# Apple CPUs falling below Intel in power



## David Simmons (Mar 25, 2003)

It seems that Apple is not stepping up to the plate as to CPU performance.  When I switched over to Apple's about two years ago Apple looked as they were going to lead the market.  But if they are intending to lead by .XX increases every 10 months or so they will get run over by the Microsoft/Intel Market.  Just as they start to get software vendors to move to MAC OSX they start to losing vendors by the inability to keep up with the Intel hardware. Where is the G5 or something in the 3Ghz or better CPU speeds. 

And now there are rumors that Adobe is going to make the Intel the major platform. What an opportunity lose as far as Apple.  I hope Apple does not let their users down and again by falling behind in the market as far as hardware which starts the software vendors moving to Microsoft/Intel platforms. I love the MAC OSX system and hope Apple starts paying attention to there users and the market.  They are priced to high not be the leaders.


----------



## satanicpoptart (Mar 25, 2003)

i would take a dual G4 1.42 over a HT3.06 P4 anyday, with the 970 coming apple will make a major leap back at the pc market, its just takes time


----------



## sheepguy42 (Mar 25, 2003)

2 responses:
1.) Mhz (or Ghz) don't matter. What matters is the actual performance, and since Macs are better at multitasking, they actually perform better. And soon Intel has to do the "Mhz Myth" marketing for their new chips, which don't have rediculously high, power-hungry, stability-destroying clock speeds.
2.) Apple has been close to the brink many times in the last decade. And every time they pull something wonderful out from up their sleeve. Don't doubt them... if you look at the whole picture, all the pieces are coming together perfectly; you can be sure that Apple sees this too, and intends to take full advantage of it.


----------



## fryke (Mar 25, 2003)

There are tons of posts in other threads on this very forum that discuss the same thing. Please look them all up. ;-)


----------



## binaryDigit (Mar 25, 2003)

> _Originally posted by sheepguy42 _
> *2 responses:
> 1.) Mhz (or Ghz) don't matter. What matters is the actual performance, and since Macs are better at multitasking, they actually perform better. And soon Intel has to do the "Mhz Myth" marketing for their new chips, which don't have rediculously high, power-hungry, stability-destroying clock speeds.
> 2.) Apple has been close to the brink many times in the last decade. And every time they pull something wonderful out from up their sleeve. Don't doubt them... if you look at the whole picture, all the pieces are coming together perfectly; you can be sure that Apple sees this too, and intends to take full advantage of it. *



Oh boy here we go again.  Other than a few photoshop benchmarks that happen to favour dual processor configurations, the mhz myth is not completely myth.  Show me one independent benchmark that compares something other than a few photoshop filters that show that the Mac outperforms a pc.  The ones that I've seen, even from the likes of MacWorld and CreativeMac have reviews where the pc wins on most of the realworld (well at least more real world than things like SPEC).  Go ahead and do a search on google and see what you turn up.  GHz don't matter, sure when you're only 15% behind, but when your 50% behind, then it matters A LOT.  We're not even talking someone throwing together a nice (and cheap) dual Athlon MP system.

Anyway, this x86/Wintel vs PPC/Mac debate is being "discussed" in other threads, so the original poster may want to look around.


----------



## Jack Hammer (Mar 25, 2003)

you guys need to go to the comments:

http://www.apple.com/contact/feedback.html

and scream at them how much the G4 sucks and how they must use a 970

otherwise you're jst wasting words on a message board


----------



## binaryDigit (Mar 25, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Jack Hammer _
> *you guys need to go to the comments:
> 
> http://www.apple.com/contact/feedback.html
> ...



Feedback always helps, but I think that in this particular case, Apple is MORE than well enough aware of the problem    And more than enough aware of users opinions (switching to x86 and all).


----------



## Jack Hammer (Mar 25, 2003)

indeed

But NOTHING LIKE overwhelming backlash to make them debut at 2.2 ghz rather than 1.8

constant pressure


----------



## binaryDigit (Mar 25, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Jack Hammer _
> *indeed
> 
> But NOTHING LIKE overwhelming backlash to make them debut at 2.2 ghz rather than 1.8
> ...



But given their current position (and recent history with frequent incremental G4 releases), don't you think that they'll be pushing IBM to give them the absolutely highest frequency possible.  Even if they can't ship a system with this clock rate, Apple has to at least announce it.  If they have this big todo about this awesome new processor and then release it at a "measly" 1.8ghz, ugh.  Nope, they are gonna go for it, they have to.  If 970 doesn't pan out performance wise, Apple is in a major world of hurt.


