New To Mac-Forums?

Welcome to our community! Join the discussion today by registering your FREE account. If you have any problems with the registration process, please contact us!

Get your questions answered by community gurus Advice and insight from world-class Apple enthusiasts Exclusive access to members-only contests, giveaways and deals

Join today!

 
Start a Discussion
 

Mac-Forums Brief

Subscribe to Mac-Forums Brief to receive special offers from Mac-Forums partners and sponsors

Join the conversation RSS
Apple Desktops Discussion of Apple's desktop machines including Mac Pro, iMac, Power Mac, and mini

Mac Mini Speed


Post Reply New Thread Subscribe

 
Thread Tools
Miniman
Guest
 
Posts: n/a

How does the Mac Mini (1.25 and 1.42) compare in speed to a 2.0 GHz Pent 4? This may turn out to be a dumb question, but I understand that there is not a direct comparison. In other words, I heard that the 1.42 is as fast as the 2.0. What is the truth?

Thanks.
QUOTE Thanks
shift

 
shift's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jan 15, 2005
Posts: 137
shift is on a distinguished road

shift is offline
2 whole different OS's man. I feel that the Mac OS runs better, way smooth'er then even Win XP Pro/home. I like both. But at this time I enjoy messing w/ my Mini Mac.
QUOTE Thanks
mynameis

 
Member Since: Sep 30, 2004
Posts: 3,378
mynameis is just really nicemynameis is just really nicemynameis is just really nicemynameis is just really nice

mynameis is offline
The truth is that there is no easy way to compare the two. What do you want to do with the mac mini?
QUOTE Thanks
Miniman
Guest
 
Posts: n/a

Quote:
Originally Posted by mynameis
The truth is that there is no easy way to compare the two. What do you want to do with the mac mini?
Not trying to cause a problem here. I have heard that the Mac GHz is faster than the Pent 4. I realize that GHz is GHz, but is there a truth to the statement? What I want to do is not the issue, speed is the issue. I just want to verify what I had heard. I am switching either way.
QUOTE Thanks
Rosaget
Guest
 
Posts: n/a

Quote:
Originally Posted by Miniman
Not trying to cause a problem here. I have heard that the Mac GHz is faster than the Pent 4. I realize that GHz is GHz, but is there a truth to the statement? What I want to do is not the issue, speed is the issue. I just want to verify what I had heard. I am switching either way.
I don't really know the real mathmatics or theory behind how it really is calculated but from what I understand if you are trying to compare a G4 to a P4 straight across the board, you should take the G4 processor speed and multiply that by about 2 or 2.5 times to get what it would equal in PC performance. Though that's is just what I've been told. Makes sense to me though. Hope that helps out.
QUOTE Thanks
Avalon

 
Avalon's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jun 25, 2004
Location: Luxemburg, Europe
Posts: 1,779
Avalon is just really niceAvalon is just really niceAvalon is just really niceAvalon is just really nice
Mac Specs: PowerMac G5 Dual 2GHz (June 2004), 2.5GB, Airport, black 5G iPod 30GB, white MacBook 2.0 2GB

Avalon is offline
A GHz is always 1'000'000'000 cycles per second.
Nevertheless, because of the completely different architecture of the PowerPC and Intel/AMD CPUs, both perform very differently at the same clock speed.
PowerPCs are a lot faster at the same clock speed than Intel/AMDs, but because of their different architecture, it's really difficult to compare them.

And at the other hand, the Apple architecture is build exactly around it's CPU, while in the Intel/AMD world, the CPU is just one of many parts in a PC. A P4 2.4GHz for example can perform very differently, depending on which board it sits...

So a real comparison is very difficult...
QUOTE Thanks
Qaxpla
Guest
 
Posts: n/a

Well my 800Mhz runs just as fast as my 2.4Ghz laptop. Sometimes it's slower but sometimes it's faster (with loading apps etc). I think the mac mini speeds are pretty good and for your basic computer tasks you'll be fine.

I watched something on the mac processor speeds actually. I'm pretty that it has something to do with tubing. (Information is processed through tubes). On the G4 there are 7 tubes whereas on the P4 there are 24 (correct me if i'm wrong). There's less tubes within the G4 so the information passes through at a faster rate. Thus, the Mac's don't need to have a high Ghz rating because it's simply not needed. Whereas with your P4's they have a higher Ghz trying to compete with the mac to pass information through quicker.

