de-frag: In defense of the
G4/450
processor, I think you're really missing the point. The
PowerPC is vastly different than
i386 based
CPUs. The
Celeron 450 you have is really a grossly
overclocked 386, and don't forget how many corners they had to cut just to get to that 450, forget about getting them all the way up to 1
GHz.
The other thing to remember is that the PowerPC underwent a severe upgrade around 1997. The 1st generation PPCs (the 601, 603, 603e, 604, 604e, and other variations) have almost nothing in common with the 750 (G3), 7400 (G4 350-500), and 7450 (G4 466-733) besides the instruction set. i386 CPUs are more or less the same architecture, up until the Pentium 4, which seriously would have started a fire inside the case without some major architecture changes.
So, to address your statements about the clockspeed having anything whatsoever to do with the actual speed of the CPU is rediculous. The G4/450 could easily roll your Celeron up and smoke it. The "higher efficiency rating" exists and then some. When you talk about G4/450s and G4/500s, you're talking about the equivalent of a real, full fledged Athlon, of maybe 800 or so MHz. And remember that Athlons have working caches and pipes, which are questionable on the Celeron.
In conclusion, CPU clock speed is a not a valid point of comparsion between two different architectures.