Apple: 15" LCD, 1.5GHz G4, 80GB drive for 1,999$.
Dell: 15" LCD, 1.5 GHz Intel Pentium M 715, 8o GB Drive for $1,187
But the Apple has cool packaging...
And you can't compares processor speeds of PPC dead against x86
The PPC does much more with it's processing speeds than an x86 does,
which is why the x86 have to run faster to get the same comparisons
So this Dell is cheaper, becoz it's older and slower than the Apple
Do you have a way to help even out the score? AMD tries to do it via
marketting its 1500MHz RISC core x86 chips as an 1800 MHz x86.
I do not know the comparisons between PPC MHz and Pentium MHz.
No, this is prolly the realm of the real-world tests that most sites use
(how long to compile a kernel, how long to render an image etc), though
AFAIK, none of those take just the CPU into account...they're all
limited by disk IO (the 5400 RPM HD vs the 7200 RPM for example) or bus
speeds to the RAM etc. Which is another reason why comparing straight
CPU's (and clock cycles) is silly. Best to compare them on what they
ACTUALLY do, rather than on what they theoretically might do (with all
those Hz). I've read some articles on sites like arstechnica that do
these sorts of comparisons, and give the technical reasons why one
favored better than the other, but they're not common.
I don't think we'll ever see a "BogoMips" comparison chart for CPU's
until the Fed's mandate one like they do for new/used cars ;)
--
Michael O'Keefe | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Live on and Ride a 03 BMW F650GSDakar| [EMAIL PROTECTED] / |
I like less more or less less than |Work:+1 858 845 3514 / |
more. UNIX-live it,love it,fork() it |Fax :+1 858 845 2652 /_p_|
My views are MINE ALONE, blah, blah, |Home:+1 760 788 1296 \`O'|
blah, yackety yack - don't come back |Fax :+1 858 _/_\|_,
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
