Processor speed difference.

Hello. I'm taking thought into getting a new laptop. I currently have the iBook G4 (the rest of specifications is at the bottom of my post). I'm quiet the impatient person, so I enjoy lots of performance in a computer. I mainly wanted to know the speed difference between the Processors of the G4 and Intel Duo, as if both CPU's are running at 2.0GHz. I acknowledge that the processors have faster clock speeds.
Thanks in advance,
Sir Wetzel.

I just replaced by G4 Powerbook with a 2.8ghz Core 2 Duo MBP. It really depends on what you're doing, but in real world uses, the Intel processor cuts through video and sound encoding that leaves the G4 standing still. Photoshop launches in seconds, Safari almost immediately with no 'bounce'. RAW editing is a breeze. The G4 lagged badly when it came to RAW editing. It was nigh impossible to use Aperture for example.
I'm not sure it's possible to do what you ask, since the duo is really 2 processors, not one. Try the Xbench website for comparisons between systems.

Similar Messages

Amount of RAM useful limited to processor speed?

I have heard that at a certain point the amount of RAM you throw in your computer won't help past a certain processor speed. If this is true, is there a chart out there that will show these limits?
Or if anyone has any opinions as far as a:
Dual 2.7Ghz (G5)
Dual 1.8Ghz (G5)
Dual 800Mhz (G4)
all PowerPC
thanks,
T

Without a list of applications, you could be starving your apps, especially if they need to be open and active. If you work on large photoshop files and not smallish, it is impossible almost to have too much (and you would need a PCIe G5 to get 10-12GB RAM).
Check page-out; number of swap files; whether you are generating swap files.
just scanning and retouching can eat up 2GB RAM.
OS X uses free memory to cache windows, disk I/O, and those won't show up looking at Activity Monitor.
Virtual memory can be 'requested' or 'allocated' but not used, too.
I saw people with 512-768MB be shocked at what a difference even light use (email, web, writing, etc) it was to upgrade their G5 to 1.5GB RAM. There are also programming changes that go into a G5 that are totally different from G4s.
But it has nothing to do with cpu, front side bus.
And no matter what, a nice fast 10K Raptor boot drive always helps

New MacBook Air vs previous version- processor speed?

I was going to exchange my < 2wk old MacBook Air for the newer version. the new one has better battery life but it looks like smaller processor? 1.3 GHz vs the 1.8 that I have. How much difference is this?

500HMz is actually a pretty big difference... especially in this range. Depending on your use though, it's entirely possible you would never notice. Besides improved battery life, the new Air also has significantly better graphics performance (about a 40% increase). What do you typically use your MacBook Air for? If you use processor intensive applications, you may want to stay with your current model. If you do things that involve graphics, the newer model might be a better option.
Basically... you might have one car that can go 200 miles per hour... and one that can go 150 miles per hour. But maybe you only ever need to go up to 70 miles per hour. Basically, they would both meet your needs as you'll never need the full power of either. That's how you can look at the difference in the processor performance. Just because one is lower, doesn't mean it will perform differently in your daily tasks.
I personally would probably go with the newer model (especially since you're still within the 2 week return period). The boost in graphics performance and the reduced energy use would outweigh the difference in processor speeds.

Reducing Processor speed for Power problems

I have already replaced the power supply in my G5 20"iMac under Apples self-install program. That problem was resolved (no power), but now the computer has been unexpectedly shutting off and has frequent high fan noise . I reduced the processor speed and it has been usable. I plan to take it to an Apple Store because my 1yr. waranty is almost up, however, my serial # falls in the Repair Extension program for Video and Power issues.
I am hoping they will diagnose on the spot and order a new logic board or whatever. I do not want to leave the computer at the store while a part is ordered as it is usable.
Does anyone know what I can expect at the Store?
And, in general, can anyone tell me what happens when the computer is used with reduced Processor speed.I have not really noticed a difference, but I think I am just masking the problem.
Thank you

