I was wondering if a (osx)dual mac500
is faster than a (xp)celeron 1000 ?

is there a cpu chart i could look up speeds ?

On 1/10/05 8:11 PM, in article dBGEd.37306$SB6.1239415@wagner.videotron.net,
"cz" <cromezulu@videotron.ca> wrote:

> I was wondering if a (osx)dual mac500
> is faster than a (xp)celeron 1000 ?
>
> is there a cpu chart i could look up speeds ?
>
>

I don't think I've ever seen such a chart. However, a dual 500 actually runs
about like a 750, in my experience. Apple processors have always been able
to do CERTAIN things (like some Photoshop actions) a little faster than
Windows machines. I vividly recall past Apple Keynote presentations where a
(for example) 400 MHz PowerMac would blow away the best Pentium money could
buy at the same point in time. In toto, the Mac would win handily, proving
its superiority. Again, these were carefully chosen actions which the Mac
ran better in Photoshop. I've also seen reviews in PC mags stating the exact
opposite.

Bottom line is that we're comparing Apples (pun intended) to oranges.

All that said, Apple's RISC based processors compute much more per computing
cycle than similar MHz or GHz CISC based Pentium, Athlon, or (especially)
Celeron.

In a nutshell, then, for most things, the dual 500 (with similar RAM) should
perform faster than the Celeron when using the same software packages. Your
mileage may vary.
--
Brian Ehni

i thought the mac would be faster, but how much faster
50%
25%
10%
---- ?
A celeron 1000 if about 7% slower than a pIII 1000





>
>> I was wondering if a (osx)dual mac500
>> is faster than a (xp)celeron 1000 ?
>>
>> is there a cpu chart i could look up speeds ?
>>
>>
>
> I don't think I've ever seen such a chart. However, a dual 500 actually
> runs
> about like a 750, in my experience. Apple processors have always been able
> to do CERTAIN things (like some Photoshop actions) a little faster than
> Windows machines. I vividly recall past Apple Keynote presentations where
> a
> (for example) 400 MHz PowerMac would blow away the best Pentium money
> could
> buy at the same point in time. In toto, the Mac would win handily, proving
> its superiority. Again, these were carefully chosen actions which the Mac
> ran better in Photoshop. I've also seen reviews in PC mags stating the
> exact
> opposite.
>
> Bottom line is that we're comparing Apples (pun intended) to oranges.
>
> All that said, Apple's RISC based processors compute much more per
> computing
> cycle than similar MHz or GHz CISC based Pentium, Athlon, or (especially)
> Celeron.
>
> In a nutshell, then, for most things, the dual 500 (with similar RAM)
> should
> perform faster than the Celeron when using the same software packages.
> Your
> mileage may vary.
> --
> Brian Ehni
>
>

thanks for all the info -
i have decided to pick up a mac mini instead :)
i am sellinf my mac g4 and my celeron





"cz" <cromezulu@videotron.ca> wrote in message
news:QVHEd.37480$SB6.1300411@wagner.videotron.net. ..
>i thought the mac would be faster, but how much faster
> 50%
> 25%
> 10%
> ---- ?
> A celeron 1000 if about 7% slower than a pIII 1000
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>> I was wondering if a (osx)dual mac500
>>> is faster than a (xp)celeron 1000 ?
>>>
>>> is there a cpu chart i could look up speeds ?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I don't think I've ever seen such a chart. However, a dual 500 actually
>> runs
>> about like a 750, in my experience. Apple processors have always been
>> able
>> to do CERTAIN things (like some Photoshop actions) a little faster than
>> Windows machines. I vividly recall past Apple Keynote presentations where
>> a
>> (for example) 400 MHz PowerMac would blow away the best Pentium money
>> could
>> buy at the same point in time. In toto, the Mac would win handily,
>> proving
>> its superiority. Again, these were carefully chosen actions which the Mac
>> ran better in Photoshop. I've also seen reviews in PC mags stating the
>> exact
>> opposite.
>>
>> Bottom line is that we're comparing Apples (pun intended) to oranges.
>>
>> All that said, Apple's RISC based processors compute much more per
>> computing
>> cycle than similar MHz or GHz CISC based Pentium, Athlon, or (especially)
>> Celeron.
>>
>> In a nutshell, then, for most things, the dual 500 (with similar RAM)
>> should
>> perform faster than the Celeron when using the same software packages.
>> Your
>> mileage may vary.
>> --
>> Brian Ehni
>>
>>
>
>

On 1/11/05 5:13 PM, in article v4ZEd.42827$SB6.1641345@wagner.videotron.net,
"cz" <cromezulu@videotron.ca> wrote:

> thanks for all the info -
> i have decided to pick up a mac mini instead :)
> i am sellinf my mac g4 and my celeron
>


It DOES look sweet!
--
Brian Ehni

In article <dBGEd.37306$SB6.1239415@wagner.videotron.net>,
"cz" <cromezulu@videotron.ca> wrote:

> I was wondering if a (osx)dual mac500
> is faster than a (xp)celeron 1000 ?
>
> is there a cpu chart i could look up speeds ?

Faster in what sense? This really depends on how you measure speed and
what you need to do with the computers.