Is the G4 really that fast?
- Thread starter Annihilatus
- Start date
Annihilatus
i pointed these facts out a long time ago i mere got ridiculed and passed off as a PC twat, now people are suddenly starting to see the light, if Apple moved over to X86 tommorrow everyone with new macs would be bragging to mates with old PPC macs about how much faster there new machines are compared to old PPC and then all of a sudden they will start pulling apart PPC.
the same happened when OSX came out all of a sudden Mac OS9 was useless with bad memory managemnent etc etc when i pointed that out when they were defending it as supperior to Win2k just months before which had all the features of OSX such as protected memmory, all those things dont matter until mac users get them then they are all of a sudden amazing.
So dont waste your breath mate.
i pointed these facts out a long time ago i mere got ridiculed and passed off as a PC twat, now people are suddenly starting to see the light, if Apple moved over to X86 tommorrow everyone with new macs would be bragging to mates with old PPC macs about how much faster there new machines are compared to old PPC and then all of a sudden they will start pulling apart PPC.
the same happened when OSX came out all of a sudden Mac OS9 was useless with bad memory managemnent etc etc when i pointed that out when they were defending it as supperior to Win2k just months before which had all the features of OSX such as protected memmory, all those things dont matter until mac users get them then they are all of a sudden amazing.
So dont waste your breath mate.
Annihilatus
Banned
What some people don't understand is how hard it is for Microsoft to make an operating system when they know they have to support so many third-party products and programs. It's not like they can put as much effort into optimizing their OS as Apple does.
I like Apple, I really like their product. But only if Apple gets to the x86 platform will they really be tested as a computer manufacturer.
Andre
I like Apple, I really like their product. But only if Apple gets to the x86 platform will they really be tested as a computer manufacturer.
Andre
simX
Unofficial Mac Genius
These benchmarks are highly skewed. Why? For two big reasons.
1) The benchmarks are not optimized for the Altivec engine. Well, now, it's not my fault if this guy doesn't give a **** about real-world performance, is it? If this guy was the least bit bright, he'd realize that the Altivec engine actually gives a very real benefit when using things like Photoshop and other programs that are optimized for it.
2) The SPEC benchmarks basically just spit a bunch of data through the processor. You know what this negates? The real-world situation of forks and bubbles in the processor pipeline. These drain the pipeline. Now, you know that the Intel Pentium 4 processor has 20 stages while the G4 has half that number (or less, depending on which G4 processor you are using). So while using the SPEC benchmark the Intel can crank out a high number, real-world performance will not be nearly as dramatically high. If this benchmark software actually accounted for forking and bubbling, the Intel processor would suffer greatly for its long pipeline.
Based on these two facts alone, it is easy to see that the SPEC benchmark is highly skewed against the G4 processor.
As I always say, real-world performance is the only way to benchmark a processor. And in that a G4 does extremely well it may not beat the competition, but it surely isn't as bad as this web page makes it out to be.
1) The benchmarks are not optimized for the Altivec engine. Well, now, it's not my fault if this guy doesn't give a **** about real-world performance, is it? If this guy was the least bit bright, he'd realize that the Altivec engine actually gives a very real benefit when using things like Photoshop and other programs that are optimized for it.
2) The SPEC benchmarks basically just spit a bunch of data through the processor. You know what this negates? The real-world situation of forks and bubbles in the processor pipeline. These drain the pipeline. Now, you know that the Intel Pentium 4 processor has 20 stages while the G4 has half that number (or less, depending on which G4 processor you are using). So while using the SPEC benchmark the Intel can crank out a high number, real-world performance will not be nearly as dramatically high. If this benchmark software actually accounted for forking and bubbling, the Intel processor would suffer greatly for its long pipeline.
Based on these two facts alone, it is easy to see that the SPEC benchmark is highly skewed against the G4 processor.
As I always say, real-world performance is the only way to benchmark a processor. And in that a G4 does extremely well it may not beat the competition, but it surely isn't as bad as this web page makes it out to be.
Pound for pound, the G4 is a great CPU. It can best x86 at the same and slightly higher clock speeds due to AltiVec and optimization. Unfortunately, x86 is in it's 7th or 8th generation at around 2.6GHz now and all the AltiVec optimization in the world isn't going to save the G4 from it.
Apple had to once again "Think Different" and incorporate a very expensive, highly optimized CPU into their Macs that has little potential to run at higher clock speeds than 1GHz. Of course it's possible but it's costing them dearly in manufacturing costs and production yield. That's why speed increases come out so slowly.
For what the G4 does, it does well, but their's more to life than just Photoshop.
