Apple clones

[Bondtrails]

Lets not assume the Athlon (or IA32 chips in general) are faster than 
G3s or G4s so quickly. Remember, the ia32 platform has front side bus 
speeds of 533Mhz. Apple platforms still sputter along at 166Mhz. So 
yes, system-wide the non-PPC platform is faster. However, the story may 
be a bit different with respect to the chips alone.

--Bondster!

On Monday, June 2, 2003, at 06:04  PM, Gary Shelton wrote:

> hmm, well, these time benchmarks are using the unix 'time' command to 
> measure cpu usage and the system time required to do a few fairly 
> simple tasks. hardly the rarely-believable photoshop benchmarks that 
> are so often touted.
> since you didn't check the results, I'll give away a secret - the 
> athlon is faster than the g3 he's comparing it to, and faster than a 
> g4 at about the same clock.
>
> i've seen some preliminary reports that the newer P4s have good 
> performance in multimedia if the app supports SSE2, but I can't find 
> anyone who's done a really clear, easily repeatable test. My own 
> testing using older hardware (500MHz G3, 733MHz G4, 1400MHz P3 
> Tulatin, 2000MHz P4) doing things like MPEG1 encoding (video or layer 
> 3 audio) shows the G3 is about equal to a 1000MHz P3 doing MPEG 
> encoding, and the G4 is generally quite a bit faster than either of 
> those two ia32 chips. admittedly these are all very specific functions 
> (but things i do every day), and all done on old hardware. no doubt 
> ymmv.
>
> i agree that from a performance standpoint, ia32 is generally superior 
> to the ppc platform. if i were looking to build a new machine to use 
> as a new linux workstation, i'd go x86-64, personally. but that's my 
> opinion.
>
> On Monday, Jun 2, 2003, at 16:32 America/Los_Angeles, Thierry de 
> Coulon wrote:
>
>> On Monday 02 June 2003 17:58, Gary Shelton wrote:
>>> As far as performance goes, this guy's done some benchmarking 
>>> between a
>>> G3 and an Athlon at the same clock speed. For most CPU-intensive
>>> operations that were written with the architecture in mind (not a 
>>> port
>>> from another architecture, like most games), I've found the G3 to be
>>> about 1.5 to 2.0 times faster than an ia32 processor at the same 
>>> clock.
>>> Of course, ia32 has the edge in clock speed, so it's cold comfort...
>>
>> Sorry to say, but most of the time benchmarks sucks. They simply say 
>> NOTHING!
>> Most wonderfull benchmarks for the Mac are purely based on special 
>> Photoshop
>> functions optimzed for the G4. "Real life" benchmarks are made when 
>> working
>> with applications.
>>
>> So my experience is that my 733 Mhz G4 (640MB) is mostly SLOWER 
>> (running OS X
>> apps) than equivalent apps on my 600 Mhz (200MB) ia32 notebook. On the
>> quicksilver, disk access and video sucks (I have run Wolfenstein 3D 
>> on W98 on
>> the notebook with a Trident Cyberblade but never managed to run 
>> Soldier of
>> Fortune 2 on the Quicksilver that runs a GeForce 2 MX).
>>
>> CD/DVD access is also slower on my Macs.
>>
>> But only the Macs run OS X :)
>>
>> My point is: if you have a Mac and want to run Linux on it I'd 
>> recommend YDL.
>> If you want to run Linux and look for a platform, ia32 is the choice: 
>> faster,
>> cheaper, more programs to run. I upgraded my main machine to a double 
>> Athlon
>> last year for 1/3 of the price of a double processor G4.
>> The exception might be the iBook (maybe the 12" PowerBook too) that 
>> beats most
>> PC notebooks.
>>
>> Now that's only my point of vue, of course!
>>
>> Thierry
>>
>> -- 
>> Smile . . . tomorrow will be worse.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> yellowdog-general mailing list
>> yellowdog-general@lists.terrasoftsolutions.com
>> http://lists.terrasoftsolutions.com/mailman/listinfo/yellowdog-general
>
> _______________________________________________
> yellowdog-general mailing list
> yellowdog-general@lists.terrasoftsolutions.com
> http://lists.terrasoftsolutions.com/mailman/listinfo/yellowdog-general
>