----------



## Stridder44 (Mar 26, 2003)

God forbid...


----------



## hulkaros (Mar 26, 2003)

> _Originally posted by David Simmons _
> * It seems that Apple is not stepping up to the plate as to CPU performance.  When I switched over to Apple's about two years ago Apple looked as they were going to lead the market.  But if they are intending to lead by .XX increases every 10 months or so they will get run over by the Microsoft/Intel Market.  Just as they start to get software vendors to move to MAC OSX they start to losing vendors by the inability to keep up with the Intel hardware. Where is the G5 or something in the 3Ghz or better CPU speeds.
> 
> And now there are rumors that Adobe is going to make the Intel the major platform. What an opportunity lose as far as Apple.  I hope Apple does not let their users down and again by falling behind in the market as far as hardware which starts the software vendors moving to Microsoft/Intel platforms. I love the MAC OSX system and hope Apple starts paying attention to there users and the market.  They are priced to high not be the leaders. *



You may want to have a look here 
http://www.macosx.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=30547

The solution to the GHz race seems to be just around the corner or should I say just around this fall  

Anyways, I think that ANY dual PowerMac kicks some serious Dark Side behinds wither they like it or not 

And also we have some other things that Dark Side would love to have:
-OS X and its iApps
-Grace

No one can say that for the Dark Side where they choke on bad taste and the misery of GHz but guess what? Intel's top guns don't have big GHz numbers: Itanium1+2 and Centrino anyone? Oh no! You see MHz isn't a myth is only another Dark Side marketing trick  

Now, where are those Centrino tests VS Macs or those Itanium tests? Dual Wintels I here you say? But then again you never saw a game running on those duals, now have you? Oh, I forgot: They don't want you to run games on Dual Wintels because they have graphics and stability problems  

Oops, I did it again: Blah-blah!  

Of course a NOS car is faster than a station wagon but with a NOS car you cannot do anything else other than drive as fast as you can


----------



## binaryDigit (Mar 26, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Stridder44 _
> *
> A Quote...
> "If Apple had allowed other manufacturers to licence its technology and operating systems years ago, Windows would never have been invented; Microsoft would be a small applications developer complaining about the Apple monopoly; Intel would still be making chips for calculators and AMD wouldn't even exist." *



Hey Strider, who is that quote from?


----------



## Stridder44 (Mar 26, 2003)

hmm....well, I found it on a site and found it very funny so I decided to put it on my sig thingy...however I cant exactly remember what site...hmm....I'll post the site as soon as I can think/find it...


----------



## Stridder44 (Mar 26, 2003)

yeah! It was somewhere on this site...


----------



## binaryDigit (Mar 26, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Stridder44 _
> *hmm....well, I found it on a site and found it very funny so I decided to put it on my sig thingy...however I cant exactly remember what site...hmm....I'll post the site as soon as I can think/find it... *



I'll resist the urge to comment verbosely (with verbocity?), I'll just leave it at saying that the statement shows an obvious lack of understanding of the market at the time and is totally off base.

Though I can see how many would find it funny, even if it is wrong


----------



## MacMarshall (Mar 26, 2003)

I think that even mighty Intel is stuck right now because they're making super-fast processors, and there is very little software to take advantage of them. I've been a "power user" for over a decade, but my 366 MHz PC is fine for me, apart from an occasional video game.

But last weekend I plugged my Sony digicam and camcorder into a friend's 5 year-old Mac laptop -- _and they both worked, just like that!_ Getting my digicam to work with my PC wasn't too difficult, but the camcorder is another story. After upgrading the OS, RAM and adding a FireWire card and lots of software, it still breaks frequently - especially after Windows "auto-updates" its Media Player. So maybe a PC can render video frames faster, but it's a pain in the backside to use. I'd rather have a Mac.


----------



## binaryDigit (Mar 26, 2003)

> _Originally posted by MacMarshall _
> *I think that even mighty Intel is stuck right now because they're making super-fast processors, and there is very little software to take advantage of them. I've been a "power user" for over a decade, but my 366 MHz PC is fine for me, apart from an occasional video game.*


I don't  know about that.  You actually go on to mention plugging in a dv cam.  Have you tried actually editing the footage, adding effects, sounds, putting it all back together.  A 366 will suck big time for doing all of the above (esp if you don't have fat ram and a speedy hd).  Have you converted any dvd to vcd (I do, better to have the kids wreck that vcd, I can make another one).  Lots of uses now for these new fangled processors, ESP. given Apples stated goals of being the "digital hub".

