""1.0 GHz G4 appx. = 1.1 GHz Athlon appx. = 1.5 GHz Pentium 4,
assuming 133 MHz FSB & SDRAM on the PowerMac.

--Charles Gaba, AAPLTalk System Shootout Master""

Lets start with this. According to recent benchmark Testing a 1.0Gig G4 is equivalent to those stats above--- this is not taking into account Macs DP systems((duel processor))-- though Mac was not the first to think this up they have done remarkably well with the technology.

Jobs claims that the Mac chips outperform Intel by a ratio of 2.5 is way overdone. This is just not true. Yes a Mac processor is faster in some instances but in the fastest instance it will only equal out to a 50% increase--- IE a 1.0Gig G4 equals an Intel P4 1.5Gig. Though Macs are on par with the Athlon chip both are just as fast and Athlons coupled with a windows XP environment will meet faster benchmarks in several tests over the Mac G4 and G5. Especially with programs dealing with Graphics processing.
For a good test and its results go here---

http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2...w_macvspc2.htm

Any ideas or remarks--- personally my opinion is Windows XP coupled with an excellent Athlon chip will beat any other comparable system hands down in any test--- using comparable software and hardware

I can pretty much agree on that one ESPECIALLY with the new athlon 64 fx chip. That thing is just fucking awesome (for lack of a better word lol). Though I am useing windows xp right now on a far lesser processor (money reasons lol) Id still preffer running the athlon 64 series with a linux or solaris platform. Not so much for speed or useability mind you lol just for stability and longevity.

1.0 GHz PowerPC G4
1.5 GHz Pentium 4 (My Opinion)

2.4 GHz Celeron
1.7 GHz Pentium 4 (My Opinion)

this is guy is very biases just like me.....and his tests and comparisons are no more in depth than the ones I've made.

I've made the easiest comparison you could make.....the PC I had before the the 1 GHz Mac I have now had a 1 GHz Athlon processor. I used the same software on both platforms and tried do anything what ever fair comparisons I could make. In the end Job's claim of 2.5X proved very accurate to me (on most occasions). What other proof would I need?

(and this was giving Windows an advatage of being minimized in "flashiness" compared to the flashiness of Mac OS X)

http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/...=1090114718000

read this....it's biased of course (since it's from a mac site)

also take in to effect that computers are exponential systems, not linear ones.

http://www.apple.com/powermac/performance/

though this is apple and it's of course going to be biased....they're test on how many reverb plug-ins G5 with Logic versus a PC with Cubase I can certainly connect to. I made a VERY similar test..... PCs suck for music production efficiency.

The new Athlon 64's rock--- why is that some would ask--- because they process information in chunks of 64 bits rather than 32bits.
I have yet to try Linux or Solaris nor have I really read up on them much so I am pretty much in the dark when it comes to those platforms.

And Duke E. I have other cites but not the time right now--- if you could find just one non-mac website with this information I would and might trust it. But all of Jobs tests were with Mac Programs running on a Windows platform--- we all know what the result with that would be

Try that again???
lol---
Celerons are notoriously slower than thier P4 counterparts

It's hard to compare the Mac's G4, and the Athlon and Pentuim on the other side. G4 uses a RISC architecture, while the Athlon and Pentium use a CISC architecture... Both architectures have their advantages and disadvantages.

Personally, I would favor the Athlon as the best buy for the $. Mac is an alternative only if the software you want to use is available for the Mac...

I just dont like mac at all for the simple reason I just dont like it lol. Im not comfortable on a mac machine so I wont use them but that isnt for any tech reasons so I dont insult them (much ). And yes celerons are WAY fucking slow I dont think intel even makes a 2.4 celeron. Mine is a 1.3 and its a only 2 years old.

Dyshade I recomend playing around with linux some for fun If you have a strong working knowledge of how windows works which you seem to you shoul;dnt have much trouble picking up on redhat at all even though its obviously not windows. Solaris though I cant recomend unless your planning on running a HUGE server like I am going to eventualy.

G5s are 64 bit processors too, in fact they were the first.

The tests weren't all "mac programs running on a windows platform". In fact, for example the music test Windows used Cubased (which is much more optmized for Windows than Mac) while the Mac used Logic (which is Mac only).

Plus, like I've said I've done these tests myself.

You gonna trust some guy's personal web site whom you don't even know or sure you can trust over me? That's cold.

haha, you just shoot yourself in the foot buddy. That quote came from the web site you linked. I told you it was innaccurate.

My point is when it comes to cpu speed tests you can't trust anyone - whether it be "Charles Gaba" or Steve Jobs, there is always a bias and there will always be a difference depending on what software you use. That's why I did my own tests, and my own personal research of the systems.

it's all been said right here.....

.....and I would probably use a Linux based Athlon system if it wasn't for the fact I use my computer as my a musical instrument and music production system.

Not at all celerons at the same speed--IE a 2.4 VS a 2.4 P4 will lose when running comparable programs---- celerons are the cheapo versions of thier big daddie P4's--- usually coming in a proprietory package such as HP or Compaq or any of the others-- IE Gateway--- bleh bleh--- that is how they make thier packages so cheap

Nor did I quote that--- and I have also done small tests myself and compared them to online benchmarks for Macs--- an XP2800 Athlon Barton core will outperform its comparable partners in either Mac or Intel form---- plus it is cheaper and far more stable--- than intel-- G4 and G5 chips are very stable do not get me wrong--- I am NOT saying Intel is better than Mac--- I agree that Mac is better than them-- they suxxor--- but for Bang for buck-- Athlon gets my vote anyday!!!

Erm since you guys know what you are talking about and I am like a lost like muppet boy, does my laptop system sound ok

It's a Sony Vaio PCG K115z

Spec:

Microsoft® Windows® XP Home Edition with Service Pack 1a
Mobile Intel® Pentium® 4 Processor 3.06 Ghz. Supports Enhanced Intel SpeedStep® Technology
Cache Memory: 512 KB
60 GB Hard Disk Drive (Ultra ATA/100)

I didn't have a clue when I bought it, just knew I wanted a large hard drive at least 60Gb as I have a 20Gb Archos MPS hard drive I can use with it too and a pretty screen, the Sony Black Onyx looked the best. Did I make a good choice, it runs pretty fast and works fine for my art, but I'd really like your opinions guys to make sure I didn't by a duff...

What tests and what systems??

Have you tested an Athlon System??

Well--Its a laptop-- not my specialty at all... LOL

But-- that sounds like a speedy laptop-- and Sony is a pretty reputable company-- though I would not buy one of thier Desktops that is just my personal thing-- I will only use systems I build--- Try doing that with Macs

Overall it sounds good for a laptop-- sounds pretty spendy too lol