1.67ghz G4 vs. 2ghz Pentium M: Its official

[MacTruck]

Ok, so I have the following computers:

1.67ghz Powerbook G4 128mb Vram 5400 100gb HD

IBM Thinkpad 2ghz Dothan 2mb cache Pentium M 60gb 7200rpm HD 128mb VRAM Fire GL video

I downloaded the 1080HD BBC video from apples website and ran it on both systems. Both systems play the video choppy, infact the G4 plays it a little less choppy. The Pentium M ran at 100% cpu and choked the whole way. Now compare these 2 systems. The G4 has a 167mhz bus and the IBM has a 400mhz bus. Other than that the systems use the same memory, have the same video card basically and have the same amount of ram that runs at the same speed pc2700. The IBM even has a faster Hard Drive. Now keep in mind that Dothan in the IBM has a 2mb cache and the G4 has 512 on chip. You would think the Dothan would come out ahead and play that video no problem but it won't.

So there you go folks, the Pentium M is no faster than the G4. Intel better have something alot faster for us in 2 yrs.

[mad jew]

You used Quicktime to play the videos, right?

I've found my 800MHz iBook is faster with iTunes than my 3.0GHz PC but that's simply a matter of optimisation. Could this explain some of the difference?

[MacTruck]

You used Quicktime to play the videos, right?


Yes, both were using the latest Quicktime 7 software. Not 7.1.

Another note. When playing I tried to resize the window in both computers. The mac allowed resizing no problem while the Dothan CPU choked when I tried to resize the video window. The G4 is just faster.

The only flaw in this test is if apple purposely made the windows version of quicktime slower somehow or if XP plays a factor in the speed. I doubt it though.

[edesignuk]

This is a next to useless comparrison. Apple make QT, of course it runs better on OS X :rolleyes:

[WinterMute]

Yes, both were using the latest Quicktime 7 software. Not 7.1.

Another note. When playing I tried to resize the window in both computers. The mac allowed resizing no problem while the Dothan CPU choked when I tried to resize the video window. The G4 is just faster.

The only flaw in this test is if apple purposely made the windows version of quicktime slower somehow or if XP plays a factor in the speed. I doubt it though.

Both systems use software to decode the video, there's your problem, XP isn't particularly good with video anyway, plus QT is a core element of OSX and an application level system in XP, they handle the data differently.

I don't see how this can be a fair test, as the operating systems are different, it will be clearer when you can run the test with a Mac/intel machine running the same OS.

I'm pretty sure the M version that Apple will get won't be your standard Pentium M anyway.

I'm always very sceptical of cross platform testing that doesn't involve calibrated benchmarks, way too many variables.

Still, it's good to know the current PowerBooks are competitive in the field.

[MacTruck]

This is a next to useless comparrison. Apple make QT, of course it runs better on OS X :rolleyes:

Its hardly useless. Got a better idea for a test? I will run it.

[jadam]

Its hardly useless. Got a better idea for a test? I will run it.

No, it's definetly useless.

Trying doing a mathematical test.

[keysersoze]

This is a next to useless comparrison. Apple make QT, of course it runs better on OS X :rolleyes:

haha, I was about to write the same thing, but e beat me to it. I am sure some better tests are out there that would allow for more of an Apples-to-Apples comparison.

I would expect the pentium-m to kill the G4.

[MacTruck]

haha, I was about to write the same thing, but e beat me to it. I am sure some better tests are out there that would allow for more of an Apples-to-Apples comparison.

I would expect the pentium-m to kill the G4.


You can't get more apples to apples than the same software on both systems with the same specs. I think you will be dissapointed in the Pentium M.

No matter what test is done someone will always say its flawed. I bet in 2 yrs when apple is running on intel you guys will say that OS X on intel is not optimized yet right. LOL.

[edesignuk]

Its hardly useless. Got a better idea for a test? I will run it.No I don't, but the fact that I don't have a better idea doesn't mean that yours is a good one :rolleyes: http://upload.yo-momma.net/uploads/smilies/wtf.gif

[MacTruck]

Ok, running a photoshop test on both systems. Both systems using photoshop 7.0.1. Results momentarily....

[mad jew]

You can't get more apples to apples than the same software on both systems with the same specs.


It was a good idea MacTruck but the problem is the software part. It's not the same software on both computers despite having the same name and coming from the same company.

[drison]

You can't get more apples to apples than the same software on both systems with the same specs. I think you will be dissapointed in the Pentium M.

No matter what test is done someone will always say its flawed. I bet in 2 yrs when apple is running on intel you guys will say that OS X on intel is not optimized yet right. LOL.

Completely different operating system, driver architecture, etc. It might be a fun comparison to make but hardly scientific.
-Dave :)

[MacTruck]

Ok here we go.


Both systems running photoshop 7.0.1


- Create new image size 640x480 72dpi
- Fill with default black
- Filter Difference Clouds

Here is the timed test:

- Change image size from 72 dpi to 1600 dpi


Powerbook G4
- Finished in 11 seconds

IBM THinkpad
- Finished in 68 seconds


Now thats as even a test as you can get.

G4 way faster.

[JFreak]

Got a better idea for a test?

the only reliable test will be one that is using exactly same software. that is, those universal binaries that share exactly everything except have different compilers targetting different cpu architechtures. this is something that has never before been possible, and apple has opened a possibility of direct and fair comparison between PPC and x86.

imagine fastest intel-inside macintosh ever (the developer one apple rents) and fastest-ppc-mac-money-can-buy running same natively compiled apps. whatever benchmark programs will be compiled will tell us the truth, given that both compilers offer somewhat similar level of optimization.

you could guess that such direct comparison would drive r&d up on each competing architechture, and i believe that is one of apple's intentions with this transition. now we will really see if the x86 sucks or not.

so hold your horses for a while. you just cannot compare quicktime-on-windows to quicktime-on-osx to get fair results between x86 and ppc performance. that is absurd. if x86 loses it is surely because windows sucks so bad. you will have to wait until you are able to compare quicktime-on-x86-osx between quicktime-on-ppc-osx to get fair results, and there is no other way. only reliable comparison is the one where is exactly one variable.

[JFreak]

Now thats as even a test as you can get

no. you are comparing windows to osx at the same time when you try to get x86-to-ppc-comparison. that's not even at all.

[MacTruck]

no. you are comparing windows to osx at the same time when you try to get x86-to-ppc-comparison. that's not even at all.


Denial man. Plain denial.

[mad jew]

Denial man. Plain denial.


Nah, you're comparing two different programs - too many variables.

If you really want to see which computer is faster; hold them vertical and drop them out of a two story building. The Apple is more aerodynamic so I'm betting it'll reach the ground first. :)

[nrd]

Ok, running a photoshop test on both systems. Both systems using photoshop 7.0.1. Results momentarily....

You're still not doing an even comparison. OS X and Windows still factor in.

An even comparison would be using a Ubuntu Live CD (http://us.releases.ubuntu.com/releases/5.04/) on both your Powerbook and Thinkpad and testing using applications bundled with the CD. There's an x86 and PPC version of the live CD. Using them will not affect what is on your hard drive. That's as close as a one-to-one test as you're likely going to get.

You can use the GIMP as a replacement for photoshop.

http://www.ubuntulinux.org/

[nrd]

Denial man. Plain denial.

Unless you perform a truly even comparison between the two, you're living in denial. Might as well proclaim "Mission Accomplished" and close the thread.

Seriously, run Ubuntu Live CDs on both machines and prove the naysayers wrong. What do you have to lose (besides the time performing the test) ?

[MacTruck]

Never heard mac faithfulls talking this much bull about the photoshop benchmarks when apple did them. Now that mac is going to intel the tides have changed. Face it, intel is not faster than PPC and won't be for a long while.

[jsw]

There is absolutely no way to ever directly compare the PPC and x86 chips in any meaningful way (i.e., apps), because there's always some different hardware, there's always a different OS - even with the Developer Transition Kit Macs, the x86 version of OS X is, at the bottom, different than the PPC version.

I think the Photoshop comparison - if the hard drives and RAM are equivalent - is reasonable, as they are what a user would experience, which ultimately is all that matters. However, that still doesn't do anything as far as showing that a G4 is or is not better than a Pentium M.

[decksnap]

It IS indeed more of a test of X vs. XP than it is hardware vs. hardware. But it does tell us SOMETHING. Either XP is horribly poor, or we're in for a world of hurt. My guess is somewhere in the middle.

[emotion]

well have a look at this, it's a performance test of systems using Ableton Live 4. No SSE/Altivec optimisation in the code so it's a fair test i think. Obviously as this is the app i use most I pay a lot of attention to this. It's unfair to present Quicktime and Adobe tests as proper comparisons as there are heavy Apple links there.

http://www.ableton.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12375&highlight=performance+live++test

[ewinemiller]

Its hardly useless. Got a better idea for a test? I will run it.

How about cinebench, and make sure to post the OpenGL and render results seperately that way if one has a really good video card and one has a crappy one, we can look at render performance.

Also make sure that you've got your thinkpad plugged in and don't have some whacky power saving mode taking over. I'm really surprised by that photoshop test. I have a dell Pentium M and an ibook G4. I don't do the photoshop thing, more towards the 3D rendering and Pentium M is faster than the G4 clock for clock on that.

[dcv]

Ok here we go.


Both systems running photoshop 7.0.1


- Create new image size 640x480 72dpi
- Fill with default black
- Filter Difference Clouds

Here is the timed test:

- Change image size from 72 dpi to 1600 dpi


Powerbook G4
- Finished in 11 seconds

IBM THinkpad
- Finished in 68 seconds


Now thats as even a test as you can get.

G4 way faster.


Ok i am still waiting to buy my first ibook/powerbook but thought i'd try this test on my ancient Sony Vaio notebook for comparison. i don't see how comparing apples with non-apples makes any sense but wondered how my non-apple would compare to your non-apple!

Do you mean that you just timed how long it took to change the image size?

Here's the result on mine...
PIII Processor 650MHz with Intel SpeedStep technology (wow!)
256 MB RAM memory, 6MB SGRAM video memory (double wow!)
Photoshop 7.0.1 on Win XP with SP2

Finished in 31 seconds!! :cool:

[emotion]

Face it, intel is not faster than PPC and won't be for a long while.

it'll be interesting to see won't it?

i think running the same OS is the only way to valid benchmarks

anyone got linux on a pentium M and a 1.67 g4 powerbook?

run some gimp benches and report here. be very interesting to see the results for that.

[MacTruck]

Ok, ran cinebench 2003 v1 on both systems. Yeah the G4 got spanked. But isn't this because it cinebench runs openGL? Here are the benchmarks for the G4. I will post a the IBM benchmarks in another post so I can cut and past from that computer.


Powerbook G4:

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester :

Processor :
MHz :
Number of CPUs : 1
Operating System :

Graphics Card :
Resolution : <fill this out>
Color Depth : <fill this out>

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 134 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): --- CB-CPU


Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 159 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 413 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 690 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 4.34

****************************************************

[macenforcer]

IBM Thinkpad:

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester :

Processor :
MHz :
Number of CPUs : 1
Operating System :

Graphics Card :
Resolution : <fill this out>
Color Depth : <fill this out>

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 262 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): --- CB-CPU


Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 307 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1297 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 2541 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 8.27

****************************************************

[macenforcer]

Ok, don't know what I just posted but those don't look like the benchmarks in the console. How do I get those to copy to clipboard? Look now.

[macenforcer]

Ok, here is data from console.

IBM THinkpad:

OpenGL Hardware Lighting Test
Scene 1:
3.31 sec; 30.8fps
Scene 2:
2.86 sec; 31.4 fps
2144497 polygons/sec

OpenGL Software Lighting Test
Scene 1:
6.79 sec; 15.0 fps
Scene 2:
4.96 sec; 18.1 fps
1236412 polygons/sec

CINEMA 4D Shading Test
Scene 1:
36.27 sec; 2.8 fps
Scene 2:
13.84 sec; 6.5 fps
443561 polygons/sec

Single CPU Render Test
100.3 sec

[MacTruck]

Powerbook G4 console results:

OpenGL Hardware Lighting Test
Scene 1:
14.81 sec; 6.9 fps
Scene 2:
6.96 sec; 12.9 fps
881832 polygons/sec

OpenGL Software Lighting Test
Scene 1:
23.58 sec; 4.3 fps
Scene 2:
12.60 sec; 7.1 fps
487107 polygons/sec

CINEMA 4D Shading Test
Scene 1:
64.61 sec; 1.6 fps
Scene 2:
29.99 sec; 3.0 fps
204653 polygons/sec

Single CPU Render Test
196.2 sec



Now the IBM thinkpad has a FireGL card inside and the Powerbook has the Readeon 9700. So this could be because of that.

[MacTruck]

BUT... for what its worth running photoshop on the fastest PC laptop vs the fastest Apple laptop proves the apple faster and this is whats available today. We can speculate on what will be available tomorrow but thats just speculation. Today apple rules.

[aquajet]

Ok, so what do those numbers mean? It doesn't matter if it's OS X or Windows or CP/M, whether it's a 68000 or a Xeon. Does it get the job faster for what you're doing? Then it's faster, end of story. My 12" PowerBook 1.33 Ghz can get higher frame rates in X-Plane than the Dell Pentium IV desktop sitting next to me, but it can encode in iTunes more than twice as fast. But I'm still stickin to my PowerBook because it just rocks. :D

[runninmac]

Right now it doesn't matter whos/whats faster! In 6 months when intel things are relased im 99% sure that they will be faster. Why? becuase by then we will have the dual core pentium m's and IBM's G4 wont be able to go much faster.

[emotion]

But I'm still stickin to my PowerBook because it just rocks. :D

i have the same machine and i concurr :)

[coconn06]

BUT... for what its worth running photoshop on the fastest PC laptop vs the fastest Apple laptop proves the apple faster and this is whats available today. We can speculate on what will be available tomorrow but thats just speculation. Today apple rules.

Exactly, all your results show is that photoshop on a Mac (the particular routines you tested, at least) run faster than on a similar Pentium laptop running Windows. That's ALL.

It doesn't say anything about whether PowerPC is faster than Pentium M. Like many others in this thread have stated, a much better test would be to install the same version of linux on both machines and run tests. Or, better yet, wait for Mac OS X intel and then run the tests ;)

[ewinemiller]

Now the IBM thinkpad has a FireGL card inside and the Powerbook has the Readeon 9700. So this could be because of that.

The Single CPU Rendering Test however doesn't use the video card, it's straight CPU + memory exercise and it's nearly 2x as fast. That's why I asked for all the numbers so we could see the difference between CPU and OpenGL performance, thanks.

I suspect since the other fellow was half the time to do the photoshop test with a PIII 650 that perhaps something isn't quite right about how you did that one on the Pentium M and it's not really 1/5 the speed of the G4.

Those Pentium Ms are really quite snappy.

[MacTruck]

Right now it doesn't matter whos/whats faster! In 6 months when intel things are relased im 99% sure that they will be faster. Why? becuase by then we will have the dual core pentium m's and IBM's G4 wont be able to go much faster.


Well I live in the here and now not in the future and it won't be in 6 months it will be in 2 yrs. That aside, I don't care either way. Just thought I would run some comparison testing against the two. My powerbook is still my favorite computer.

(THinkpad sits next to Powerbook with jealous expression. Powerbook just smiling.)

[MacTruck]

The Single CPU Rendering Test however doesn't use the video card, it's straight CPU + memory exercise and it's nearly 2x as fast. That's why I asked for all the numbers so we could see the difference between CPU and OpenGL performance, thanks.

I suspect since the other fellow was half the time to do the photoshop test with a PIII 650 that perhaps something isn't quite right about how you did that one on the Pentium M and it's not really 1/5 the speed of the G4.

Those Pentium Ms are really quite snappy.

Yeah that is what I was thinking. Ran it again.

Powerbook G4: 11 sec
IBM THinkpad: 30 sec

Don't know why it took 68 seconds before but who knows.

[MacTruck]

Ok, ran new benchmark in photoshop

- Created new 640x480 72 dpi document
- Filter Clouds
- Image size 1600 dpi
- Here is timed test) Filter Difference Clouds


Powerbook G4: 1 min 51 sec
IBM ThinkPad: 3 min 48 sec


Powerbook over twice as fast in photoshop.

[feakbeak]

MacTruck, your tests are valid and not valid depending on how you look at it. Photoshop runs faster on your Powerbook for the operations you were testing. If you use Photoshop a lot you would be better off buying/using a Powerbook.

I'm sure there are other programs that run faster on the x86 hardware than on the Mac. You really cannot compare the hardware performance using typical applications. There are too many factors, drivers, the OS's management of resources, how many background processes are going on during the tests and that is not even considering the optimization of the application, libraries, OS, etc. There are too many variables for these types of tests to be meaningful about which hardware is better. These types of tests are great practical tests to detemine what computer would be best for you in terms of performance based on the applications you use freqeuently.

Even if you were to come up with a relatively fair test of hardware it's not a single number. One platform could beat the other floating-point calculations, the other could win with integer math, this one could have better graphics, that one could have better disk read/write speeds. All these factor into overall perfomance, but it depends how application developers utilize and optimize what is available and that depends, in part, on the quality of the OS, system libraries and hardware drivers. There are tons of factors and ultimately comparing hardware is meaningless on a practical level.

On a practical level, this would be the fair thing to do for yourself if you were considering buying an Apple laptop or an x86 laptop. You should try the applications you use frequently on both platforms and decide which hardware your apps run better on. Then you also need to factor in your preference of OS, the physical design your prefer and the cost of the two systems and decide what is best for you. That doesn't mean that laptop is best for everyone, for all purposes, but it is best for you and that is all that should matter to you. You don't have to justify your preference to everyone else, just enjoy your Powerbook! :)

[raggedjimmi]

im not a fan of Pentium M at all, not for a powerful laptop anyways. But i suppose its just down to Windows XP just being bad.

time will tell i suppose.

[MacTruck]

MacTruck, your tests are valid and not valid depending on how you look at it. Photoshop runs faster on your Powerbook for the operations you were testing. If you use Photoshop a lot you would be better off buying/using a Powerbook.

I'm sure there are other programs that run faster on the x86 hardware than on the Mac. You really cannot compare the hardware performance using typical applications. There are too many factors, drivers, the OS's management of resources, how many background processes are going on during the tests and that is not even considering the optimization of the application, libraries, OS, etc. There are too many variables for these types of tests to be meaningful about which hardware is better. These types of tests are great practical tests to detemine what computer would be best for you in terms of performance based on the applications you use freqeuently.

Even if you were to come up with a relatively fair test of hardware it's not a single number. One platform could beat the other floating-point calculations, the other could win with integer math, this one could have better graphics, that one could have better disk read/write speeds. All these factor into overall perfomance, but it depends how application developers utilize and optimize what is available and that depends, in part, on the quality of the OS, system libraries and hardware drivers. There are tons of factors and ultimately comparing hardware is meaningless on a practical level.

On a practical level, this would be the fair thing to do for yourself if you were considering buying an Apple laptop or an x86 laptop. You should try the applications you use frequently on both platforms and decide which hardware your apps run better on. Then you also need to factor in your preference of OS, the physical design your prefer and the cost of the two systems and decide what is best for you. That doesn't mean that laptop is best for everyone, for all purposes, but it is best for you and that is all that should matter to you. You don't have to justify your preference to everyone else, just enjoy your Powerbook! :)


Yeah, thats all a given. Just thought I would share the fact that the G4 is faster. :)

[JCheng]

Alllright, lets stop it right now, look up Barefeats and take a look at the comparisons there. You'll find that the P-M is nearly twice as fast as the G4 in the two benchmarks shown (I believe there was another comparison but it probably got pulled).

Enough is enough for god sakes, we've already established that the G4 is an outdated chip for the umpteenth time. Take a look at these old Pentium 4 vs G4 comparisons found here (http://www.aceshardware.com/read.jsp?id=50000335) here (http://www.digitalproducer.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=14121) and here (http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-4869-4882) (I would include Barefeats but the old G4 vs P4 benchmarks have been conveniently pulled from the site). Do you really expect the G4 to outperform a Pentium M (which in many cases easily outperforms a 3.8 GHz P4) when it gets beaten by a 2.4 GHz P4 (and keep in mind that those were dual processor systems)?

The G4 couldn't compare with the older Pentium 4s, thats why Apple had to go for dual processors. When that still didn't work, they went from Motorola to IBM (and the PPC970). When IBM wasn't making enough headway to keep up, they moved to Intel. The G4 couldn't compete, and now it seems the G5 can't keep up either, most people have accepted it, Steve Jobs has accepted it, its time for even the most fanatical of mac loyalists to accept it and move on.

[acedickson]

Never heard mac faithfulls talking this much bull about the photoshop benchmarks when apple did them. Now that mac is going to intel the tides have changed. Face it, intel is not faster than PPC and won't be for a long while.

My question is:

What kind of qualifications do you have to run these "scientific" benchmark tests? Just owning an x86 and PPC notebook doesn't cut it.

[mrljt]

This 'test' is useless and full of BS. You cannot compare two CPUs on two different boards and with different memory and most importantly, different OS. You conclusions are idiotic when you say video is 'choppy' more on one than the other. What does that even mean? How about some hard numbers once you get two identical test systems with the only difference being the CPU, then you can accurately say this CPU is better than this CPU.

Stop the FUD. You came to a conclusion and made up evidence to support it. A real test is the other way around; you find evidence and make a conclusion from that evidence.

[cygy2k]

I think the point all of you are missing is that the G4 in your Powerbook is the best it's gonna get. The PM is the future. In 2 years I dare you to test this with the highest rates Powerbook POWERPC vs the Intel Powerbook. This isn't about what you may be able to compare on current hardware that doesn't even run similar OS/Drivers/Etc, it's about what we can do in the future.

DUMB!

[TrumanApple]

Im sorry to say Mactruck, that the differnece in the two times you ran the tests on the pentium m proves that the pentium m in your thinkpad is twice as fast as itself!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 68 seconds to 30 seconds... thats more than twice as fast.

On a more serious note, you should leave benchmarking to people that know what they are talking about. The fact that you dont know what happened to cause that huge difference in the thinkpads performance proves that you are not qualified to run accurate and fair benchmarks. Poeple who benchmark cpus can tell the exact reason when something like that happens. Then you compare quicktime on mac to quicktime on windows? please...

Go to a reputable computer site (such as tomshardware.com) and search for the pentium m and you will find that the pentium m is one of the fastest processors available. Infact a pentium m o'ced to 2.8 ghz beat out of an athlon fx-55 and p4 EE 800 series (look it up on tomshardware). No offence man but stay away from benchmarking, leave it to people who know what they are doing (and who arent clearly favoring one chip BEFORE the test even starts.

[MacTruck]

Why is everyone so upset that the G4 is faster than the Pentium M? Its kind of funny.

[JCheng]

Actually, whats everyone's still upset (or sad really) about is that theres still mac fans who believe that the G4 IS faster than the Pentium M. The case has already been proven, I've brought up four professional independent comparisons that (that using suites of benchmarks) each come to the conclusion that the G4 gets beaten not only by the newer Pentium Ms and Pentium 4s but by 2-3 year old Pentium 4s. The fact that your supposed benchmarks contradicts established results reflects only on the validity of your own comparison.

As I've already proven, Apple's actions over the past few years (be it moving from Motorola CPUs to IBM CPUS and now to Intel) have clearly reflected the fact that the G4 could not keep up with x86 technology. They knew there would be a backlash from the marketing blitz they've done in the past along with serious portability challenges from porting all the existing code to x86, but apparently, they felt the danger of staying with PPC was greater.

[MacTruck]

Actually, whats everyone's still upset (or sad really) about is that theres still mac fans who believe that the G4 IS faster than the Pentium M. The case has already been proven, I've brought up four professional independent comparisons that (that using suites of benchmarks) each come to the conclusion that the G4 gets beaten not only by the newer Pentium Ms and Pentium 4s but by 2-3 year old Pentium 4s. The fact that your supposed benchmarks contradicts established results reflects only on the validity of your own comparison.

As I've already proven, Apple's actions over the past few years (be it moving from Motorola CPUs to IBM CPUS and now to Intel) have clearly reflected the fact that the G4 could not keep up with x86 technology. They knew there would be a backlash from the marketing blitz they've done in the past along with serious portability challenges, but apparently, they felt the danger from staying with RISC was greater.


Real world tests don't lie.

[eva01]

for the love of damnit stop this.

the only way you can ever have any kind of comparisons with any kinds of tests, is if the test is OS independent, meaning either you use the exact same OS, or you run a test that doesn't matter about the OS. tests on same program using OS X vs XP don't cut it.

the only thing you have proven here is your lack on knowledge on this subject, and that XP sucks

[JCheng]

Real world tests don't lie.

Yes, and the real world tests brought to you by Barefeats, Aces Hardware, Digital Video Editing, and Digital Photography clearly show that the G4 can't come close to keeping up.

Hmm, now who should I believe more? Four independent professional sources (one that specializes in mac hardware) who all come to the same conclusion or someone who is clearly biased towards mac and doesn't know how to benchmark?

[TrumanApple]

Real world tests don't lie.

Actually, they do. I could show you a g3 that could beat a athlon 64 x2. All i would have to do is pump that pc with some adware and virii and i bet the g3 would kick the crap out of the x2, which would say nothing about the computing power of the processors, just the inefficiency of the OS.

Seriously, find someone who knows about hardware design and ask them. Even apple has never tried to claim the g4 is better than the pentium m (while they have pushed the g5 over the p4).

Seriously, enjoy your powerbook, it doesnt have to be the fastest for you to enjoy it.

[eva01]

also here is another thing, if you are going to use the same programs then do this for a test and tell me your results.

Play Doom 3 on the powerbook and the P-M and post the FPS for both.

now if that doesn't prove to you these tests are frivilous i don't know what does

[eXan]

I will try to run the Photoshop test between the 2 computers in my sig and post results here when i'm finished.

[MacTruck]

Stop trying with tooth and nail to defy the real world benchmarks of the Pentium M. Its not faster than the G4. I have shows several tests in both photoshop and Quicktime video. G4 is twice as fast. Just face it and move on. For goodness sakes.

[eva01]

also here is another thing, if you are going to use the same programs then do this for a test and tell me your results.

Play Doom 3 on the powerbook and the P-M and post the FPS for both.

now if that doesn't prove to you these tests are frivilous i don't know what does

do i really have to quote myself. I want this test done on both computers, then i will be a believer

[ColoJohnBoy]

I have a 1.67 GHz PowerBook. It rocks. I don't give a flying poo if it's better or faster or anything like that. It runs Mac OS X, it's beautiful, and I dig it. That's enough for me. :)

[MacTruck]

do i really have to quote myself. I want this test done on both computers, then i will be a believer

Ok test done. G4 twice as fast. Oh burn.

[eXan]

Here are my results in Photoshop CS2 on my eMac (Create 640x480 8-bit 72 dpi file with white background, render clouds, resize to 1600 dpi):

29.56 seconds. Not bad for 700 MHz G4, eh? ;)

I'll post PC-results later

[MacTruck]

Yes, and the real world tests brought to you by Barefeats, Aces Hardware, Digital Video Editing, and Digital Photography clearly show that the G4 can't come close to keeping up.

Oh really? Provide links to the G4 vs Pentium M comparison please. I think you lie.

[MacTruck]

Here are my results in Photoshop CS2 on my eMac (Create 640x480 8-bit 72 dpi file with white background, render clouds, resize to 1600 dpi):

29.56 seconds. Not bad for 700 MHz G4, eh? ;)

I'll post PC-results later


YEAH BABY! Thats right. That is still better than the 2ghz Dothan Pentium M by 1 second. :D

[runninmac]

Well I live in the here and now not in the future and it won't be in 6 months it will be in 2 yrs. That aside, I don't care either way. Just thought I would run some comparison testing against the two. My powerbook is still my favorite computer.

(THinkpad sits next to Powerbook with jealous expression. Powerbook just smiling.)


If you live in here you should go to apple insider they say:

"A higher-performance, dual-core version of Intel's Pentium M processor due early next year is a likely candidate to boost Apple's PowerBook line of notebook computers beyond the 2GHz milestone." Not 2 years. Sorry had to get that off my chest. And its good you like you PB more.

[MacTruck]

If you live in here you should go to apple insider they say:

"A higher-performance, dual-core version of Intel's Pentium M processor due early next year is a likely candidate to boost Apple's PowerBook line of notebook computers beyond the 2GHz milestone." Not 2 years. Sorry had to get that off my chest. And its good you like you PB more.


They are guessing/hoping. Jobs said 2 yrs. Its a fact sorry.

[MacTruck]

We will NOT, I repeat NOT see a Dual Core Intel Powerbook next year. Even if we did just for you optimistic fools out there, the software won't be ready for it, or it will be buggy, or the machines will be Rev A and worthless, full of problems. Expect a fully compatible, working dual powerbook in 3 yrs time if you are lucky and apple doesn't sell the company to Microsoft.

Right now the G4 is the fastest notebook on the planet.

[eva01]

Ok test done. G4 twice as fast. Oh burn.

so you have Doom 3 for both Mac and PC, i want to see screen shots and the works for the Doom 3 tests.

[MacTruck]

so you have Doom 3 for both Mac and PC, i want to see screen shots and the works for the Doom 3 tests.

Oh yeah? Let me get right on that for you. LOL

[eva01]

i take that as a "no i don't have them, i just tried to lie my ass off to you"

is my thought on this correct?

[paulypants]

We will NOT, I repeat NOT see a Dual Core Intel Powerbook next year. Even if we did just for you optimistic fools out there, the software won't be ready for it, or it will be buggy, or the machines will be Rev A and worthless, full of problems. Expect a fully compatible, working dual powerbook in 3 yrs time if you are lucky and apple doesn't sell the company to Microsoft.

Right now the G4 is the fastest notebook on the planet.

Please stop whining already, you made your point that you hate the idea of macs on Intel. Ranting and raving about it in as many threads as you can isn't going to change the fact that the G4s days are numbered, just deal with it...

[MacTruck]

i take that as a "no i don't have them, i just tried to lie my ass off to you"

is my thought on this correct?



Dude, go get your new kids on the block doll and a cookie and curl up in your barbie fun house and have a good cry. HA HA HA HA HA!

[MacTruck]

Please stop whining already, you made your point that you hate the idea of macs on Intel. Ranting and raving about it in as many threads as you can isn't going to change the fact that the G4s days are numbered, just deal with it...

Yeah maybe in like 6 yrs. Need a hug?

[Daveway]

I think what some are misunderstanding is that while the G4 may seem to be fast now, that won't be the case 2 years from now. Apple switched not because macs are slow now, but because they will be in the future.

BTW I can't quite understand how to get the PS tasks going. Can anyone help?

[eva01]

Yep thats exactly like i thought, total BS the entire way through this thread.

[runninmac]

Please stop whining already, you made your point that you hate the idea of macs on Intel. Ranting and raving about it in as many threads as you can isn't going to change the fact that the G4s days are numbered, just deal with it...

Thank You!!! Im sick and tired of reading about how the intel prosessers are going to suck and then when someone comes up with a real reason why they wont suck people just shoot them down(or people just trying to be optamistic). Im done resoponding to this thread.

PS: Is your name paul? because mine is. :cool:

[MacTruck]

Yep thats exactly like i thought, total BS the entire way through this thread.


No, just not jumping through hoops for you. Sorry you got proved wrong. Maybe you should call your mom. She might make you feel better about it.

[eva01]

how the hell did i get proven wrong, when you didn't even run the test :confused:

i asked you to run a benchmark for a computer game, and then you straight out lied, how is that proving me wrong

its proving your ignorance thou, so good job *thumbs up* ;)

:rolleyes:

[mmmdreg]

Well here's an unfair but otherwise decent test. My 2GHz iMac G5 with 2gigs of RAM and a 128MB Radeon 9600 against a 2.8GHz P4 Dell Inspiron laptop with 512MB of RAM and a 32MB Radeon 9200. Now as far as startup times are concerned, they both achieve in the 20's (seconds). Pushing it a bit more in a "real life" test and the iMac wins hands down as firstly, the Dell can't connect to the internet right now. Secondly, running the processor too hard for over 5 minutes on the Dell makes it shutdown, even when running on special external laptop coolers etc. Now say the laptop *was* faster anyway. With these issues, it would easily balance out in favour of the Mac.

Note. The laptop under examination has been "fixed" multiple times by Dell technicians. The first time they put in a 1.8GHz chip (slower!) accidentally and so it didn't shut down. But it was slow. The second time they put it back to normal and it ran fine for a month or two then the issues started again. How stupid is a computer where you can't reinstall the system software because midway through, the computer will get too hot and turn off?

To conclude, clearly, outright speed is not the only factor in determining a computer's true "speed" or productivity.

[MacTruck]

Thank You!!! Im sick and tired of reading about how the intel prosessers are going to suck and then when someone comes up with a real reason why they wont suck people just shoot them down(or people just trying to be optamistic). Im done resoponding to this thread.

PS: Is your name paul? because mine is. :cool:


I have run several benchmarks. All of you say they are flawed. I have the computers in front of me and the G4 is twice as fast, you all deny it. I'm sorry if I shattered your hopes for a faster computer in 2 or 3 freakin yrs but you are all SOL. The future is bleak and there is no hope in site (as apples stock continues to drop). I predict in 2 yrs that Apple announces they will use the PPC platform after all.

[MacTruck]

how the hell did i get proven wrong, when you didn't even run the test :confused:

i asked you to run a benchmark for a computer game, and then you straight out lied, how is that proving me wrong

its proving your ignorance thou, so good job *thumbs up* ;)

:rolleyes:

You did not ask you demanded so I decided not to. Now ask me nicely and I will consider it. Pucker up buttercup.

[NHW00]

I have run several benchmarks. All of you say they are flawed. I have the computers in front of me and the G4 is twice as fast, you all deny it. I'm sorry if I shattered your hopes for a faster computer in 2 or 3 freakin yrs but you are all SOL. The future is bleak and there is no hope in site (as apples stock continues to drop). I predict in 2 yrs that Apple announces they will use the PPC platform after all.

This is my first post because I was so feed up with your arrogance. Would you please stop acting like a little child? I see that you will not change your mind but really are your comments necessary (you respond twice for every message). Also obviously apple can stay with IBM as long as they want because of the Universal Binaries. Sorry not a great first post.

[MacTruck]

This is my first post because I was so feed up with your arrogance. Would you please stop acting like a little child? I see that you will not change your mind but really are your comments necessary (you respond twice for every message). Also obviously apple can stay with IBM as long as they want because of the Universal Binaries. Sorry not a great first post.


Lets hope its your last post. You are behaving like a little sissy girl. Universal Binaries, HA. You have NO idea what you are talking about.

[dotdotdot]

Well DUH the IBM PC is slower! You are basically taking two fast computers, the IBM being the faster one, and putting a brick wall in front of the IBM (windows xp)

A FAIR test would be OSX vs. OSX on PowerPC vs. Pentium M.

OSX is faster than Windows XP, period.

Also, all tests involving digital imaging and movies and music will have OS X kicking the XP's ASS! Mac OSX is designed for digital stuff and Windows XP is designed for absolutely nothing.

Run two exact same linux distros and do a test - thats REAL results.

EDIT: Who else thinks MacTruck's arguing makes him/her deserving of a one week ban?

[dotdotdot]

Lets hope its your last post. You are behaving like a little sissy girl. Universal Binaries, HA. You have NO idea what you are talking about.

Actually, he does have an idea - Universal Binaries make it possible for Apple to support or stay with the PowerPC processor virtually forever. Of course they WON'T, but they could if they wanted to.

[MacTruck]

Well DUH the IBM PC is slower! You are basically taking two fast computers, the IBM being the faster one, and putting a brick wall in front of the IBM (windows xp)

A FAIR test would be OSX vs. OSX on PowerPC vs. Pentium M.

OSX is faster than Windows XP, period.

Also, all tests involving digital imaging and movies and music will have OS X kicking the XP's ASS! Mac OSX is designed for digital stuff and Windows XP is designed for absolutely nothing.

Run two exact same linux distros and do a test - thats REAL results.



Ummm, question. What makes you think that XP is the problem? What makes you think OS X on Intel will be so much faster than XP on intel? Nothing. Just more hope/hype. Lets see somebody show me actual tests that show the PC is faster. I have shown real world tests here and you all deny them. Funny, my post would have been very well received if it was made 2 weeks ago.

And no the linux test won't work based on everyones standards here because the linux for PPC might not be optimized for PPC as it is for x86. I bet thats what I would hear next. You people are a trip.


I FOLLOW APPLE TO THE PITS OF HELL... I FOLLOW APPLE TO THE PITS OF HELL... I FOLLOW APPLE TO THE PITS OF HELL... (MacTruck jumps out of line laughing)

[MacTruck]

Actually, he does have an idea - Universal Binaries make it possible for Apple to support or stay with the PowerPC processor virtually forever. Of course they WON'T, but they could if they wanted to.

Yeah, lets see how many programmers do that.

[Toreador93]

http://www.barefeats.com/al15b.html

Keep in mind that when it says "Centrino 1.8" it's actually 1.3 Ghz, as there was no such thing as 1.8 at that time.

[mcarnes]

Mac OSX is designed for digital stuff and Windows XP is designed for absolutely nothing.

Correction: Windows XP is designed for security leaks from the get go. The one thing M$ has mastered. :D

Keep 'em coming MacTruck. You are one funny dude. :p

[MacTruck]

For all you people getting ready to raz me in a post take this...


Universal Binaries= DON"T EXIST YET
Dual Core Pentium Ms= DON"T EXIST YET
Faster Powerbooks made by Intel= DON"T EXIST YET


G4 Powerbook faster than fastest PC Pentium M= EXISTS AND IS PROVEN

Lets stop talking about things that don't exist in the real world. If we want to do that you all might as well tout the soon to be released 10 core Pentium FXS with 256MB Cache that supports 100TB memory. Oh yeah, that will be faster than the G4 I assure you. LOL.

[MacTruck]

http://www.barefeats.com/al15b.html

Keep in mind that when it says "Centrino 1.8" it's actually 1.3 Ghz, as there was no such thing as 1.8 at that time.

Worthless test. We are comparing 1.67ghz G4 to 2ghz Dothan here. Sorry. Try again.

[NHW00]

YEAH BABY! Thats right. That is still better than the 2ghz Dothan Pentium M by 1 second. :D

Then why are you comparing things there?

[YoNotYoshi]

Can you really blame the guy? After all in his sig it shows that he's recently dropped $2000 on a latest-revision powerbook. I would be defensive too. Dont worry, mactruck, you still got a great great laptop that will serve you well for a very long time. The G4 is a great processor, but it is apparent from the last year of minimal speed bumps that it doesnt have much left in the tank, and coupled with IBM's new focus on the cell processor, helped in convincing Apple that the PPC archetecture will not be where apple wants it to be in the near future. Remember, the greatness of the mac comes from APPLES OSX, not IBM's PPC. I myself am waiting for the x86 ibook that should be out within a year :).

Intel is a solid company with great products. I personally can't wait for the pairing of OSX and the intel processors; there is a reason Intel could become the megacompany it is today by primarily making microprocessors, and its certainly not by making second-rate products.