I have a Pismo (which I assume is what you're friend has) and while sucking in DV content works like a charm, it's slow, painfully slow to actually do any meaningful work.  I could just slap a title and a few effects, but anything "fancy" would require me switching over to my pc or buying a faster Mac.

BTW, I have a buddy who added a firewire card to his PC setup and he's working fine (he has a somewhat recent PC (Athlon 1.4ghz) and Win2k).  I won't say that it's in any way "better", but he's doing what he wants to do without any major hassles (I had him this close to buying a Mac to do this, but the price justification for a $99 dv editing kit including firewire card and software) vs close to $1000 for a reasonably equiped G4 tower just couldn't be overcome).


----------



## hulkaros (Mar 27, 2003)

...I certainly know about G3/400...

Config:
----------
iMac G3/400, 256MB RAM, 40GB firewire external, Sony firewire camera, running OS X.2.4 and iApps

Job:
------
35min video to edit it with transitions, text, effects, etc. into a 10min clip at the most then export it as quicktime clip and back at the camera

Analysis:
------------
The whole process took me no more (and certainly no less) than 12 hours  But believe me it was no simple edit and also the majority of time was lost to QT export and Camera export

Conclusion:
---------------
While it took me many hours to complete the whole task, the computer never crashed and the final clip pleased the people (it was shown almost to 120-150 people during a seminar) and made them to ask MANY questions about Macs


----------



## David Simmons (Mar 27, 2003)

Dont get me wrong. I love the MACs. I just think that Apple is having difficulty with their CPU manufacturing, (Motorola) and this will have a negative impact on the software developers desire to develop for Apple.

If Apple loses the software developers, then they lose the consumers, first the corporate market and then the Apple users.  When the end user cant find software, and by that I mean up to date current software to do what you need then the end user will switch back to Intel.

What we need is the hardware that major corporations would want to take a chance on (Spend Money). Hardware that outperforms Wintel without a doubt, No debate, and with no question.  Then the software vendors will be there and everybody wins.


----------



## MacMarshall (Mar 27, 2003)

I agree, Apple *does* need faster CPU's, and I'm sure somebody in Cupertino is thinking of that. It's just that, for most desktop computing, a 500 MHz CPU is just as good as a 3 GHz CPU. Yes, video editing and games are exceptions, but that's about it. 

For example, if I managed an office of 1,000 workers who used MS Office, e-mail, database connectivity and internet apps, why would I upgrade from, say, Win 2K boxes on PIII 500 CPU's? It wouldn't make business sense to upgrade to faster Intel CPU's, and it certainly wouldn't make sense to upgrade to Macs. 5 to 10 years ago, there were lots of excuses - "I make huge spreadsheets," or "I make enormous presentations," or "I'm building a big database." But today, short of the Art Dept that constantly asks for faster Macs, there aren't many business reasons to upgrade to faster desktops. 

Laptops are another story, because they break, get stolen, etc.


----------



## sheepguy42 (Mar 28, 2003)

Ok, apparently at least part of what I said was misinterpreted, partly because I felt that I didn't need to explain it further. Fortunately, Hulkaros once again unintentionally came to my rescue:
Macs work. I sell Macs based on that one fact alone, and I have yet to have a customer come bak and say, "you were wrong, this Mac messes up as much as my Win(pick a version) PC." On the other hand, many PC people come back and say, "you know, doing this one thing or that one thing is a little slower sometimes, but it doesn't matter because my Mac doesn't crash or mess up in any way when I burn a CD (or DVD), edit video, do online research, send em@il, and listen to music _all at the same time!_" Ok, so our clock speeds are lower. binaryDigit, are you honestly calling SPEC or any other benchmark test a "real world" test? Because there is no such thing. The closest to a real world test you can have are the thousands of switchers who switched because, even with a lower clock speed, they get more done in a shorter time and with less stress on a Mac. You say clock speed is a problem. I say that lack of consumer awareness is the problem, and that it is being fixed.


----------



## binaryDigit (Mar 28, 2003)

> _Originally posted by sheepguy42 _
> *... binaryDigit, are you honestly calling SPEC or any other benchmark test a "real world" test? Because there is no such thing. The closest to a real world test you can have are the thousands of switchers who switched because, even with a lower clock speed, they get more done in a shorter time and with less stress on a Mac. You say clock speed is a problem. I say that lack of consumer awareness is the problem, and that it is being fixed. *



Where did I say that SPEC was realworld.  I think if you go back and read my posts, I say the exact opposite.

