also when one of the units is working on a problem it is more likely to have resource conflicts with the other or prevent the other unit from doing what it wants (in the Intel approach than two separate processors).

more tech here: http://amiga.emugaming.com/riscisc.html

That's why a Mac G4 running at 800 MHz is able to dramatically outperform a Dell running at 1.2 GHz while performing identical tasks.

and check this out too:
http://www.applieddata.net/design_riscCisc.asp

seen here, it's not always the case of Mac is hands down faster: http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/05_may/features/cw_aeshowdown.htm
if Mac users are under the impression that their machines can render After Effects composites faster than any Windows-based workstation, our tests do not support that conclusion.

however, one must note, they were Not using a 1.2Ghz Athlon, it was a test based on duallies.

You may not be very familiar with the Apple platform (RISC architecture) and operating system though, so here is a quick run through.
Apple systems tend to run at higher prices than PC’s, but because of the fact that they make the operating system and the systems they tend to have tighter integration between products.

This is for one simple reason – Microsoft doesn’t manufacture the computers that run its operating systems, so they have the added task of trying to create drivers for systems as well as an operating system that will have to support several different processors such as Celerons, Pentiums, Athlons, Durons, etc plus the many different hardware configurations available.

This task is not on Apple’s shoulders so they don’t have to worry about all this extra work. Therefore they have been able to come up with an operating system that works seamlessly with their computer systems.

Unfortunately for Apple, they simply do not have the support that Microsoft has from the literally thousands of software companies out there. Therefore, yes, there is less software available for the Macintosh operating system known as Mac OS.

The latest version of the Mac OS, OS X (v.10) has taken a totally different approach from previous editions. Previously, Mac OS releases such a V.9.2 were based on Apples own operating system, but this is not the case with V.10. It is based on the BSD Unix operating system, making it more stable than previous versions (Unix is renowned for its stability) .

The new operating system also has support for dual processors, and manages the systems RAM much more efficiently than the previous editions. Recently, V.10.2 was released as well.
This latest version of the operating system is also know as “Jaguar”, and sports an X logo with jaguar fur.

Most data-intensive computing tasks (video, audio, graphics) involve floating-point calculations.
Apple's new dual 1GHz PowerPC G4 processor accomplishes this task at speeds up to 15 gigaflops -- that's 15 billion floating-point operations per second.
(You just found out why it is taking longer for games to be written for this environment; game-writers are very slowly getting used to having this amount of power at their disposal.)





some more tidbits:
http://www.geocities.com/imac_driver/conclusion.html


i hope this will bring to light the true differences between the platforms and end some of this silly argument.

Mac is a great product for folks who need 'That' product.

The PC is for the rest of us who don't mind getting our hands dirty, or messing with crappy software, hardcore gamers, enthusiasts, overclockers, and geek freaks.
(and cheapskate do-it-yerselfers too)

Apple has a package called "iTools" which covers almost all the bases for the everyday Mac user's needs, and aside from Gaming... the Apple Macs leave little to be desired.

Mac has a well-rounded software library, is perfect for beginners, students, audio/video professionals, and even light gamers.

The large cost of the Mac does include a DVD-Burner, and everything else a person really needs...
(placing a Mac's cost comparable to a Dell)
in a very compatible, and reasonably stable, easy to use package.
it's non-geek for the most part.

And, all that said...
i must point out... Even the PC world is arguing over whether, and how, clock speed really measures productivity; http://netscape.com.com/2100-1103-869796.html

[Sonny]

So, who won?

[CoryKer]

[shrug]

Of course the PC will win in pure muscle. Why even bother?

[n2]

will win what?

can't you see theres not a true way to compare two totally different things??

From: http://forums.zdnet.com/group/zd.Anchordesk/anchordesk/anchordesktb.tpt/@thread@81158@forward@1@D-,D@ALL/@article@81158?EXP=ALL&VWM=hr&ROS=1&

The point of the P4 is to have obscenely high MHz to compensate for the really long pipeline.

