logomacitynet1200wide 1

Pentium beats hard (but not too much)

It could be the last pain, if the rumors about the possible new Apple processor (the IBM 970) turned out to be correct, but for now we have yet to record a series of benchmarks not particularly exciting for the Mac platform.

BareFeats (www.barefeats.com), a site dedicated to speed tests on Mac, has compared the PowerMac 1.42Ghz Dual Processor with a Pentium4 3.06 Ghz and a Xeon Dual Processor at 2.4Ghz.

The first set of benches is based on applications such as Photoshop, Cinebench and Bryce; the G4, although not coming out on top, defends itself quite well. The pain comes when, contrary to forecasts, when you run multiple applications simultaneously. In this case, Apple's flagship loses ground.

It is good to note that the difference in performance between the two machines is lower than that which, in percentage terms, should be assessing the hardware specifications and, above all, the processor clock speed. A new proof that the MHz are not everything, even if honestly it must be admitted that the clock difference such as to render useless the best performance of the PPC towards the Pentium and AMD processors.

The second set of tests, conducted on 3D graphics, using Unreal Tornament, Quake 3 Arena and Cinebench, "back" the G4 that comes out really bad from the test. In this case weighs the fact that the vast majority of games are optimized for PC but also the lower bandwidth availability that the Mac continues to have towards the PC world, a limit that in graphically intensive applications has a considerable weight. Finally, PC computers are often born with "in mind" games and for this, unlike Macs, they have hardware and architectures specifically designed to offer the best in this field

The video card was, for both the Apple system and the PCs, an ATI Radeon 9700 Pro. (Edited by Marco Centofanti)