And clock speed is a problem.  If it wasn't a problem, why does Apple both spend a lot of time addressing it and ignoring it (or at least trying to?).  Just because it's not an issue in reality, doesn't mean that it's not an issue.  Like someone famous once said, "Image is everything".  OK, not EVERYTHING, but it IS important, esp if you are the underdog.  Remember, it's not good enough to be just as good as the champ, you have to decisively BEAT the champ to win.  And by win I don't mean swaping market share #'s, obvously that won't happen.  I'm talking about surviving.  Apple has been living life on the edge for a while.  While some here think that this can go on indefinitely, I don't agree.  As with many things in life, there is a point of critical mass.  While Apple certainly has suffered throughout the years, they've always managed to maintain themselves above this point.  However, once you go below that point, you're toast.  Betamax and Sega are excellent examples.  Both had good products  (maybe even better than the market leaders at the time), both had fallen into a niche (very hard core niches, those that supported them supported them with conviction).  However, they both befell the same fate.  That point came when the market couldn't support them any longer, and they both went away.

What's interesting is that people like to use the automobile industry as an example (i.e. Apple doesn't want to be GM or Ford, they are happy being BMW or Porsche).  Well this is a crappy analogy, because autos are for the most part devices in and of themselves.  You purchase the auto for the auto and third party support is not required to actually do useful things.  Computer platforms are not like that, they are more like Betamax and Sega, where they live and die by third party support, content.  Sega even being one of the best games writers around couldn't keep their own platform afloat by themselves.  Sony even after acquiring Columbia couldn't keep their format alfloat (though the Columbia purchase was too little too late, perhaps MiniDisc is a better example here).  Industries are littered with companies that have followed this fatal path.

So anyway, while people have been ringing the death knell for Apple for some time, and Apple fans are more than happy to point this fact out.  However, to fool oneself into the mindset of "oh, if people don't buy Macs, their just ignorant, we don't have to worry about them", is a massive mistake.


----------



## dflett (Mar 28, 2003)

I am a switcher (fulltime software developer (Java/C++) plus part time graphics/web person). I thought I'd share 'my' real world benchmark: starting a J2EE application server (webserver, servlet engine, database, etc, etc) - no graphics, just plain ol' number crunching, memory allocation and some disk access:

Athlon 2000*/Windows XP/512MB: 9 seconds
P3 500/Windows 2000/512MB: 43 seconds
Powerbook 867/OS X 10.2.4/640MB: 48 seconds
Celeron 1200/Debian/256MB: 63 seconds.
iMac DV 400 - I haven't even bothered.

* the Athlon 2000 is actually clocking at 1.7Ghz I believe.

I draw your attention to that fact the powerbook is slower in my day to day work than my 4 year old Dell laptop even though it has a faster bus and more memory! In case you were doubting - MHz MATTER! Plus the G4 seems to be able to do less per cycle than an Athlon or Pentium - do the maths.
The G4 CPU is *totally* embarassed by the 18 month old Athlon machine. I mean it is five times faster and cost me £400 to build whereas the Powerbook has just cost me £1300. The slowness of the G4 is exhibited across all my applications (dreamweaver, netbeans, photoshop). However - as a portable platform the powerbook rocks (albeit slowly  and OS X wins in so many ways over XP. If only I could run OS X on the Athlon core.


----------



## David Simmons (Mar 28, 2003)

The biggest problem with Apple is they dont have a forum for the MAC users to talk directly to Apple. They dont know is most important to their customers and sometime customers dont know what is most important to them as well.  You can have the fastest car on the road, but without highways, its no big deal.  In this case with software a Mac is no big deal. 

Software manufactures will follow the hardware and if the hardware is moving forward fast enough than the Software manufacture will follow.  If the software is available on the hardware the customers will follow and so on and so on.

If all you do is Email and Browser the network anything will do.  When I buy a high price computer as is the MAC or if I bought a fast car I expect the most out of it.  I expect parts, software to be available for it. It is and endless cycle. 

Apple has to stay up or get out end of story


----------



## MacMarshall (Mar 28, 2003)

D Flett, I've got to admit, you make a great point. But I would like to ask you one thing - Does this speed difference matter in your work? I can see that a 9 second startup is way better than a 43 second startup, but you probably only do that a few times a day.

In the general operation of your PowerBook, is performance a problem for you? I'm not trying to be rhetorical, I'm truly curious.