I think that's how it works.

If you'd like a comparison I think they compare at about a 2.0Ghz - 2.3Ghz P4.
QUOTE Thanks
Prometheus
Guest
 
Posts: n/a

Quote:
Originally Posted by Qaxpla
Well my 800Mhz runs just as fast as my 2.4Ghz laptop. Sometimes it's slower but sometimes it's faster (with loading apps etc). I think the mac mini speeds are pretty good and for your basic computer tasks you'll be fine.

I watched something on the mac processor speeds actually. I'm pretty that it has something to do with tubing. (Information is processed through tubes). On the G4 there are 7 tubes whereas on the P4 there are 24 (correct me if i'm wrong). There's less tubes within the G4 so the information passes through at a faster rate. Thus, the Mac's don't need to have a high Ghz rating because it's simply not needed. Whereas with your P4's they have a higher Ghz trying to compete with the mac to pass information through quicker.

I think that's how it works.

If you'd like a comparison I think they compare at about a 2.0Ghz - 2.3Ghz P4.
yeah you just about got it there. Your "tubes" are processor pipeline stages. The G4 has far fewer pipelines than the P4. So although in theory the P4 can crunch more data, it has to go through more pipelines. Also most processes reliy on the data that has already been processed, so while the G4 has completed its calculations, and the next step can be performed, the P4 has to wait till its gone through all of its stages.
Its this reason why the two processors cannot be directly compared, as in some situations, the G4 is much faster, and others the P4 is faster. It also means that you cannot compare processors on Ghz alone.
QUOTE Thanks
mynameis

 
Member Since: Sep 30, 2004
Posts: 3,378
mynameis is just really nicemynameis is just really nicemynameis is just really nicemynameis is just really nice

mynameis is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miniman
Not trying to cause a problem here. I have heard that the Mac GHz is faster than the Pent 4. I realize that GHz is GHz, but is there a truth to the statement? What I want to do is not the issue, speed is the issue. I just want to verify what I had heard. I am switching either way.
You can have a processor that has a lower clock speed but performs better or the same. Just look at Athlon 64 processors, they run at considerably lower clock speed but they are just as fast if not faster than a Pentium 4 of about the same price. It still depends on the application though, sometimes the Pentium 4 will be faster and sometimes the Athlon 64 will be faster, there is never a perfect multiplier you can use to say 2 processors are going to be equal, it might hold true for one test but i'll be off on just about every other.

What you want to do determines how you are going to perceive a CPU as being faster or not.
QUOTE Thanks
Echo_
Guest
 
Posts: n/a

ghz is NOT ghz
like you cant compare an amd fx 55 proc which runs at 2.6 to a intel 2.6 because the amd would smoke it. the amd fx55 is about equal to a intel that would run at 4.0ghz

its just how the manufacturers clock it
QUOTE Thanks
Avalon

 
Avalon's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jun 25, 2004
Location: Luxemburg, Europe
Posts: 1,779
Avalon is just really niceAvalon is just really niceAvalon is just really niceAvalon is just really nice
Mac Specs: PowerMac G5 Dual 2GHz (June 2004), 2.5GB, Airport, black 5G iPod 30GB, white MacBook 2.0 2GB

Avalon is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Echo_
ghz is NOT ghz
like you cant compare an amd fx 55 proc which runs at 2.6 to a intel 2.6 because the amd would smoke it. the amd fx55 is about equal to a intel that would run at 4.0ghz

its just how the manufacturers clock it
You can't compare because the way they work, that's true, but still, physically speaking, 1GHz IS 1GHz.

