Recommended Posts

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?

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/318201-mac-mhz-to-pc-mhz/
Share on other sites

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).

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

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

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...

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

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

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

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.

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.

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...

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."

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.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • We now know when and how the Universe may truly end by Sayan Sen Image by Marek Pavlík via Pexels| Not representative A study by physicist Henry Tye of Cornell University suggests that the universe may not expand forever. Instead, it could eventually stop expanding, begin contracting and end in a "Big Crunch" roughly 20 billion years from now. The research, published in the Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, was conducted by Tye, Horace White Professor of Physics Emeritus at Cornell University. Using recent observations from major dark-energy surveys, Tye and his collaborators developed a cosmological model that predicts the universe could have a total lifespan of about 33 billion years. Since the universe is currently estimated to be 13.8 billion years old, the model places it near the midpoint of its existence. According to Cornell University's summary of the research, the study centers on the cosmological constant, a term introduced by Albert Einstein in his theory of general relativity. In modern cosmology, the cosmological constant is commonly used to describe the simplest form of dark energy, the unknown phenomenon believed to be driving the accelerating expansion of the universe. "For the last 20 years, people believed that the cosmological constant is positive, and the universe will expand forever," Tye said in a Cornell University news release. "The new data seem to indicate that the cosmological constant is negative, and that the universe will end in a big crunch." The study draws on data from the Dark Energy Survey (DES) and the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI), two major projects designed to investigate the nature of dark energy. According to Tye, recent observations suggest that dark energy may not behave exactly like a simple cosmological constant. To account for those observations, Tye and his collaborators proposed a model involving an extremely light hypothetical particle that evolves over time. In their calculations, this produces a negative cosmological constant and leads to a future collapse of the universe. The model predicts that cosmic expansion would continue for approximately another 11 billion years before reaching a maximum size, after which the universe would begin contracting and eventually collapse. Scientists have long debated how the universe might end. As explained in an article published in The Conversation by Stephen DiKerby of Michigan State University, several possibilities have been proposed. If dark energy remains constant and positive, the universe could continue expanding indefinitely, gradually becoming colder, darker and more diffuse in a scenario often called the "heat death" of the universe. Other theoretical possibilities include a Big Rip, in which cosmic expansion accelerates so dramatically that galaxies, stars and even atoms are torn apart, or a Big Crunch, in which expansion reverses and the universe collapses back into an extremely dense state. DiKerby notes that the Big Crunch idea itself is not new. What distinguishes Tye's work is that it attempts to use current observational data to estimate when such a collapse might occur and how it could unfold. Much of the universe's long-term evolution remains uncertain. According to current astrophysical understanding, stars will continue to form and die for billions of years. The Sun, for example, is about halfway through its expected lifespan. Galaxies are also expected to continue merging; the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies are projected to collide several billion years from now. At the same time, the nature of dark energy remains one of the biggest unanswered questions in cosmology. While observations indicate that the universe's expansion is accelerating, scientists still do not know what is causing that acceleration. Future observations may therefore alter current predictions about the cosmos's ultimate fate. Tye emphasized that additional evidence will be needed before firm conclusions can be drawn. DESI continues to collect data, while upcoming observations from missions and observatories including Euclid, SPHEREx and the Vera C. Rubin Observatory are expected to provide more precise measurements of dark energy. "People have said before that if the cosmological constant is negative, then the universe will collapse eventually. That's not new," Tye said. "However, here the model tells you when the universe collapses and how it collapses." For now, the study presents one possible future for the cosmos rather than a settled prediction. Whether the universe ultimately ends in a Big Crunch, expands forever, or follows another path entirely remains an open question that future observations will help answer. Source: Cornell University, The Conversation This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • If you look around on Amazon, some of these are available for $9
    • I’m still using an Xbox One S, so time for an upgrade to play this but as much as I hate Sony, I think I’ll get the ps5 pro
    • I bought this game. Played it for an hour, and then got a refund from Steam. Not a fun game at all.
    • Nothing Ear buds with active noise cancellation are at their lowest price ever with 51% off by Fiza Ali Amazon is currently offering the Nothing Ear wireless earbuds at their lowest price ever with 51% off limited prime deal. The earbuds feature an 11mm dynamic drivers with a ceramic diaphragm, and support high-resolution audio codecs including AAC, SBC, LDAC, and LHDC 5.0. They support active noise cancellation of up to 45dB across a frequency range of up to 5000Hz, and include a smart ANC algorithm, adaptive noise cancellation, and a transparency mode that allows surrounding sounds to be heard when needed. Connectivity is provided via Bluetooth 5.3, with support for multiple profiles including HFP, A2DP, AVRCP, and others. The earbuds also support dual connection, allowing them to be paired with two devices at the same time. Additional features include IP54 water and dust resistance for the earbuds and IP55 for the charging case, in-ear detection, pinch controls, low-latency mode, Google Fast Pair, Microsoft Swift Pair, and a three-microphone system per earbud for clearer voice calls. The Nothing X app, available on Android and iOS, provides access to custom EQ settings, bass enhancement, personal sound profiles, ear tip fit testing, firmware updates, customisable controls, dual-device management, and a find-my-earbuds feature. In terms of battery performance, each earbud has a 46mAh battery and the charging case has a 500mAh capacity. With active noise cancellation (ANC) turned off, the earbuds should offer up to 8.5 hours of playback on a single charge and up to 40.5 hours in total with the charging case. With ANC enabled, playback should last up to 5.2 hours on the earbuds and up to 24 hours with the case. For calls, talk time should reach up to 5 hours on the earbuds and 23 hours with the case when ANC is off, while ANC on should provide up to 4 hours on the earbuds and 18 hours with the case. Finally, fast charging should deliver up to 10 hours of playback from 10 minutes of charging when ANC is disabled. Nothing Ear Wireless Earbuds Bluetooth: $73.15 (Amazon US) - 51% off Good to know This Amazon deal is U.S. specific, and not available in other regions unless specified. We only use first-party seller links (at the time of article publishing); ensure that you purchase from a first-party seller link only. Check out Today's Deals on Amazon | or our recent tech deals. Become a Prime member (for Students or SNAP) via Neowin Get Prime Access - Prime for half price (for qualifying Medicaid, EBT, SNAP) Subscribe to Prime Video, Audible Plus, Music Unlimited or Kindle Unlimited via Neowin As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
  • Recent Achievements

    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      With What earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      577
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      174
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      73
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      68
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!