----------



## David Simmons (Mar 28, 2003)

Actually I have a ProTools recording studio with Media 100 video editing and Photographer. I have many hosted web site for my clients currently supported on Windows 2k. I end up not only producing musicians from end to end from CDs, CD Cover design, Photos (currently over 5000 photos on my system), Videos, Web Sites with Flash and Java JEE development. Im looking into moving to a MAC Xserver as soon as possible but am finding it hard to find out from any using them how the OSX Server software performs and how easy it is to manage.

So yes, I need the speed. But more important to me is that Apple will stay competitive in the future so I dont lose my investment in hardware and software. When I switched over from PC about two years ago I had to spend over 2k in software upgrades to run on the MAC and than MAC OSX and it bothers me that Apple does not have phone number to ask questions like, how can I best use their products, how can their server software help me in my business and so on.


----------



## edX (Mar 28, 2003)

> t bothers me that Apple does not have phone number to ask questions like, how can I best use their products, how can their server software help me in my business and so on.



well, now you've found macosx.com. ask away.


----------



## David Simmons (Mar 28, 2003)

Your right, I just hope Apple reads it.


----------



## binaryDigit (Mar 28, 2003)

> _Originally posted by David Simmons _
> *...
> So yes, I need the speed. But more important to me is that Apple will stay competitive in the future so I dont lose my investment in hardware and software. When I switched over from PC about two years ago I had to spend over 2k in software upgrades to run on the MAC and than MAC OSX and it bothers me that Apple does not have phone number to ask questions like, how can I best use their products, how can their server software help me in my business and so on. *



You bring up an excellent point.  Like it or not, there is a MASSIVE amount of FUD out there concerning the Mac.  Add to that many common misconceptions and many people are just down right "afraid" to purchase a Mac.  This is another way that perception works against you.  While the constant predictions that Apple is on the brink might amuse us, it also keeps a lot of potential customers from making the switch.


----------



## hulkaros (Mar 28, 2003)

Speed IS important! But that's not the 1st thing that ANY user must have in mind for a computer!

Just to compare apples to apples and not apples to anything else, let me give you an example with the Dark Side:
1. P4/3GHz running Windows 98se
2. P4/3GHz running Windows XP Pro
3. P4/3GHz running Windows 2000 Server

Everything IS faster on 1.
The 2 offers speed AND stability.
But 3 offers everything else (stability, speed, tools, above 2 CPUs support, etc.)

Depending on users needs 1 or 2 or 3 could be better. Now, if we throw in the mix Athlon XP 3000+, vertical apps, different graphic cards, different RAM technologies & configurations, power supplies, boxes and all the other stuff this thing can get confusing TOO fast... Faster than one can spell out his/her name!  

What I'm trying to say is that no matter what I or anyone else say here about speed, we are all lose the truth now and then: Speed is just a MINI factor of the whole BIG picture that computers are! No matter what I say about Wintels (we all know that I personally prefer Macs) the truth is that Macs pale in gaming comparison but the same can be said about Wintels about their performance running OS X  

As for if MHz/GHz matter... Even the mighty Intel seems to be confused about speed: Itanium1/2-Centrino VS P4 anyone? To me, AMD has its act together much better than Intel and Motorola. But compared to Big Blue? Hmmmm  

Ladies and Gentlemen: Wait and See! Just Wait and See! G970 is uppon us!? 

BinaryDigit: Sega, if you still follow their steps, seems to be in total mess... And if you remember all the press and consumers kept supporting (and some still are) that if Sega would go software-only they would revitalize their economic status... So far, they were all wrong!  Do we want the same thing about Apple? I for one, no way! Also, about Beta and MiniDisc: It is the same with Macs: At their prime they were ahead of their competition but they were blind to see it in order to get advantage of that fact... Finally, about the cars comparison: I think people compare Macs to exotic cars simply to state their exotic nature as computers be it sometimes their design and price and sometimes their design, price and performance  To me however, Macs are more like station wagons: Slower than exotic cars (although some station wagons aren't THAT slower) but transport more people and their stuff easy, sound and safe 

Lov ya al!!! Peace


----------



## David Simmons (Mar 28, 2003)

What is the G970. Where can I read about it...