It's like comparing 2 cars, each with 350hp, but one weighing 1000kg and the other 1500kg.
Both will perform very differently, but still, the engine power is the same...
QUOTE Thanks
shaun89

 
shaun89's Avatar
 
Member Since: Apr 09, 2004
Posts: 1,072
shaun89 will become famous soon enough

shaun89 is offline
I forget who it was, but osmeone on these forums ran Vurtual PC on their mac, and under the specs in windows, it said it was a 1.5GHz Pentium. So it's definatly faster. I would jsut think you double the speed of the mac and you get the windows equivalent.
QUOTE Thanks
Absolute Zero

 
Absolute Zero's Avatar
 
Member Since: Aug 05, 2003
Location: I'm slowly sinking in the posts of Mac-forums
Posts: 1,246
Absolute Zero is on a distinguished road
Mac Specs: PowerBook 12" Combo Drive/867 MHz/256 MB RAM/40 GB hard drive/Mac OS X 10.3.5/AirPort Extreme it sux

Absolute Zero is offline
Honestly, I think OS X is a slug compared to Windows XP... my iMac running OS 9, at 400 MHz and 256 MB of RAM is faster than my PowerBook...

I know, I know, upgrade my RAM. Money is scarce these days kiddos...
QUOTE Thanks
Avalon

 
Avalon's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jun 25, 2004
Location: Luxemburg, Europe
Posts: 1,779
Avalon is just really niceAvalon is just really niceAvalon is just really niceAvalon is just really nice
Mac Specs: PowerMac G5 Dual 2GHz (June 2004), 2.5GB, Airport, black 5G iPod 30GB, white MacBook 2.0 2GB

Avalon is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Absolute Zero
Honestly, I think OS X is a slug compared to Windows XP... my iMac running OS 9, at 400 MHz and 256 MB of RAM is faster than my PowerBook...

I know, I know, upgrade my RAM. Money is scarce these days kiddos...
Yep, lack of RAM makes OS X running sluggish...
To compare, try to run XP on 128MB...it'll be VERY sluggish too... :black:
QUOTE Thanks
dtravis7

 
dtravis7's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jan 04, 2005
Location: Modesto, Ca.
Posts: 27,482
dtravis7 has a reputation beyond reputedtravis7 has a reputation beyond reputedtravis7 has a reputation beyond reputedtravis7 has a reputation beyond reputedtravis7 has a reputation beyond reputedtravis7 has a reputation beyond reputedtravis7 has a reputation beyond reputedtravis7 has a reputation beyond reputedtravis7 has a reputation beyond reputedtravis7 has a reputation beyond reputedtravis7 has a reputation beyond repute
Mac Specs: iMac 2.4 C2D 10.9.4, iMac 2.16 C2d 10.6.8, Macbook2007 10.8.4, Mac Mini 10.8.4, iPhone 3GS Note 8!!

dtravis7 is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qaxpla
I watched something on the mac processor speeds actually. I'm pretty that it has something to do with tubing. (Information is processed through tubes). On the G4 there are 7 tubes whereas on the P4 there are 24 (correct me if i'm wrong). There's less tubes within the G4 so the information passes through at a faster rate. Thus, the Mac's don't need to have a high Ghz rating because it's simply not needed. Whereas with your P4's they have a higher Ghz trying to compete with the mac to pass information through quicker.
It's called Pipes or Pipelines. In fact the new P4 Prescott core has 31 I believe and per clock gets less done than even the older Northwood P4 with 21 or so Pipes. AMD has always has very few pipes and is much faster than the GHZ would show. The Speed of getting stuff done is IPC, Instructions Per Clock. Because of the 31 or even 21 Stage Pipeline that Intel uses it gets less work done per clock cycle. The PPC is very low as is the AMD. The AMD Athlon is something like 12 pipes.
QUOTE Thanks

Post Reply New Thread Subscribe


« A Mac Mini for a PC User? | Strange fan issue »
Thread Tools

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Mac Songs The mac 13 Switcher Hangout 7 05-06-2010 12:35 AM
12" PowerBook v Mac Mini LIttleMac Apple Notebooks 6 12-07-2005 04:20 PM
Mac Mini for light video editing and DVD creation jfenton Apple Desktops 3 01-25-2005 10:15 AM
iMac or Mac mini yogi Switcher Hangout 12 01-15-2005 10:27 AM
Mac Users Get More ISP Choices schweb Apple Rumors and Reports 1 03-06-2003 10:57 AM

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:19 AM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
X

Welcome to Mac-Forums.com

Create your username to jump into the discussion!

New members like you have made this community the ultimate source for your Mac since 2003!


(4 digit year)

Already a member?