[K107]

Does anybody know the difference Between PC GHZ and Mac GHZ?? I'm new to the apple world. Sick of the F'N PC. The first thing anybody notices between a Mac and Pc is the differnce in GHZ while pc is up to 3.4 mac is like up to 1.35 in the PB.

[JasonA]

It's not really PC vs. Mac. Every chip is different. G3, G4, G5, Pentium4, Xeon, AMD64, Opteron, and so on. They're all different speeds and mhz doesn't tell the story. You pretty much have to rely on benchmarks, preferably real-world usage benchmarks based on programs you actually use.

[Lateralus]

It all depends on what you're gonna do. PowerPC/AltiVec has it's advantages in certain situations, as does x86.

As much as I wish there were a way to compare PowerPCs to x86 chips straight up, it is simply not possible. There are too many differences and too many variables for it to be summed up easily.

Take RC5-72 as an example. A distributed computing client that basically uses the power of the processor to throw a barrage of keys at a computer encryption in an attempt to crack it. It is one of the most stressful things you can run on any computer since it keeps the processor at 100% constantly. A G4 does 6.34 times as much work as a Pentium 4 at the same clock speed. Basically, an 8.4GHz Pentium 4 would be needed to keep up with a 1.33GHz G4 in RC5-72. Of course, this is an unusual case, but it illustrates a point. There are other situations where Athlons and Pentium 4s do more work per clock than PowerPCs.

However though, the 'general' rule seems to be that a 1.33GHz G4 is roughly equal to a 2GHz Pentium 4 or a 1.6GHz/2000+ Athlon XP.

[djohnson]

Here is the non technical(or technical...) way of telling:

Does it feel faster using it everyday?
Do you get more work done?

If you answer yes to these, then it is "faster".

[ghotirking]

Originally posted by djohnson:
Here is the non technical(or technical...) way of telling:

Does it feel faster using it everyday?
Do you get more work done?

If you answer yes to these, then it is "faster".

[chris v]

Subtract the time spent on the phone with Microsoft sorting out the registry, and the time spent on the 'net looking for drivers, and your computer will also be that much faster.

The Powermac G5's are neck-and-neck with the best AMD and Intel have to offer, with each having strengths and weaknesses, though really, the differences are minor.

The new Powerbooks are so superior in every way design-wise, it doesnt friggin' matter what clock speed they run at. They're just superior devices.

CV

[Scotttheking]

Originally posted by chris v:
Subtract the time spent on the phone with Microsoft sorting out the registry, and the time spent on the 'net looking for drivers, and your computer will also be that much faster.

The Powermac G5's are neck-and-neck with the best AMD and Intel have to offer, with each having strengths and weaknesses, though really, the differences are minor.

The new Powerbooks are so superior in every way design-wise, it doesnt friggin' matter what clock speed they run at. They're just superior devices.

CV

Please leave the zealotry out of what has the potential to be a good discussion.

Thanks,

Scott

[tooki]

Basically, GHz is a useless metric for comparing anything but the same model of microchip. Here's an analogy most people can understand: cars. So, you're looking for horsepower and acceleration in a car. Well, GHz is like RPM -- it tells you how fast the parts inside are moving. What GHz/RPM doesn't tell you is what all those parts are. A Hyundai 4 cylinder engine running at 2000RPM won't have anywhere near the horsepower of a Volvo V12 truck diesel engine running at 2000RPM. Same RPM, huge difference in horsepower. Similarly, the PowerPC processors can do a lot more computing work per GHz than an Intel processor. How big the difference is depends on the processor (the G5 is faster than G4, is faster than G3, for a given clock speed).

tooki

[WizOSX]

In the days of Os9 I think the Mac had the speed advantage, for the same megahertz. But since the introduction of OsX and WinXP I think it is much harder to claim that, for the same megahertz, the Mac is faster. Both systems require substantial computer resources and megahertz to run really well. All of my Macs are running 10.2.8 and all of my PC's run Win XP Pro. I've compared my older and newer machines to each other and to others' machines. I do "basic" tasks on both platforms (although with fairly "dense" files) and can use those to compare--e.g. Microsoft Word and Excel (bring up and edit the same files on both platforms), work on the Internet, edit graphics files in Canvas (which is virtually identical on both platforms). On really old hardware and on new hardware it seems to me that the same megahertz "feels" just about the same on these tasks on both platforms. We've seen threads where Mac users thought that by buying a 1-1.25ghz G4 that they would have a machine that would easily match a 2ghz Windows machine--and were disappointed when it didn't--even for Photoshop.

It seems to me that we buy Macs for reasons other than pure speed. OsX is much nicer, cleaner, easier to use than Windows. Using the internet does not introduce viruses. Some software is available only for the Mac. Far superior multitasking. Etc, etc.

[WizOSX]

Originally posted by tooki
Well, GHz is like RPM

A closer "car analogy" is probably horsepower. Horsepower tells us something about >potential< speed but not much else. Is the horsepower mated to a good transmission, is the engine well designed overall to get the most out of the horsepower, etc, etc. But also, if you pit a V6 Ford Taurus against a 4cyl BMW, the Taurus will probably be somewhat faster off the line because it has more horsepower--but beyond that any comparison is totally ridiculous.

[rogerkylin]

Here's my latest number...

I have an image-processing type app written in C. I've run it on an 800 MHz iBook g4 and a 1.8 GHz P4.

The scalar version of the code is about twice as fast on the iBook as the P4. The vector version is four times as fast on the mac... but of course this is only one application

[angelmb]

Originally posted by tooki:
... Well, GHz is like RPM -- it tells you how fast the parts inside are moving. What GHz/RPM doesn't tell you is what all those parts are...

tooki

yes, this is the example I usually use and having in mind I live in Europe is even a better expample because you can teach them with same rpm at different gears, remember, manual gearbox here



After all, if he/she is a new Mac user, that question is a must do.