----------



## binaryDigit (Mar 28, 2003)

> _Originally posted by David Simmons _
> *What is the G970. Where can I read about it... *



He means the PowerPC 970 from IBM.  You can find out more info here:

http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/products/powerpc/newsletter/dec2002/newproductfocus2.html

And Ars has a nice writeup here:
http://www.arstechnica.com/cpu/02q2/ppc970/ppc970-1.html


----------



## dflett (Mar 28, 2003)

> _Originally posted by MacMarshall _
> *D Flett, I've got to admit, you make a great point. But I would like to ask you one thing - Does this speed difference matter in your work? I can see that a 9 second startup is way better than a 43 second startup, but you probably only do that a few times a day.
> 
> In the general operation of your PowerBook, is performance a problem for you? I'm not trying to be rhetorical, I'm truly curious. *



Ask me when I am developing and restarting JBoss every 10 minutes or so. Its not that the powerbook is too slow, but its a blast going back to the PC and developing Java on that. Ultimately it does not matter to much to me. If it took 2 minutes or more then it would be a pain, but under a minute is OK. It's just the AMD processor is so impressive at the same job which is basically why I posted. Others have made the valid point that there are other things that come into the equation: OS X itself is one, stability, productivity both nod in OS X's favour over XP/Intel. As I said, I bought the powerbook as a mobile platform and I am prepared to take a slight performance hit for higher build quality, better battery life, keyboard etc, etc. However, if I am in my office and I need to get stuff debugged quickly for a client the PC will get used. But at the moment it spends most of its time simply running Unreal 2003  

I can't help wondering what a fantastic software development platform apples would make if they could get on par with Intel/AMD. I accept that I do not have a dual processor powermac and that may well be my ideal platform but I simply don't have the room - see sig  Maybe next year.

Already saving for a 970 powerbook!


----------



## binaryDigit (Mar 28, 2003)

> _Originally posted by dflett _
> *I am a switcher (fulltime software developer (Java/C++) plus part time graphics/web person). I thought I'd share 'my' real world benchmark: starting a J2EE application server (webserver, servlet engine, database, etc, etc) - no graphics, just plain ol' number crunching, memory allocation and some disk access:
> 
> Athlon 2000*/Windows XP/512MB: 9 seconds
> ...



When you say a J2EE appserver, web server etc, are you talking the exact SAME servers in all configs or are we talking IIS/JRun/SQLServer vs Apache/Tomcat/Oracle?

Also, just from a pratical standpoint, your comparing a desktop machine with DDR memory, 7200rpm ATA66/100 drive,  1MB cache with a PowerBook?  The hard drive performance alone makes a HUGE difference here.  Have you tried a Dell laptop running at 1Ghz?  It's patheticly slow, well relative to a 1ghz desktop.  No one should draw any conslusions regarding Mac vs PC from that type of comparison.  Yours is actually an excellent example of why MHZ doesn't mean everything.


----------



## dflett (Mar 28, 2003)

BinaryDigit - my example was not chosen lightly. Exactly the same appserver spec: JBoss 3.2.4 on J2SE 1.4.1 with the same applications (mine) running on it. Yes there will be differences in the actual JVM code but as I said, the trend is echoed performing the same tasks with the same tools. As I said Dreamweaver, Photoshop, alot of Java... I picked the application server example deliberately because I know exactly what the code is doing on each platform - some disk access (IO is only 20% of the startup time) a lot of classloading, processing and memory allocation. 
The memory in the PC and power book is the same: DDR 2100. I do not know the memory bus speed of the powerbook but yes I guess it is less than the VIA 266 chipset. The desktop is ATA100 - what is the powerbook? ATA100, ATA66? I suspect the powerbook's RPM is 6400 and not the 7200, laptops tend not to be 7200. Maybe you did not read the original post but in my tests, even my 4 year old Dell 500 beats the Powerbook's G4 and the Dell has a slower CPU, slower disk, slower memory and a slower bus. 
The point is not that stated MHz mean anything but real world performance does to people like me and to be brutally honest when it comes to my real world performance the G4 is more than disappointing. It's of course down to the pure economies of scale of the PC processor marketplace. Given a number of peoples sigs, they are still using lower spec G3s so I guess I am in a minority demanding higher processor performance. I am not a hardware expert - I just use a lot of different machines for software development and tell it like I see it. 

I am not pro or anti any particular OS since I have to use at least 5 every day but I do feel that Apple need faster CPUs (afterall the rest of the components are basically common across platforms - at least when it comes to laptops, no?) and that was the title of the thread.