Hi
If you do decide to go with a processor upgrade, they're available from a number of manufacturers including Giga Designs, Sonnet, OWC/PowerLogix/NewerTech and FastMac:
http://www.gigadesigns.com/
http://www.sonnettech.com/product/cpu_upgrades.html
http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/accelerators/
http://fastmac.com/
Most of the above web sites have more detailed information about their processor upgrades and downloadable installation manuals and/or videos, so you can check compatibility and what's involved in replacing the processor.
Here in the UK the Sonnet upgrades seem the most readily available and are available from the following stockists amongst others:
http://www.macheaven.co.uk/
http://www.macupgrades.co.uk/store/
I've also ordered from OWC in the States before without any problems. With the good exchange rate you may save some money, although be aware I've always ended up paying some form of import tax, so the savings aren't as great as you may expect.
If it were me I'd consider a 7455 based OWC Mercury Extreme upgrade:
http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/accelerators/OWC-Mercury-Extreme/
They seem to be highly recommended, compatible with OS 9.2 and OS X and don't require any third party firmware patches or kernel extensions etc. If you click the More Info button for the 1.467-1.5GHz upgrade, you'll see some benchmarks comparing it to the stock 400MHz processor.
Another option would be to look for an original Apple dual 450MHz or 500MHz processor card on eBay that's been pulled from a Gigabit Ethernet model. Assuming your computer's compatible with dual processors (http://www.macupdate.com/info.php/id/13551), it would offer a modest speed boost.
I hope this helps.

Looking to buy new MacBook Pro for editing with Premiere/After Effects, but wondering about trade-off between Processor Speed and Graphics Card

I'm a professional video editor (using Premiere and After Effects) looking to buy a new MacBook Pro and am deciding between two models. The slightly older model has a 2.8GHZ i7 (3rd generation) Quad Core processor with a 1GB SDRAM of NVIDIA GE FORCE GT 650M Graphics Card. Then newer model has a 2.3GHZ i7 (4th generation) Quad Core preocessor with 2GB SDRAM of NVIDIA GE FORCE 750M/Intel Iris Pro Graphics Card.
Which makes the most difference (processor speed vs. graphics card) with editing with Premiere and After Effects?
Any help/guidance would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks!
mike

Poikkeus wrote:
1. Your MBP will be somewhat slower than your iMac, as reflected in the general speed; desktop Macs have more RAM and storage.
You recon? If he get's the 17", he would have up to 8x more RAM, 4 x more GPU,, and a bit faster CPU;.
2. Be aware of the advantages and disadvantages of extra RAM. Loading up the slot will make juggling multiple applications easier, like Photoshop, VLC, and Safari. However, more than 4gigs of RAM will make loading your MBP on startup twice as slow - at least a minute, probably longer. That's why a MBP user with extra RAM should sleep their machine nearly always when not in use, rather than powering off.
I did not know this, I just upgraded from 4gb to 8gb the other day. Have not noticed it being slower, but I don't often shut it down. It's nice to not even have to bother with ifreemem.
3. Additional storage and RAM will maximize the basic capabilities of your MBP, but you won't be able to make a 2.3ghz machine any faster than it already is.
SSD
4. I still feel that your iMac will be faster than your prospective MBP. The only way to dramatically increase the speed would be the installation of a SSD drive (like the lauded OWC series). But they're not cheap.
I don't want to rain on your parade, but want you to get a more realistic idea of your performance.
I chose a macbook pro, 17" of cause. I use it for gaming. Yes a iMac is better for gaming. But, it's nice to be able to move around. Set up a man cave in the lounge 1 week, or in the bedroom, the next. But you fork out a lot more dosh for that luxury. And yes, not as much power as Poikkeus has said.

Question about processor speed

Ok. I used to have an iBook G4 1.2 Ghz. I am considering getting one off of ebay with a 1.07 Ghz processor...if I had 768 RAM last time and had it with the one i am considering buying, would there big a noticeable difference in speed or performance?