[Waragainstsleep]

I like the car analogies, should say that the horsepower one only works if yourmeasure it at the flywheel. If you're measuring at the road wheels, it doesn't work so well.

A computer is limited by its slowest component, hence the term 'Bus speed', the actually useful work you get out of your chip, will depend on its clock speed and architecture, but also depends on the speed of the components on the motherboard, the RAM, the Cache attached to the chip, the Hard drive, the graphics card (and other cards) and the software running the show.

Most of the motherboard features are common between Macs and PCs, (as long as they're a similar age/spec), RAM is the same, even graphics cards are very similar (usually only the firmware is different here), hard drives are the same too. So most of the difference comes down to the chips and the software.

Macs used to be ahead on Hz and architecture, back in the early to mid nineties, but were overtaken in Hz department, and Apple quickly resorted to claims of better architecture which they have stuck to ever since. People had generally stopped believing these claims until the G5 came out.

Despite the difference in clock speed, the P4 (3GHz or so) is still known to be faster for some applications than a dual 2GHz G5 (This does strike me as odd).
Even when the G5 hits 3GHz, it looks like its still going to take two of them to beat a P4 across the board. Maybe OS 10.4 will correct this.

Chip architecture determines how the chip processes the information it gets hold of, including how many calculations they can perform per clock cycle.

Anything with a frequency (Hz), can be represented by a wave, a chip that can perform one calculation as the 'wave' rises and another as it falls, will perform twice as many operations a a chip that only performs one operation for each complete cycle.

[DrBoar]

If we look across the board of all distributed computing projects ( lots of loating point CPU work) the general conclusion is that Hz talks.


There are some exeptions like RC-72 that the G3 and G4 handle much better than the x86 for a given MHz ( the G3&G4 has a hardwired division instruction that the x86 has to do in the software). The old Cyrix CPU copes far worse than the Intel Pentium II and AMD K6 as the Cyrix FPU is really weak.

The AMD appers to be the best of the bunch all around thanks to the strong FPU. For those intrested can take a look a the score for a 1 GHz Athlon at http://www.arsfoodcourt.com/index.ph...DC&amp;meid=27

and then try out their own computer. My 1.2 Ghz G4 seem to be about on par with the 1 GHz AMD on a quick and dirty test

[DeathToWindows]

functionality = speed

screw mhz

[lenox]

A good indicator of how fast your system really is, is how often you run into a problem, and how long it takes to recover from this problem.

I have a dual G4 and an athlon xp box at home. Both have very similar specs...however, the mac cost about ten times as much. All I can say is that every dime was worth it.

[halogen8]

Although it's like comparing apples to chairs, here is a comparison I can make:

I recently "switched" from:

PC:
AMD K6 3D 400 Mhz
196 MB RAM
16 MB nVidia TNT AGP
Windows 2000

Mac:
B& W G3 350 Mhz Power Mac
385 MB RAM
16 MB Rage PCI
OSX 10.3.3

Although the Mhz on the Mac is lower, everything about the machine is faster, much, much faster. Web surfing, 3D apps, Photoshop, etc.

The Mac plays fullscreen DVDs perfectly, the PC was not capable of playing DVDs even with a decoder card.

I bought Quake 3 Arena when it first came out and could barely play it on my PC. I had to run in on the lowest settings, in 640 x 480, with 3d icons off and it was still very unplayable especially when there was more than 1 bot on the map or fog and other effects.

I installed Q3 on the Mac, and have everything cranked up, running in 1024 x 768 and it runs smooth as butter. Best part was that I didn't have to buy the game again, the PC cdrom can be used to run it on the mac.

I plan to either buy a new G5 in the fall/winter or upgrade this machine to a G4 and save some $$$.

I can't even begin to imagine how much faster a G5 or dual G5 system is - it would probably warp my brain.

In short, don't be too concerned with Mhz. It really depends on what you plan to use the machine for. For creative applications: music, graphic design, art, video editing, 3D modeling etc. the Mac is right at home and more than powerful enough. For web surfing, email and office usage, even an old Beige Power Mac or iMac is quite capable. For gaming, the Mac is also quite capable, but there is a general lack of Mac games available and you'd be better of with a PC or Xbox.

I hopes this helps.

Edit: The PC has 196 MB RAM.

[WizOSX]

Originally posted by halogen8
PC:
AMD K6 3D 400 Mhz
128 MB RAM
16 MB nVidia TNT AGP
Windows 2000

Mac:
B& W G3 350 Mhz Power Mac
385 MB RAM
16 MB Rage PCI
OSX 10.3.3

Although the Mhz on the Mac is lower, everything about the machine is faster, much, much faster.

Indeed, the B&W is a very good machine for its age and certainly much more satisfying to use than a similar vintage PC. However, since your Mac has 3 times the RAM I think this is the main explanation for the dramatic speed differences you observe. 128mb is just way too little on either Windows or OsX to get much speed out of any machine.

[halogen8]

Originally posted by WizOSX:
Indeed, the B&W is a very good machine for its age and certainly much more satisfying to use than a similar vintage PC. However, since your Mac has 3 times the RAM I think this is the main explanation for the dramatic speed differences you observe. 128mb is just way too little on either Windows or OsX to get much speed out of any machine.

Actually, I was wrong: my PC has 196 MB RAM. But you are right, that is too low.

When I was running UT and Q3 Arena on it, it Win 98 SE on it and 128 MB RAM, which was enough at the time.