I guess this is hardware becuz it deals with the processors and i am sure that it has been asked many a time

but

what is the ratio of mac mhz to pc mhz

because I was watching this video and its steve jobs and he says a 867mhz g4 was equal to or beat an intel p4 1.7 ghz

so whats the calculation?

what would my ibook's g3 300-333mhz processor be equal to in pc?

PC = 1Mhz
Mac = 1Mhz

^ not true lol

The Hertz unit is one cycle per second.
If you're gonna compare the speed at which it can get something done by the mhz, then there is no exact ratio.

this is stupid. look we all know that macs processors are better but why do they gotta be special and all and make it say its lower. bloody stupid in my opinion. i mean why cant they just have it say g4 1.7ghz instead of 867mhz

^Like I said, Hertz is an accepted unit of measurement. If they want to try to match up to Intels big fancy ghz numbers then they should do what AMD has done with their naming convention.

Because Mhz is the clock speed, not processing speed. Its not a PR rating like AMD uses (3200+, etc), its an exact measure which is only useful for comparing the same type of processor. (AMD64 to AMD64, G4 to G4, G5 to G5).

sorry i didnt use the right "terms"

EDIT

WHAT IS IT EQUAL TO

MY g3 IS JUST AS FAST AS WHAT PC PROCESSOR!!!

Totally agree - a lot of people don't realize this kind of thing when they're talking about PowerPC's vs. Pentiums vs. Athlons vs. whatever. It's like comparing minutes on one watch to minutes on another and asking which ones are better

fking aye

it isnt minutes to minutes

because one clock says 8:37 pm when the other says 11:54 pm

so its not the same

Not quite. Different processors process a different number of instructions per cycle

Well, I don't know for MAC...

The question is how mush instructions it make in a cycle.

If I remember well:
Intel = 6 instructions
Amd = 9 instructions

That's why an 2GHz Athlon do like a 3GHz P4.

So now you need to know it for G4 and G5...

exactly basically, order of efficiency: ppc > amd > pentium. if i remember correctly, for x86 (typical PC), it has to decode the information at the processor, which takes more time...
for PPC (mac), its decoded when it gets to the processor, so the processor just calculates as it should...
alas, i do not have numbers to give you though

but i would say a rough approximation of mac : pc is about 1 : 1.5 ...but thats not based on actual data...could be even 1 : 1.75

this should help you get some idea.. its not exact, its rough as they claim themselves but a decent guide.

http://www.systemshootouts.org/processors.html

His question was Mhz of Pc vs Mhz of Mac, they are the same, It's the clock of the CPU and nothing more.

If your question is about who performs better @ the same clock speed or the difference in performance, it depends on the application, if it is optimized for a mac it will run better on it, if it's optimized for a PC the winner will be the PC.

It's like comparing a fork and a spoon, if the food i'ts liquid (spoon optimized) then you'll have a great eating experience, if the food is solid like meat (fork optimized) the fork it's the winner, In the end you will have to realize that, you can eat cake with both of them, and most software it's like cake (easy too eat with both of them).

Found this: http://www.lowendmac.com/tech/chips2.shtml


Damn... a G5 must to be unbeliveble!!!!

Now how to calculate this (someone correct me if i'm wrong)

A cycle is a hertz.
In a cycle the CPU make X instructions in same time. (where X is the number of instruction the CPU can do.)
So a 533MHz G4 (Motorola 7100) will operate like this:
533 000 Hz × 20 instructions = 10 660 000 Instructions.

And a Athlon XP 2100+ (1733MHz) will do:
1 733 000 Hz × 9 instructions = 15 597 000 Instructions.

Now, think about those Dual G5 2GHz O.O

Also: The source that says about AMD and Intel

according to that Chart my Athlon64 3000+ is = to a 3.0ghz P4... Thats pretty crazy!!