Obviously there will be a difference. I'm only basing my judgement on the fact that I own a 1.33Ghz iBook and having used a 1.42Ghz iBook, the only way I'd probably notice any real speed difference was if I ran them side by side. If you're running with 768Mb of RAM, I think the computer will (in your mind) run [virtually] identically.

Speed Difference ~ 17" and 20" iMac

I have two new Core 2 Duo iMac's running OS x v10.4.8. 17" is 2GHz with 2GB RAM and 20" is 2.16GHz with 2GB RAM. I have installed Windows XP Pro using Boot Camp Beta v1.1.1 with an equal partition of the 250GB HD of both computers. No applications have been installed other than those that come with the two operating systems. Both computers passed the complete diagonstics of TechTool Pro v4.5.1 before the Windows install. The 20" machine seems much slower than the 17' even allowing for the 8% difference in processor speed. I timed Cold Start and Restart and found that the 20" was about 50% slower. Has anyone else experienced this issue? Does anyone know what might be causing this issue?
cwsheets
Mac OS X (10.4.7)

Ian, thank you for a reply. I will respond to your questions.
1. I did not because I had no sense that the two machines were different. It was too late after I realized that there was a significant difference in speed. I still have no applications installed and am considering a clean install of OS X v10.4.8 on the 20". I may also reinstall everything on the 17" as well.
2. Meaningless, maybe? Cold Start: 17" = 0.34 min. and 20" = 0.55 min. Restart: 17" = 0.42 min. and 20" = 0.62 min. My timing device was a stopwatch and two runs were averaged.
If I do not obtain any insight into my issue I will do a clean reinstall on both machines and install applications. Then I will retest incrimentially and post the results.
cwsheets

Speed difference

Does anyone know what the speed difference is between the 13-inch MBP at 2.66GHz with the Core 2 Duo and the new 15-inch: 2.4GHz with the i5? I'm assuming the new 15 inch is faster, but is it that much quicker, and is it truly noticeable? I'm trying to decide which computer to buy. If anyone knows anything about this it would help me out

You'll find a useful set of comparative benchmarks, including both of these machines, at MacWorld
The 15' i5 is faster, but just how much this will be noticeable for you depends to a significant extent on what you primarily use the computer for. For games like "Call of Duty" the difference is very substantial and for quite a few graphics and processor related tasks it is significant. If your main usage, though, is for word processing and web browsing, however you will not notice much, if any, difference.
Cheers
Rod

Which influence Java performance most -- processor speed, memory or cache

Which influence Java performance under Windows most -- processor speed, memory or cache?
I realize all three are importance. Adding memory is usually simple. But would you choose a slower P4 w/cache or a faster Celeron w/o cache. How much does 8KB of cache vs 32KB of cache effect Java.
Thanks all!

This is not strictly a Java issue - you are asking about the the realtive benefits to CPU bound programs of various CPU tradeoffs. There is no one right answer.
More cache (level one and level two) is great, but the 'right' amount depends on the difference in memory access and bandwidth versus the ability of the CPU to digest data and code. If all things are equal (CPU speed, memory bandwidth, processor architecture), then more level one and level two cache is better. But I think there is not a great chance that more cache would make up for significant (>20%) difference in CPU clock rate (again with processor architecture and memory bandwidth held constant).
Clock rates should not be used to compare processors of different designs. A 900MHz PA87xx is a lot faster (at some things) than a 1.6GHz P4. An AMD Athlon running at 1.5GHz gives a 2.0GHz P4 a good run for its money.
The best bet would be to look for comparisions made against CPU bound benchmarks. www.spec.org's specJVM98 and specJBB2000 would be a great tool, but there isn't much existing data to compare. You could of course license and run the benchmarks yourself. You can also look to other benchmarks (look at the comparisons at www.tomshardware.com, etc.) to compare, there are plenty to choose from.

Those who can advise which processor speed and video card ...

