In search for info on PPC cpus

[Hammer]

AmigaMac wrote:

Post the said benchmark IF it proves your case.

I don't have to prove any case.  You're the one whining about software app availability/access for these mags, not me!

That’s what they said in their limitations page.
The availability and “sameness” of the applications for both platforms takes precedence.

[Hammer]

AmigaMac wrote:
At least give the PS benches:

http://www.geocities.com/sw_perf/PSBench.html

I would like to add that the Barefeet.com's link has PS7 benchmarks (IF one follows the embedded links).

[Hammer]

I followed the links as well as that I keep up with Barefeats other benchmarks as well.

Why did you state  "At least give the PS benches:"?

How could there be limitations running benchmarks between a Mac running Final Cut Pro versus a PC running Premiere?

IF one should apply the same logic i.e. why not run UT2003 on Mac and QuakeIII on the PC since they are both FPS?

The issue is about running the same/similar code base in both of the platforms. Both are running similar code on legacy mode.

 The limitation here is poor execution from journalism itself by either magazine.

Should one bring in Newtek’s Video Toaster for Windows?

What about the following video editing suites;
1. Matrox Rt2500 Video Editing Suite.
2. Sonic Foundry Vega 4.0.
3. Pinnacle Studio (what ever version or edition)
4. Ulead's Media Studio 7 and Video Studio 7
5. Cyberlink PowerDirector
6.  'etc'.

Why not have an all-out expensive Video editing shootout?  

IF Apple ever ports their MacOS X iTune software to Win32 (i.e. not using Music Match) then the issue is completely different.    

[Hammer]

Because CineBench was your focus.

The rest of the information is included in the link.

"http://www.geocities.com/sw_perf/PSBench.html" benchmarks can not be use to compare with other sites i.e. they have their own point scoring regime (reference to an 1000 MHz TBird Athlon running Photoshop 6.01 and PS5Bench) i.e. Cinebench 2003’s CPU Rendering values are usually compatible with other site’s Cinebench 2003’s CPU Rendering values.

Secondly, there's minor issue with the non-discloser of the type of chipset/motherboards in K7 Athlon and Pentium 4s based solution.

For encoding benchmarks, one could go for open source encoding tools.

Not always... I personally like seeing competing applications benchmark as well (games excluded). Like fxPaint versus Photoshop versus Gimp, etc...

That would be very hard thing to do since it involves some subjective comparisons (e.g. How hard to do certain things) and the resulting image quality issues.

Such reviews are more about the applications than the processors. Care to start up a DV magazine?

Where have you been, Apple already ported iTunes to Windows 2k/XP...

Not at the time of MacWorld’s review…

[Hammer]

CodeSmith wrote:
@Hammer

IBM
G5 @1.6 GHz delivers 222 points (1Ghz FSB).
G5 @1.8 GHz delivers 251 points (1Ghz FSB).

AMD
K7-XP @1.6 Ghz delivers 207 points (266Mhz FSB).
K7-XP @2.2 GHz delivers 265 points (400Mhz FSB).
K8-FX @2.2 GHz delivers 305 points (@ Core speed).

Intel**
P4-C @3.2 GHz delivers 380 points (800Mhz FSB).

That's closer to my what my wallet can take :-) Looking at the 1.6GHz mark (most affordable and simplest to compare, 3.2GHz = 2x 1.6GHz), it looks like the differences are actually pretty minimal:

G5:        222 points
K7-XP: 207 points
P4-C:    190 points

Intel actually looks a bit sucky, saved as usual by sheer clock rate (I don't think you can actually buy P4Cs at 1.6), but other than that they're all within less than 10% of each other (except G5 vs P4C, that's closer to 15%).  

For X86 @ 1.3GHz comparisons refer to
http://www.cpuid.com/PentiumM/index.php

It’s a review on Pentium M(400FSB, Banias) vs Athlon XP (266FSB, Palomino**) vs Pentium IV (Northwood) vs Duron (Morgan) vs VIA C3 (Nehemiah) vs Celeron(Tualatin) in regards to their efficiencies. All X86 cores has been set to 1.3Ghz clock speed.

**Limitation of the review i.e. Athlon's other cores was not reviewed e.g. Barton (with 400FSB + L2 512KB), T-Bred-B/Thoron (with 333FSB/400FSB), Athlon 64(Claw-Hammer) and Athlon FX (Sledge Hammer).

As for the prices, refer www.pricewatch.com (one of many) for pricing indications…

@Varthall
From the date Arstechnica's G4 vs K7 comparison was written, the X86 world has moved on to newer X86 cores.  The cpuid.com link also includes Pentium M's thermal(watts) information.

For PowerPC G4's thermal(watts), refer to
http://www.geek.com/procspec/apple/g4.htm

[Hammer]

K7-XP @2.2 GHz delivers 265 points (400Mhz FSB).

Addendum;
 
One of my test Athlon XP box @2.08Ghz/nForce2 400 Ultra(GA-7N400Pro2) with DDR400 FSB scored 263 points in Cinebench 2003.