This is stupid. Theres no good way to compair the two realy, there each good at diffrent things. Its like compairing an indy car to a rally car by looking at there HP.

Since I've had one similar (a 300Mhz G3 on a 66Mhz bus, like your iBook), I can honestly say it will be about like a 450 to 500Mhz P-III or a 600Mhz Celeron (I've had both and they seemed about the same to me). This doesn't mean that everything will be 1.5x as fast as a 300Mhz PC, but the general feel of the system will be about like that.

Mhz is simply one aspect of the processor and isn't as important these days. For example, both the Intel 560 and Intel 660 run at 3.6Ghz, yet the 660 is faster and more expensive than the 560.

Measuring or comparing a processor's performance by looking at just Mhz/Ghz can be deceiving.

No further replies to this thread are necessary. MEMO.INC has answered the question accurately and fully.

If this to be true, and considering that Apple's OS X beats Windows, let alone their quite appealing design, then why does the world use x86 instead of the Mac? The steep pricing? Chicken-egg debate. They could be much cheaper if they would reach a broader market.

And why do these supposedly superior Mac's use such crappy GPU's?
Geforce FX 5200 64 mb on the 1.8Ghz G5, the Mac mini even contains a mere 32 mb ATI Radeon 9200. With better GPU's and the obvious far superior processor's they could be the superior gaming platform instead of the upper class design exclusive small market portion they are today.

A shame, because those Mac's sure look cool & I love the translucent aqua on white marble design in their os. Nevermind my ramblings...

Then why aren't Armani suits and Ferraris much cheaper so they could reach a larger audience? You can't just "make the price chepaer", and even if you did, there's no promise that the customers would come. Walmart brand jeans are cheaper than Levis but we're all not waring Sam's house-brand.


This is a discussion about CPUs performance.
CPU != GPU, but thanks for playing.


"With better burners and far superior ovens, Viking gas-ranges should be the superior cooking platform instead of the upper class exclusive small market portion they are today."

Just because something is better doesn't mean people will pay for it.
See: Gucci vs BUM equipment, Minidisc vs maxell cassette, Beta VS VHS, Totem vs Sony, etc. Bently vs Ford, etc.

You argue with the same logic that keeps high-school kids dressing like dorks: "Everyone's doing i: it has to be better."

Your CPU's clock speed doesn't mean anything, if it doesn't have the software to handle it. If I got my dual core AMD 64 bit Chips running on Windows 3.1, you think it's going to be a good run? HAH!

That's the problem with todays gaming world (consoles). Too ofton you hear M$ or Sony saying "OMFG WE HAVE 512 MB OF VIDEO RAM" about their new consoles, but if you don't have the good developing tools, we might as well be playing our Commodore 64's.

MAC = RISC
PC = CISC/RISC Hybrid

Completely different arcitechture... Give your MAC math intensive work and it'll beat a faster rated PC chip hands down, hence why MAC's are used for graphic work...

And supercomputers (well, Macs and other PowerPC based machines).

This again?



Your kidding right? That has nothing to do with Apple. Ferrari is very distinguished because they have years of heritage in winning motor sports. They are on the pinnacle of automotive design and engineering.

Apple mass produces aluminum looking and white porcelain looking computers. They have some decent software thrown in and put the highest price they believe people will pay on it. They're just like dell except they get people to buy their stuff based on "cool factor". What is with this idea that Apple is some kind of superior quality elite company? Sure they are good but not anything like some of you people tend to express. Get real.

This again?
Your kidding right? That has nothing to do with Ferrari. Apple is very distinguished because they have years of heritage in building personal computers. They are on the pinnacle of computer design and engineering.

Figured someone would say that. Sorry but Apple and the "Wintel" platform have been around the same amount of time. If anything Intel has been longer.

You can't compare Apple to a company that sells limited availability million dollar vehicles.

Think of it this way. If Apple no longer existed, say they were dissolved in the 90s, no one would really care. There wouldn't be some void. If ferrari, lamborghini, or some company disapeared there would no longer be anything like them.