And the reverse: the long pipeline allows obscene cycling rates. But, higher cycling rates burn far more energy than lower-cycled but more efficient (due to either fewer stages or overall better design efficiency) processors. (RISC)

For "predictable" code, as you said, the Intel processors are great. For branching code, however, you stand a very high chance of throwing out and rolling back the pipeline so much that the P4 can end up at about the same speed as a G4 at a quarter the cycle rate (ie, 2.4GHz P4 performing approximately as well as a 600MHz G4). In general, though, consumer apps are a good mix of predictable and branching code, and most would pit the top G4s against a P4 at about 2x the cycle rate (1.25GHz G4 vs 2.5 GHz P4).


why don't you race Linux against Windoze both on Athlons?


how come we never hear ppl talk of "is Sun Sparc better/faster than PC" do ya know why??

Two Totally Different Animals!

just like Mac vs. PC!!

there can be no winner of a fair fight comparing apples to oranges cuz it's NOT a fair fight.



apparently...

someone did run that test:

Subject: mhz myth is true. I kid you not.
Poster: PengLuber (7/19/2002, 12:12 pm EDT)

Despite what the article says, the mhz myth is true.

I am my self a large penguin lover, which means I use Linux. Now I did some testing awhile ago with Linux on my x86 machine, and Linux on my PPC machine.

The x86 maching was an Intel Pentium III 800mhz, and the PPC was like a G4 667mhz I believe (I cant remember clearly). Both machines ran Mandrake 8.0 with the default kernel. I then wrote some benchmarking programs that did some serious calculations. I wrote the programs in ANSI C to maintain portability.

The results of the benchmarks showed the G4 beating the P3 by nearly 25% of the speed. Which proves once and for all the mhz myth does exist. Now I wanna do these tests with a DP 1ghz G4, and my AMD Athlon MP 2100+ DP system.


from: http://www.macobserver.com/comments/commentindivdisplay.shtml?id=17094


another good read here:
http://forum.pcvsconsole.com/viewthread.php?tid=146

and another article...
RISC vs. CISC: the Post-RISC Era

In this paper, I'll argue the following points:

RISC was not a specific technology as much as it was a design strategy that developed in reaction to a particular school of thought in computer design. It was a rebellion against prevailing norms--norms that no longer prevail in today's world. Norms that I'll talk about.


"CISC" was invented retroactively as a catch-all term for the type of thinking against which RISC was a reaction.


We now live in a "post-RISC" world, where the terms RISC and CISC have lost their relevance (except to marketing departments and platform advocates). In a post-RISC world, each architecture and implementation must be judged on its own merits, and not in terms of a narrow, bipolar, compartmentalized worldview that tries to cram all designs into one of two "camps."


http://www.arstechnica.com/cpu/4q99/risc-cisc/rvc-1.html

[nealric]

I dont see how its not a fair fight. If one cant get it done as fast as the other it loses. It dosent matter if it loses because the software wasnt as optimized blah blah blah- Theres always the "I would have won if..."
Why do the differences in the processors have anything to do with it?

[n2]

because the processors are basically designed to do two different things. (handle different instructions) one does the job it was designed to do better, plain and simple.

that's why Altivec, cache, and low Mhz works.
it's optimized to do what it's designed for.

[kaltag]

hey now genius can't be rushed ;) noone has helped with the subject of an actual benchmark!! assuming i use photoshop where/how can i get or run a set of tests with it that will take a while and give some sort of result in terms of seconds or something? come on someone has to know something.

[drunkmonkey]

We should make a small collection of custom or downloadable progs he could use to benchmark them.

U could use this if linux was on both machines:

#include <stdio.h>
#include <time.h>
void main() {
time_t nowa;
time(&nowa);
printf("Time: %s", asctime(localtime(&nowa)));
int long number = 1;
while (number < 1000000) {
number++;
printf("Number: %d \n", number);
}
printf("Start Time: %s", asctime(localtime(&nowa)));
time_t nowb;
time(&nowb);
printf("End Time: %s", asctime(localtime(&nowb)));

}

:D
Calcing the numbers isn't hard for it, its just displaying those numbers.

[n2]

3D rendering or applying filters to multiple layers at once.

there will be no "benchmark" cross-compat app.

you probably will be best served with this:
http://www.aliaswavefront.com/en/news/home.shtml