Configuring MP...
Would appreciate any feedback on which processor speed... for photo editing apps., I keep open a few at a time, and some final cut express which I close any photo editing apps, and then of course in the b/g the mail, safari, etc.
Anyone can advise now if theirs is too much or not enough?
Also, will the 4870 make a big difference compared to the 120 stock card in my applications?
Thanks so much in advance....
Message was edited by: D3 Shooter

I received a 2.26 eight core MP Tuesday with 8GB RAM (upgrading to 16GB soon) ATI video card and dual Super Drives.
Photoshop CS3 and Lightroom 2.3 are the fastest I've ever seen run. I tested a photo with my 2.5 GHz G5 quad using a 12 MB RAW file and radial blur filter is PS. The G5 took 48 seconds, the new MP took 7.7 seconds. Radial blur in a processor intensive filter, so I thought it was a good comparison of processor speed. The sliders in LR are smooth with no hesitation.
I was told not to "waste money" on the upgraded video card but research in the Adobe forums suggest that PS CS5 will take advantage of the video cards power. I purchased it for the future upgrades. I also edit some video so the card will help with Final Cut Pro. I'm using dual 23" ACD monitors, I had to buy a DVI/mini display adapter for $30 for the second display.
Exporting is 2-3 times faster.
I ordered it with one 640GB HD. I addded three 1TB WD Caviar Black HDs before I even turned it on. The best price on the drive was Amazon.
I was using the G5 with 250GB and 500GB HDs and using Time Machine connected to a 1TB external G Drive. I connected the G Drive to the new MP before turning it on. The MP asked "Do you want to transfer using Time Machine, I clicked yes. It took about 40 minutes to transfer all of the programs, system settings, including the Wacom Tablet. I used my iPhone to sync adn it set up email, bookmarks, podcasts, etc.
So far I'm very happy with the computer.

Processor speed and RAM for Aperture? Comparing MacBook Pros.

I'm about to purchase a macbook pro and thought it best to ask people who are actually using aperture and other image editing software this question. I need to know if a boost in processor speed and video card from the 2.16 to the 2.33 MBP is noticable enough to make a difference. I'm just getting into RAW editing and my iBook can't handle aperture because of the video card, and I don't want to have any problems in the future. Is the price worth the difference?
I've tried posting in other places and have had little response, so I would appreciate it a lot considering I need to purchase today or tomorrow!

All in all, I'd recommend the 2.33 for Aperture. You'll likely keep this laptop for a 2-3 years, so what do the extra dollars give you?
The modest speed bump between 2.16 and 2.33 is OK ... Aperture will use it, esp. since there are 2 x procs. It's really 2 x 10% uplifts, theoretical. You will feel around a 5-10% improvement I suspect.
The bigger reason is the video card VRAM .... 256Mb v 128Mb. VRAM WILL BE USED BY APERTURE and cannot be upgraded later. You soon notice when your RAW's or scanned images are paged from VRAM to main memory and back. Aperture moves the image into VRAM for processing image data using the GPU. More is a good, good thing..... esp. if you ever hang a 2nd monitor off your laptop (which is very common practice).
The additional 1Gb RAM is also needed. Aperture runs like a dog with 8Mpixel plus RAW's on 1Gb RAM and really starts to cruise on 2Gb.
So, you'd need the extra Gb RAM anyway, $175 add-on. That leaves a net of $325, or less than $10/month over the life of your laptop.
All in all then, I'd recommend the 2.33 v 2.16 for Aperture.
G.

Speed difference between i7 quad 3rd gen 2.6ghz and i7 quad 4th gen 3.1ghz?