ROFL LOL nice one

Actually, when referring to modern processors (like G5 vs Athlon/P4)...

PowerPC = RISC/CISC Hybrid
x86 = CISC/RISC Hybrid


Mac's are not better at math intensive work. Just look at SPECfp and SPECint benchmarks. PCs trounce the Macs, especially when you compare them to Opterons and Athlon 64s.

The Mac's biggest edge for graphic designers is a very simple matter of color and font support/consistency. Windows will finally be addressing those concerns with Metro in the next release.

Macs used to have an edge in software support for video/audio editing. But they lost that edge long ago. All the best mid- and high-end video editing tools (Vegas, high-end Avid stuff, Combustion and all of Discreet's products, etc) are PC only.

It is the clock frequency. They are the exact same.

yeeeesh

sorry. I didn't mean to start a fight. I was just curious after watchign that speech steve jobs made.

What have you been smoking? Apple has been building computers since the late 70's, it wasn't until about 5 or 6 years later that IBM made their first PC, which started the Intel/Microsoft duopoly. Apple is the only one of the 4 big (Apple, IBM, Atari, and Commodore) original personal computer makers from the early years that is still making them. That says a lot right there.

I googled and couldnt find any benchmarks putting PC's ahead... Especially for SPECfp95 benchmarks, where PC's just get punished...

Link me to the benchmarks you've seen please.

I wasn't the one to bring up the Ferrari garbage. It was one of the mac fanboys trying to make apple sound like some elite platform.

The only reason Apple is still making computers or even exists for that matter is their other ventures. (ipod, itunes) That and the Jobbs mind control.

Intel and AMD have been around much longer. And the point of that statement was that Apple hasn't done anything for that much longer than anyone else.

That was your first mistake.

I didn't compare Apple to Ferrari (or any of the brand names I mentioned) in anything other than price, I was highlighting the stupidity of your statement. The one in the quote - complete with context. Here it is again.

The steep pricing? Chicken-egg debate. They could be much cheaper if they would reach a broader market.

Maybe you missed the part where I went on to discuss that cheaper pricing does not gaurntee a larger market penetration. You must have missed it though, it was only the rest of the post. Not that I'm really suprised: you've made it clear how much you value your ignorance by waving it like a banner throughout this thread.

Good show.


Bull****. Go read their last 2 years worth of finacial reports: the Macintosh business has made up more of their quarterly profits than the iPod and the rest of the music & software units total.

Until the second most recent quarter the iPod unit didn't even make enough money to cover Apple's R&D expenses (about half a billion).

But hey, keep on making stuff up: every forum needs someone to sound like an idiot so that the intelligent posters have someone to smack down.I'm not saying that's you, but if you're willing to keep working at it then maybe you can be that guy in a few months - after the really dumb folks move on.

edit: showin itallics.

I didn't say anything about price. I guess I missed that you meant only price. It's just that people for some reason like to represent Apple as some luxury brand. The prices aren't that high until you get into the really high end stuff.

Would you provide a link to these financial statements that you've studied so much?
Not being derogatory. I'd really like to look at them.


And I agree with you. I don't think they could sell more with cheaper prices either. I know I wouldn't buy one.

I must have taken your post out of context. You made it sound like you were comparing PC's to Sam's jeans though which is rediculous. I think I maybe disagree more with the person you quoted than you though.

The truth is people hold Apple up higher than they should. It's incredibly annoying.

Just found this. http://www.computerworld.com/softwaretopic...,101083,00.html

So Apple the computer hardware company has almost 40% of its revenue on music and ipods. Sounds to me like that's a big chunk for a computer company.

Also referring to Mac shipment growth, "driven by strong Mac, peripheral and software sales" What's the first mac peripheral that you can you think of?

Sorry to be so off topic.





You doing an excellent job. I'll let you keep it.

