mac mhz to pc mhz

[helix23]

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?

[P!P]

PC = 1Mhz

Mac = 1Mhz

[AcdShdw]

^ not true lol

[Rob2687]

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.

[Rekoil]

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

[Rob2687]

^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.

[VGVL]

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

585893290[/snapback]

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).

[helix23]

sorry i didnt use the right "terms" :(

EDIT

WHAT IS IT EQUAL TO

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

[khaos34]

PC = 1Mhz

Mac = 1Mhz

585893281[/snapback]

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 :D

[helix23]

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 :D

585893305[/snapback]

fking aye :pinch:

it isnt minutes to minutes

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

so its not the same

[sanctified Veteran]

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 :D

585893305[/snapback]

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

[NienorGT]

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...

[SkyyPunk Veteran]

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...

585893317[/snapback]

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

[fukachu]

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

[MEMO.INC]

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).

[NienorGT]

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

CPU      speed*    instructions  L1 cache

601    60-120 MHz  3 per cycle    32 KB

603    75-160 MHz  2 per cycle    2x8 KB

603e  100-300 MHz  2 per cycle  2x16 KB

604    120-180 MHz  4 per cycle  2x16 KB

604e  150-350 MHz  4 per cycle  2x32 KB

G3    200-450 MHz  3 per cycle  2x32 KB  8-10x bus multiplier

750CX  366-466 MHz  3 per cycle  2x32 KB+ 8x bus multiplier

750CXe 400-700 MHz  3 per cycle  2x32 KB+ 10x bus multiplier

G4    350-600 MHz  19 per cycle** 2x32 KB  supports 2 MB L2 cache

7410  466-533 MHz  20 per cycle** 2x32 KB  supports 1 MB L2 cache

7450  667-733 MHz      unknown  2x32 KB+ supports 2 MB L3 cache

__________

* as used in Apple or Maclone

** AltiVec can do up to 16 simultaneous calculations

+ integrated 256 KB level 2 cache

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

[audioscheine]

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

[lostspyder]

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.

[Southern Patriot]

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

585893279[/snapback]

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.

[Zolk]

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.

[dud]

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).

585893549[/snapback]

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

[wiebeest]

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.

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...

[macssuck]

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.

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.

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.

This is a discussion about CPUs performance.

CPU != GPU, but thanks for playing.

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.

"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."

[eric zed]

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.

[blik]

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...