----------



## Arden (Mar 28, 2003)

> _Originally posted by dflett _
> *Plus the G4 seems to be able to do less per cycle than an Athlon or Pentium - do the maths.*


FYI, the G4 actually does _more_ than the Pentium 4 (and maybe the Athlon) per clock cycle because it has fewer steps to go through.  For a detailed explanation, check out this architectural comparison.  I'll include one part of it here, a good analogy for the two architectures:


> It might help you to think about these two approaches in terms of a McDonald's analogy. At McDonald's, you can either walk in or drive through. If you walk in, there are five or six short lines that you can get in and wait to have your order processed by a single server in one, long step. If you choose to drive through, you'll wind up on a single, long line, but that line is geared to move faster because more servers process your order in more, quicker steps: a) you pull up to the speaker and tell them what you want; and b) you drive around and pick up your order. And since the drive-through approach splits the ordering process up into multiple, shorter stages, more customers can be waited on in a single line because there are more stages of the ordering process for different customers to find themselves in. So the G4e takes the multi-line, walk-in approach, while the P4 takes the single-line, drive-through approach.


----------



## dflett (Mar 28, 2003)

I was aware of the pipelining theory of the G4 versus the P4 but only from Apple's publicity. Thanks for the link. But I was talking from a real world perspective of starting a piece of software rather than the theory. That a four year old P3 @ 500Mhz on slower, older hardware can start my identical Java application slightly faster than an 867Mhz G4. Sorry for any confusion over my comment on the Pentium doing 'more' than the G4, it was technically inaccurate although if you naively divide work by processor cycles, something on the Dell is doing more work than the powerbook. I am assuming its the CPU.

But at the end of the day, I am writing this on the powerbook and the dell is in a cupboard!


----------



## gwynarion (Mar 28, 2003)

> _Originally posted by MacMarshall _
> *It's just that, for most desktop computing, a 500 MHz CPU is just as good as a 3 GHz CPU. Yes, video editing and games are exceptions, but that's about it.*


Every second I can shave off of the start up time of Photoshop and Illustrator is another second that goes into my productivity.  Every ten seconds I can shave off of rendering filters on 100MB image files is a huge increase in the time I have to decide what those filters should be accomplishing.  I spend a lot of time sitting and watching Flash processing certain requests.  Or seemingly endless amounts of time while Suitcase loads up the previews of 300 fonts for me to look over.

I'm not saying I'd ever jump ship, nor do I think that the Man is inferior when taken as a whole, but I'll be first in line when Apple comes out with a machine running four 970s at 4GHz a piece...  I may have to sell my car, but I'll be in that line, damnit!


----------



## binaryDigit (Mar 28, 2003)

> _Originally posted by dflett _
> *I was aware of the pipelining theory of the G4 versus the P4 but only from Apple's publicity. Thanks for the link. But I was talking from a real world perspective of starting a piece of software rather than the theory. That a four year old P3 @ 500Mhz on slower, older hardware can start my identical Java application slightly faster than an 867Mhz G4. Sorry for any confusion over my comment on the Pentium doing 'more' than the G4, it was technically inaccurate although if you naively divide work by processor cycles, something on the Dell is doing more work than the powerbook. I am assuming its the CPU.
> 
> But at the end of the day, I am writing this on the powerbook and the dell is in a cupboard! *



This is why I made the comment about comparing portables to desktop machines.  You just can't do it.  Portables are designed to be energy efficient, not to sacrafice their souls to performance.  The PB has a 4600 rpm drive (that's right 4600rpm, vs a 7200 in most desktops).  Depending on the size of the drive, it probably has a higher transfer rate for a given interface due to higher data densities than the PB.  Plus your only has PC133 memory and it doesn't have L3 cache, which makes a very large difference in performance.

Take a look at this:

MacWorld Speedmark scores
PowerMac 867    - 141
PB Titanium 867 - 124
PB 12" 867         - 114

That PowerMac is running with PC133 memory and is almost 2 years old now.  It STILL beats the currently shipping PB's even though the PB 12" uses DDR.  What's even more interesting is that the PB Ti only uses PC133 memory and it beats the PB 12".

So, again, you can't really look at a laptops performance to make any decisions on processor performance.  NONE AT ALL.  The design of a laptop is way too different than that of a desktop to do so.  Once again, as a test, dig up a pc laptop and try the same thing.  You'll see a similar trend, the laptop will lag CONSIDERABLY behind it's desktop counterpart.  Now you see why trying to figure out anything just by looking at clock cycles of processors is soo misleading.  This is the REAL mhz myth in action.

p.s. are you using IIS for your web server on the PC or Apache?


----------



## hulkaros (Mar 29, 2003)

> _Originally posted by dflett _
> *I am a switcher (fulltime software developer (Java/C++) plus part time graphics/web person). I thought I'd share 'my' real world benchmark: starting a J2EE application server (webserver, servlet engine, database, etc, etc) - no graphics, just plain ol' number crunching, memory allocation and some disk access:
> 
> Athlon 2000*/Windows XP/512MB: 9 seconds
> ...