How much speed difference in Logic X will I notice between an i7 quad 3rd gen 2.6ghz and i7 quad 4th gen 3.1ghz?
both loaded with 16gb 1600 ram... 256gb ssd

Kappy wrote:
All other things being equal 4-cores are twice as fast as 2-cores. This is regardless of what you are doing. The only way a 2-core processor would be as fast is if it were run at twice the clock speed. But the 2-core CPU is only clocked around 10% or so faster. Now, for all that you claim you will be doing the relevant question is do you need 4-cores. My answer is that you don't. But the 2-core machine will be slower - all things being equal.
Iris is a far better GPU than HD4 or 5000. But not as fast as a discreet GPU with better performance measures. Again, you don't really need high-power GPU. Iris should meet your needs adequately for now.
But remember you want to keep the computer for 6 or 7 years. No one knows what your needs will be then. You may find whatever you buy today that meets today's needs will be inadequate for tomorrow's.
Your comments on graphics pretty much confirm the majority of what I've been reading on other sites.
The conflict is with cores. About half the people are saying for low CPU intensive tasks 4 cores are totally unnecessary, while the other half says they'll make things faster no what the task (one thing all seem to have in common is they're totally against the 2014s).
So it seems I'm left with the decision between faster performance vs better graphics.
I appreciate your input.

Processor Speed vs. Cache vs. RAM?

Greetings,
I am deciding between 2 laptops to purchase and I just wanted to get any suggestions as to which would be better.
1) A REFURBISHED laptop with 2.6GHz (dual core), 1 mb L2, 6gb ram. Pros: 640gb hd, 3 usb 3.0 ports. Con: 1mb cache?
2) A new laptop with 2.2GHz, 3 mb L3, 6gb ram. Cons: only 500gb hd, 2 usb 3.0 ports
Both are the same price and size.
If it's not a big difference or it's too hard to tell, maybe any suggestions as to what to look for in a laptop as far as processor speed/cache.
I do small video projects so it wouldn't hurt to have the more efficient one if cache or speed is more important for that.
Thanks for any suggestions.

I got to thinking later- you must be considering buying RAM from Apple, or you think that what Apple sells RAM for is what it actually costs.
You can get RAM as you go for nothin'. For instance, the RAM I use is PC3200, and I found it today at Circuit City for $45 a GB. What you use is actually cheaper than mine, despite it being newer. More popular, I suppose.
Look it up- -it's always on sale, somewhere. But +do no+t use high-density RAM found on ebay. Make sure you have low-density RAM. If you buy it from a store, it will be what you need, though. Almost certainly.
So get the 8 core, and RAM as you go. Merry Christmas!

Is there much speed difference between the iMacs?

Just wondering, if there is any noticeable performance difference between the 1.83 - the 2.0 and the 2.16?
I'd be surprised to learn that there was (and also, keenly interested to learn).
My experience is that a dual processor is noticeably more capable than a single processor (regardless of minor increments at the end of the processor number).
Anyone?

You are right that it is more about futher differentiating the models than anything else. The speed difference is negligible, but a nice plus is you choose a larger display. Typically you also get a larger standard HD and maybe a better video card and if you add all those things up, the price difference is worth it.

SMC Firmware Clamps Processor Speed?

Just installed the SMC firmware update.
Cooler: Running CoreDuoTemp v0.51, I couldn't push the temp past 70, whereas I reached mid 80's before.
But SLOWER: I can't (according to the CoreDuoTemp program) push it past 1000Mhz, the chip's minimum. It used to idle at 1500, and push to 1830. To boot, things like iTunes visualizer are noticeably slower.
So...well, this would obviously explain the heat difference. It's nice having a cooler operating temp, but are we really capped at 1.0 Ghz to get it? Can anyone else confirm?
BTW, is there any other program that will give a readout of current clock speed?
1.83 MacbookPro

Has anyone else noticed the footnote on all the CPU speeds for the Macbook Pros in the online store...
2.0GHz Intel Core Duo(1)
And here is what it reads...
1. The MacBook Pro continuously monitors system thermal and power conditions, and may adjust processor speed as needed to maintain optimal system operation.
Is this because they have had to cap the speed and some may say they are over-stating the performance of the machine?
Smells of Class Action doesn't it?

Processor speed difference.

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for