Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

p4 g4

Last response: in CPUs
Share
January 11, 2001 3:16:01 AM

if a G4 733mhz is 57% faster than a p4 1.5ghz why do people still use pc's?

More about : question

Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 11, 2001 4:31:13 AM

in specific extremely optimised photoshop scenarios, it may be 57% faster. However, for most things, x86 is king for a good reason :) 

Viva la Athlon!
a b à CPUs
January 11, 2001 5:04:03 AM

Besides, we don't like one company dictating what we use (especially not microsoft, but not Apple either)

Suicide is painless...........
Related resources
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 11, 2001 7:10:17 AM

> Suicide is painless...........

Would be quite painful if you asked me :) 
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 11, 2001 7:15:46 AM

Where did yiu read that the G4 is that much faster, the mac home page?, Get an Athlon and dont worry, be happy
January 11, 2001 7:24:18 AM

...It brings on many changes
And I can take or leave it as I please....
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 11, 2001 9:46:56 AM

P4 has a multiplying design which needs 7 cycle latency,

G4, I don't know, guessing it is a hell less

Motorola 6800 (very old CPU)
has a muitiplying design of 0.75 cycle

a 140Mhz M6800 will match the P4 at 1.4Ghz when it comes to multiplying

All signal processing (current technology using 2's compliment i.e. digital i.e. 1s & 0s) are highly based on

multiplying and addition which is shifting and flipping.

Especially software like Video processing, Audip processing, they are simply huge database going through shifting and flippings

Therefore if Intel is not gambling their chances they would design those simple sum to be carried out simply as well.

well, anyway, I think you get my point.

Inshort P4 needs 7hz to do 2*2=4

while M6800 finished it in 1Hz +50% meaning
2*2=4*?

if the software was,,,,,how shall I say, even more optimised in both case then what I said above does not apply.


Best regards
cx5
January 11, 2001 2:09:13 PM

LOL, x86 is a open standard. If apple was smart they would use IBM POWER4 processors. Thats real power!

ABIT BP6 + ATI RADEON 32MB DDR RULE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
January 11, 2001 2:17:34 PM

I think Crashman said it best.

I like having options as to what I can upgrade and what software I can use.
If you get a Mac you have to use the hardware they give you for the price they state and it is barely upgradeable if at all. If you are lucky, you may be able add one more hard drive and possibly a PCI video card but that's about it. Everthing else is built into the case and can't be removed. Most upgrading must be done using USB external hardware and that's just too damn expensive.

Not to mention, the most basic iMac start over $1000. People can go out and get an eMachine for $0 to $500.

I ain't seen a beating like that since somebody stuck a banana in my pants and turned a monkey loose
January 11, 2001 2:27:14 PM

with 5 pci slots and a 4x agp slot, i can see your point bubba
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 11, 2001 2:50:20 PM

If only Apple would see the light, "OPEN STANDARDS"! I can think of many that have come and gone due to their greed, and if Apple is not careful they will meet this fate, almost have many times. Amiga, Commodore, Tandy PC's, IBM PC's like the PC jr, etc... All of these were proprietary systems had no support form the market except a select vendors, and that killed them all. Microsoft gives us what we need, although it is not OPEN. Windows gives us a standard platform to develop against, hardware to engineer within certain guidelines etc... I would happily buy Apple computers if I had choices like I do with my PC, but Apple will remain the choice of uneducated computer people that just need a computer to do grahics, or specific needs. Apple never has been about a computer with All-In-One capability. I for one hate buying computers that cannot be upgraded, this is why I have been building my own for over 4 years, flexibility to do as I wish, not make a fish tank out of it years later.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 11, 2001 4:48:10 PM

What benchmarks are you using? A random number generator? I use macs and pcs on a day-to-day basis and I agree that macs clocked at the same megahurtz are a faster, I agree that Macs don't usually need quite so much RAM and HDD. <b><i>However</i></b>, a 733MHz G4 does not beat a 1.5GHz P4 or a 1.2GHz DDR Athlon.

Anyway, that's fine, but I've got a GeForce Ultra and you've got some Rage Pro card (Macs have always had rubbish graphics). Plus, you probably paid the same as a P4 system (Macs are always overpriced).
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 11, 2001 5:47:55 PM

Not that I'm disagreeing Verteron, but where did you get access to a G4 733 MHz to test against a P4 1.5 GHz?
!