G4 vs. Pentium. truth or hype?

[craigp]

Mac claims its G4 chip is faster than a Pentium of similar speed because it processes more bits per cycle or something like that.
<UL TYPE=SQUARE>
<LI>If this is true then how much faster? For instance, how does a 400mhz G4 compare to a 600 mhz Pentium III etc?<p>
<LI>Also, assuming the PC based version of 001 ever comes out, what will you need in a PC to make it comparable to a G4.[/list]Please help a poor novice. Thanks.

[JeffR]

This stat is on the Apple site, G4 page. I believe it goes like this:
The 450mhz G4 is 2.3 times faster than a PIII 750 mhz.

sounds fast...I know.

[lwilliam]

Try the following page: http://64.28.73.158/powerpcinfo.html

It shows the difference between integer and floating-point tests between the various Intel and Motorola/IBM processors.

Just eyeballin' the graph, it seems that a G4/450 is about equivalent to a 500-550Mhz PIII in integer math, but a G4 blows the socks off of any PIII made or likely to be made in the next year or so in floating point math.

Note that these are pure processor functions and they do NOT take into consideration the efficiency (or lack thereof) of the operating system being run - so you've got to take them with a grain of salt. Adding the Win95/8/NT on top of that, or adding MacOS9 (or 8.x) will change these numbers somewhat.

Also, how much floating-point math is used in predominantly non-graphical calculations such as audio editing or playing? I don't think a lot.

Certainly an Altivec-optimized Photoshop will blow the socks off of any Intel processor, but I don't think PTLE, Logic, Cubase, or DP use all that much floating-point math. The most recent version of Cubase is supposed to be altivec-optimized, but the user feedback seems mixed on whether it made any difference (or how MUCH optimization was actually done).

Now when Altivec-enabled plugins become available, I think that will be like getting a couple of hundred free Mhz on an existing G4. Maybe one of the Digi software engineers (or other knowledgeable person) could chime in if this is incorrect.



------------------
LW

[Kickin.da.speaker]

Don't worry too much about speed.
Worry about getting a stable system.
In the end, when you experience frequent crashes, you 'll feel stupid spending your time debugging a fast machine instead of making music.

Since PT was written for mac, it'll run better on a mac.
Period.

[zavijah]

craig-

The general thing to remember when it comes to any claim of speed or performance is that such claims may or may not translate into a real-world benefit for the end user. Individual benchmarks can and have been tailored to reflect well on some systems, and (believe it or not) processors have on occasion been optimized for particular benchmarks. The problem with that is that the optimization doesn't necessarily boost the performance of any real-world application, just the benchmark.

So the upshot of this is that a computer is not just a processor, but a very complicated system of hardware and software, every piece of which can affect performance. I'd use benchmarks and performance claims as guidelines and suggestions, no more. The only way to determine which system is best suited for your particular tasks is to try them out for yourself. As lwilliam pointed out, one CPU's strong suit may not be the thing you'll be needing most.

Having said that, yeah: the G4 is technically faster than a Pentium of the same speed if you consider both in a vacuum. Right now, anyway. But a CPU in a vacuum isn't very useful. Much less in a vacuum cleaner.
Er.

Anyway, because of all the variability in software and hardware, it's hard to predict what you'll need in particular for PTLE in a PC.

By the way, I believe the AltiVec unit can be used for both integer and FP operations. But it's really only useful when you need to perform the same operation on several numbers at once, as you do frequently with graphics and vector math. So leveraging it for 3D transforms and bitmap graphics is a no-brainer, but figuring out the best way to use it for audio is a little tricker. That's my guess, anyway. Still, vectors are handy things...

[Michael Cottrell]

Hello,

The better performance of the Mac is not only because of the speed of the CPU but also because of many other factors. ie... the RISC programing...the elegances of the programing and hardware architecture.

A simple example of the inefficiency of the standard IBM compatible PC system is what as known as the 1 Mb barrier...the standard PC still has only 1 Mb of memory on the mother board and needs an additional software solution in order to trick the machine into thinking it has more memory than that...the extentsion used to do this is EMM386...this one example slows the processing down considerably on PCs. This however is only one example...there are many more factors which slow the PC down.

There have been many memory management schemes cooked up over the years for breaking the 1 Mb barrier but to no avail. All of this is caused by the industries dedication to backwards compatability. PC users still want to use 1980's software on 2000 machines.

As I stated before there are many factors which make the Apple system much more elegant and efficient.

Hope this doesn't hurt any PC users feelings ,
Michael

------------------


[This message has been edited by Michael Cottrell (edited April 29, 2000).]

[toecat]

I don't really know the tech side of things when it comes to a G4 vs PTIII. What I do know is I own both a PTIII 450 and a G4 400. What I have found is the PTIII is good for everyday use, the the Mac Simple Blows it away. The PTIII is fast but the Mac makes it look like it is standing still. There are very few times I have to wait on the Mac for a task to run. On the PTIII I have to wait.
Also I find the Mac much easier to run, easier to learn etc. I feel the Mac OS is much better then Windows, and if you are really looking at the future go with the Mac cuz it look like Mr. Gates is in for a ruff ride. Bottom line for creative use the Mac is better, for everyday bull**** it really does not matter. And for anyone who has lost a file on windows you know the nightmare it can be to find it. Mac better the PC fact.

[craigp]

Thanks a ton! This site is a BIG help. And you guys are so nice... anybody lend me about $3500?

[dcornutt]

Craig,
You don't need 3500. Go to the Applestore..on Apples site. Config your own G4.Start with the base model G4 400. Pick the 500 cpu. Loose the Dvdram option. Choose the smaller 10gig ide drive..more on that later. Choose only 64megs of ram..more on that latter. Total it out..and what do you get? More than one thousand bucks cheaper than buying a set spec G4 500.

Apple and resellers charge about 230 bucks for 64megs of ram. The ram that comes in the G4 is questionable. You can buy 128 PC100 2-2-2 ram for about 130 bucks. Buy two and install yourself. Yank the original apple made in Korea ram and throw it away (hence the reason for only ordering 64).

Youll want a 2nd ide bus for recording..this means youll want a IDE PCI card..or scsi if your running a TDM system. Apple charges 400 bucks for a large IDE drive. You can save money and get better performance by ordering the drives yourself.

I like to make about a 2 gig partition and only install the Mac os and other system software on it. Then use the other 8 gigs for apps etc. Then use a 2nd drive on another bus to record too.

You can just simply add a 2nd drive on the same bus..but your still better off not buying it from Apple.

You can get a fully setup G4 500 with 256 megs of ram..and an additional 40 gig IDE for about 2500. Changing the base spec 1599 G4 400 to a 500 cpu adds about 400 bucks to the deal. So, technically, you can get a G4 500 for under 2000 if you order it from the Apple store (the only place you can config your own like this). Check it out for yourself.

dfc

[Digi Engineering]

>>...the standard PC still has only 1 Mb of memory on the mother
>>board and needs an additional software solution in order to
>>trick the machine into thinking it has more memory than that...

This is not true. Ever since PC operating systems and applications began running in Intel x86 protected mode (I dunno... sometime around 8-10 years ago), RAM has been uniformly addressable.

I'm not big on the Mac vs. PC war, but the information presented at least ought to be accurate.

Eric Day
DAE Engineer