The G3 is ready to ship at 1.5GHz but Apple's going to hold it behind the G4 and spread that poor chip so thin while waiting for the G5 to arrive.
They could release the G5 today but it would only debut around 600MHz. Not exactly a P4 or Athlon killer.
One can only imagine what Apple is going to do to pull themselves out of this very bad situation they've set themselves up for. MHz won. Apple needs to realize this. Even programmers don't give a crap about optimization. They juice the MHz and when their not there, your programs run like crap. G4 AltiVec and P4 SSE is a pain in the ass to program for anyway.
Yes, Apple makes a great suite of iApps that run wonderfully in OS X on the G4 optimized for AltiVec but alas, poor Apple can't take on the industry all by themselves and until the can convince programmers to use AltiVec, they'll always be second best.
It's all about the MHz baby!
Apple had to once again "Think Different" and incorporate a very expensive, highly optimized CPU into their Macs that has little potential to run at higher clock speeds than 1GHz. Of course it's possible but it's costing them dearly in manufacturing costs and production yield. That's why speed increases come out so slowly.
For what the G4 does, it does well, but their's more to life than just Photoshop.
The G3 is ready to ship at 1.5GHz but Apple's going to hold it behind the G4 and spread that poor chip so thin while waiting for the G5 to arrive.
They could release the G5 today but it would only debut around 600MHz. Not exactly a P4 or Athlon killer.
One can only imagine what Apple is going to do to pull themselves out of this very bad situation they've set themselves up for. MHz won. Apple needs to realize this. Even programmers don't give a crap about optimization. They juice the MHz and when their not there, your programs run like crap. G4 AltiVec and P4 SSE is a pain in the ass to program for anyway.
Yes, Apple makes a great suite of iApps that run wonderfully in OS X on the G4 optimized for AltiVec but alas, poor Apple can't take on the industry all by themselves and until the can convince programmers to use AltiVec, they'll always be second best.
It's all about the MHz baby!
Its good that you mention real world because that is exactly what the videoediting website benches mention in the other threads test, and as i recall the P4 and athlons both hand the G4 its ass on a plate.
Im not being nasty or anything like that but it has got to the stage now where G4 performance is now totally embarassing for apple, it wins nothing anymore absolutely nothing, i mean it is pathetic that apple still uses PC133 RAM for YEARS!!! bloody years, that is pathetic im sorry and just goes to prove how antiquated the Mac platform really is compared to the competition.
the way i see it the G4 loses both the synthetic and real world benches by such large margins these days its not even worth comparing them anymore unless purely for a laugh while thinking abouts Job' supercomputer.
Im not being nasty or anything like that but it has got to the stage now where G4 performance is now totally embarassing for apple, it wins nothing anymore absolutely nothing, i mean it is pathetic that apple still uses PC133 RAM for YEARS!!! bloody years, that is pathetic im sorry and just goes to prove how antiquated the Mac platform really is compared to the competition.
the way i see it the G4 loses both the synthetic and real world benches by such large margins these days its not even worth comparing them anymore unless purely for a laugh while thinking abouts Job' supercomputer.
I sometimes just don't get it. I mean, my TiBook is running at 500 MHz. It's the best machine I've ever bought and I'd buy a 800 MHz right now if I had the money. So I'm not exactly the one to buy a Dual GHz or 1.2 GHz PowerMac. But even if I was, I really don't care whether some or other benchmarking application puts my PowerMac behind any P4 or Athlon. I don't want a Dell running at 2.2 GHz, I don't want a Fujitsu Siemens at 2.6 GHz - I want a Mac, and I don't care about the MHz much. I'll buy what I need, and I need a great portable computer with a good screen, enough RAM and harddrive. And yes, it should feel snappy with OS X (which even my TiBook 500 does).
gatorparrots
~departed~
Here's a comparison of the "inner workings" of the P4 and the G4e:
http://arstechnica.com/cpu/01q4/p4andg4e2/p4andg4e2-1.html
Read it. Understand it. Use the best tool for the job.
http://arstechnica.com/cpu/01q4/p4andg4e2/p4andg4e2-1.html
Read it. Understand it. Use the best tool for the job.
MDLarson
Registered
Speak for yourself.
Some advice for not ticking people off: DON'T STEREOTYPE. Not all Mac users fit your zealot description. You are exagurating. As I recall, the Mac community as a whole, was (and still is) being cautious about how they switch to OS X.
As far as the G4 vs. X86 goes, I don't really care what runs my OS X, just as long as it is OS X. That said, I remember reading somewhere that PowerPC chips run a lot cooler and are generally regarded as being a more technologically advanced chip. I'm OK with that.