He exaggerated a little bit but the basic idea was correct: Apple's primary business is Macintosh hardware sales.

Googling for Apple finacial statements will turn up pretty much everything you could want to read: they're made available to the public by law. The most recent statements are always available On Apple's investor website. Click on "Earnings Releases" and you can read the filings going back to the turn of the millennium. You can also read SEC filings if that's more your thing but I'm not knowledgeable enough to make full use of them so I usually just scan them over. All the same the March 10-Q (the most recent filing) had this to say on


So the Macintosh businesses is still about 50% larger than the iPod business in terms of net sales. Apple has said in the (IIRC) Q4 2003 conference call that the iPod margin is lower than the macintosh margin and in the january 05 conference call that the iPod shuffle margin is lower than the standard ipod margin so with that we know that Apple is still making most of their profits from Mac sales.

The iPod sales have grown exponentially since the 3rd generation so I wouldn't be surprised to see that if you took the last 3 years (or whatever he said) into account that the iPod wouldn't have made enough to cover Apple's R&D. I'm not willing to do the math but if someone really wants to all the data is there.

Still that statement was a little deceiving, the iPod business is now a huge part of Apple's income even if it isn't the majority (yet). Even if what he said was true, apple's R&D budget is only a small part of their total operating expenses so it's not like it would take a lot of revenue to cover it.


On topic
The performance per clock of any given processor depends as much on the type of work being done as it does on the hardware itself. There's no point in going any further into discussion with details. It's like asking "What kind of vehicle is best for moving an unspecified load an unspecified distance over an unspecified terrain in an unspecified amount of time": the details of the job will determine the suitability of a processor to the task. Of course I think focusing on just the processor is equally pointless when making a more general point about platforms.

simple as this: MS had better advertising before apple...apple knew they were better...but were too arrogant to show it...and MS had the right ads at the right time...

well in response to randy, well apples do last much longer and they do have quality, thats why they are more expensive. i am using the original imac produced back in what 98 or 99? with a bit of ram (192mb) im able to use 10.3 at reasonable speeds. sure its nothing to brag about but what is there is that they last. this thing was shipped to me in a cardboard box with some newspaper for protection from penn to north carolina. the case is a bit cracked up, but the machine is still sound and working just as it did when first built. They are quality machines. i dont have to worry bout viruses, or spyware, or hackers, or any of the other crap that i have to put up with when im on my pc. No damned directx to screw up, no reformating, they are simple and built to be used, not fixed.

Basically, they are really good computers, much better than a dell with similar specs and performance. I dont hold apple up for more that its worth, i recognize they make a much better product than the competitor, a product that will last and not be plagued with problems and problems.

Before you get your apple fanboy ammo out, please remember, i own one mac as of right now, and 7 pc's, 2 of which i built. I have used windows since 3.1 and am a gamer, so i need a pc. But i tried a mac, and loved it. So i bought one, and well i havent touched my pc for anything but games in almost a month. I realize they have their flaws, but they pale in comparison to those of the competition.


As for the mhz question, i seems that there is no real conversion, but they are faster for what they are advertised as. the powerpc chips perform better, the perform more instructions per cycle making them faster for the mhz. its simple computer science. i dont know of a conversion but thats basically spells it out, they are just faster.

And to answer someone, they use bad graphics cards it seems because of driver support for the os. its a known fact that apple only occupies around 5 percent of the entire computer marked so graphics card companies dont really have much of an incentive to support the platform. also, besides the powermac, most of them i believe (someone correct me if im wrong) use a sort of built in or onboard graphics card, as in the imacs case. there isnt much variety for onboard graphics cards and im sure apple has to nag a bit to get companies like ati and nvidia to make special cards, considering the market share at stake.

I've seen way too many trashed imacs to believe the quality statement.
Apples quality has improved over the last 5 years though.

