[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: comparing x86 and powerpc laptops

On   8 Apr, this message from emorfin@caracol.red.cinvestav.mx echoed
through cyberspace:
>> besides the nice design of the hardware, are there any 
>> reasons? (i would only use debian on it, so things like
>> mac os x dont really matter)
> better performance.

That depends heavily on your usage of the box. PowerPC tends to have
more power per MHz, but there is no fixed relationship. Also, depending
on the specific model, battery life can be a _huge_ advantage for an
Apple laptop.

In general, PPC is _much_ less power-consuming. Now, processor is only
one consumer among many, but system power management tends to be better
on Apple as well.

At least, on Apple hardware you will get the same battery life, but with
smaller (i.e lighter) batteries. In a recent Stiftung Warentest (german
consumer magazine) comparison, an Apple iBook beat the hell out of its
i386 competition re. battery life. This is even more the case for
top-of-the line i386 hardware with fast processors.

>> to which x86 could you compare the speed/performance of
>> the 1ghz powerbook?
> with no one. i have tibook3
> (http://www.apple.com/powerbook/index15.html) and his performance
> can't compare with a p4 2ghz, the powerbook have more than 7000
> bogomips and p4 just 3400.

Your comparison is bogus, you'd better forget about it. Bogomips is not
a benchmark, it's just an indication of how fast a processor can execute
a specific sequence of commands doing nothing.

Its only reason for existence is to calibrate a delay loop. It shows
_nothing_ of real-world relevance.

By the way, I don't see how you get 7000 BogoMIPS on a PPC cpu; I get
about twice the processor MHz on a G4....



Michel Lanners                 |  " Read Philosophy.  Study Art.
23, Rue Paul Henkes            |    Ask Questions.  Make Mistakes.
L-1710 Luxembourg              |
email   mlan@cpu.lu            |
http://www.cpu.lu/~mlan        |                     Learn Always. "

Reply to: