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