As for the security problems thats not really a direct result from Apples work. I think it's more to do with wise targeting by malicious folks. And to tell you the truth you won't have those problems if you are smart on windows. You already knew that though.

I don't agree that they are better either but I've not had a lot of experience with newer stuff.

btw... I had used my first intel system a p200, 64MB of ram as a smoothwall router for a few years. I still have it and will probably put freebsd on it soon.

cool, no im experienced with windows, and no i dont really have the virus or hacker problems, but spyware is so very hard to avoid. and what i refer to is the common man. i have to go over to my grandmas house every couple weeks to clean her system of the crap that messes it up. and interms quality, what i refer to is that you can still use it as one of your main machines. i rarely ever see a machine as old as my imac being used as peoples main machines where they do everyday stuff. Most people are having to upgrade left and right to keep up.

there new stuff is much better than before. when apple went down hill in the mid 1990's is when they started going down hill and people started switching over to pc. now everyone uses a pc when it used to be the other way around. but their products are so much better than before and its a shame really because people remember the older days and refuse to go back when in most cases, the mac is better for the office in a bunch of ways mainly security and the issue of cost (long term).

i hope you didnt take my comments as hostile cause they werent meant to be.

Not at all. I agree with you on the improvements. OS X was a huge leap for Apple. Obviosly way more than about any other OS upgrade from them. The hardware appears much nicer then it used to be. imo, it was good about the time the PowerPC cpu came out and then started going down hill with ths clones. Then while some improvement on the G3 the imac was still pretty bad (Apparently not yours. ) The G3 tower was also way overpriced and hyped. Same goes for the G4 cpu with the "supercomputer" commercials. It was around these years I turned against apple. The blatant lying and distortion in their commercials and the fruity cases.

Also my first computer was a Mac Performa 467.

MS better advertising: http://www.goyk.com/flash.asp?path=947

haha nice, my first mac was an old lc2, i dont use it anymore cause i mean 3mhz is a bit slow but it was the first. worked fine till i got that weird error with the floppy with the question mark, heh. ill agree with u on advertising, but they have stopped alot of that. the only apple ads i see anymore are for itunes or the ipod which regardless of what people say i still believe is one of the best out there. theres more to life then specs, lol.

Last time I checked, Intel and AMD don't make computers, they make processors, like IBM and Motorola (now Freescale) do. Guess what? IBM and Motorola (the ones who make Mac processors) have been around at least as long as Intel and AMD, if not longer. What exactly was your point?

My point was that Apple has been making PERSONAL COMPUTERS longer than any other company that is still making them (IBM no longer makes theirs, a company called Lenovo in Asia bought their personal computer line). No other company even comes close. That is why I said Apple had a long heritage of making computers.

I'm not disagreeing with you. But my point is that these tech companies have been around about the same amount of time. We were discussing Ferrari and they have been a performance maker for much longer than most others. It's not a big deal though.

And imo Apple is still making them because they have no real competition. They control all things Mac and Apple. No other influence as long as they can steer people to their platform.

And imo Nintendo is still making them because they have no real competition. They control all things Game Cube and Nintendo. No other influence as long as they can steer people to their platform.


And imo Levis' is still making them because they have no real competition. They control all things 501 and Levis. No other influences as long as they can steer people to their platform.


And imo Amiga is still making them because they have no real competition. They control all things WorkBench and Amiga. No other influences a long as they can steer people to their platf...oh, wait never mind. All those other computer manufacturers WERE competing with Amiga and they were run out of town - existing now only as a hobbiest-maintained toy-OS used on machines cobbled together from old PPC hardware.

Now your making no sense.

Apple's not really a direct competitor to anything that runs windows. If they had clones then they would have competition. You have to pick an apple computer if you want the Mac OS. With windows systems they are competing against each other and this drives down prices putting pressure on each company. Apple doesn't have to worry about this so much.

Face it, the world has chosen a platform. (Put this here to make you angry.) It's a jk btw.