If you want to compare G4/1GHz performance VS Athlon XP/2000+ that's fine with me:
-Go ahead and pick a PowerMac G4/1GHz and just do it! I think we all know around here that the TiBook G4/1GHz isn't up to par with a PowerMac G4/1GHz if not -20/-30% (in some cases it can be -50%) of PowerMac's performance...

As for prices, I think we have said it 2 many times:
-With the price that you pay for a PowerMac you get MANY stuff that you cannot easily find on a Wintel (FireWire2, AirPort Extreme, 4 Internal HDs, easy to access case for upgrades, original OS and apps  , quality, etc.)

I think that if your work is THAT important and pays you much go ahead and buy a Dual G4/1.4 or even an Athlon MP/2.6  Let's just say that you want dissapointed either way (then again I cannot guarantee you for the 2nd solution  )

However, TiBook G4/1GHz is ok for me until G970 will arrive 

PS. One of the things that made me to switch for good from the Dark Side (and I hope that we the Mac users will not fall victims to that) is always the speed quest of the Dark Side:
-Lets try this RAM
-This HD
-This CPU
-This mainboard
-This OS
-This BIOS update
-This soundcard
-This software update
-This BIOS setting
-This graphics card
-This and that ALWAYS... Damn! All these things just to crash the systems faster AND still have not taste!?


----------



## dflett (Mar 29, 2003)

I am using tomcat for dynamic content, apache for static. IIS is a non starter for me. You guys make valid points re desktop and laptop. But I was also comparing the powerbook to a FOUR year old Dell laptop. I have a perfectly fine, stable, rock solid Windows desktop platform which I am happy with. I just thought it interesting that in my experience, my G4 powerbook is on par speed-wize with a four year old Dell P3 laptop. If you guys are fine with that situation, then that's OK. I personally expect a bit more from Apple/Motorola in this area.


----------



## hulkaros (Mar 29, 2003)

> _Originally posted by dflett _
> *I personally expect a bit more from Apple/Motorola in this area. *



We all do!  We are not just in a hurry 

This fall isn't that far from now, is it?


----------



## Arden (Mar 29, 2003)

How do your Dull and Peanut Butter compare in other kinds of situations, like rendering graphic effects?


----------



## binaryDigit (Mar 29, 2003)

> _Originally posted by dflett _
> *I am using tomcat for dynamic content, apache for static. IIS is a non starter for me. You guys make valid points re desktop and laptop. But I was also comparing the powerbook to a FOUR year old Dell laptop. I have a perfectly fine, stable, rock solid Windows desktop platform which I am happy with. I just thought it interesting that in my experience, my G4 powerbook is on par speed-wize with a four year old Dell P3 laptop. If you guys are fine with that situation, then that's OK. I personally expect a bit more from Apple/Motorola in this area. *



My bad, for some reason I totally missed the fact that the PIII was a laptop and not a desktop.
I keep mentioning the software and the reason I do is that I would bet money on the fact that the reason why the PIII can beat the G4 is that the implementations of Apache or Tomcat just aren't written very well with regards to OSX.  So what you are really seeing is a software issue, not so much a hardware one.  I haven't used Tomcat in about 2 years or so, but when I did I did see that it was a lot slower running on Solaris than on Win2K (the two platforms we were developing for), and this is taking into account hardware differences.


----------



## Gregita (Mar 29, 2003)

This poor horse is all pulp....Who's been beating it again? 

I could care less how Apple's processor speeds compare to Intel and AMD's...When I saw the title of this tread, I said...here we go again. I would venture a guess that this has been posted 20 times, if it's been posted once.


----------



## dflett (Mar 30, 2003)

> _Originally posted by binaryDigit _
> * the implementations of Apache or Tomcat just aren't written very well with regards to OSX *


Its now off-topic so I'll keep it short. Tomcat is a pure Java app so unless you know something about Apple's 1.4.1 JVM performance I don't really understand your comment since its the same bytecode running on both machines. The test only used Tomcat, not Apache. We use Tomcat 4.x (complete rewrite 6 months ago).

Back on topic... I guess you guys must have seen this thread a million times, but I am new Mac user and have only recently compared the platforms to others. Sorry for going over old ground.


----------



## Arden (Mar 31, 2003)

In other words, he just ran across the horse's carcass and had to give it a kick of his own.


----------

