PDA

View Full Version : Is 1.6Ghz Centrino Faster or slower than 1GHz G4 Pbook?


Rezet
Jun 30, 2003, 08:57 PM
1.6Ghz good loaded centrino is $1999.
I might be able to get 1Ghz Pbook for the same price.

I know Pbook is a better machine overall, but as for power, do you think 1Ghz overall can beat or atleast match centrino?
Not trying to mock anything. Just wondering.

mrdeep
Jun 30, 2003, 09:03 PM
Well, a 1.6ghz centrino would be about as fast as a 2.2 or 2.4 p4 (not sure if m or not), which I"m fairly sure would be faster than a 1ghz g4.

iJon
Jun 30, 2003, 09:20 PM
i think its probably faster as well, and proabably better battery life, but thats about it.

iJon

Rezet
Jun 30, 2003, 09:46 PM
I thought Pbooks get better battery life than centrinos. They don't?
I'm preordering Dual G5 for power. But was thinking of geting leptop for mobility. Battery life would be a good thing for mobility :)
On average, how long does G4 Pbook can go on one charge?
Like with heavy use and light use.
And can ibook relly push out 5 hours?

HOw long does centrino last appx?

BaghdadBob
Jun 30, 2003, 09:46 PM
Really, the Centrino is faster than the P4? Why don't they put it in their desktops then?

NavyIntel007
Jun 30, 2003, 11:07 PM
Centrino's are only faster than the 2.4 P4 Mobile chips, Not the desktop processor. I'd say that the performance would be comparable. The G4 would probably beat out Centrino in Floating point, Centrino would win in integer. Centrino MIGHT have better battery life.

donigian
Jun 30, 2003, 11:09 PM
Originally posted by BaghdadBob
Really, the Centrino is faster than the P4? Why don't they put it in their desktops then?

The Centrinos are faster than P4s in laptops because they were built from the ground up for mobile computing. P4-Ms and G3s/G4s were first designed for desktop computing were power efficiency were not a priority. The reason a Pentium 4 in a laptop is slower is because the power management in it basically sets the processor speed at 100% or somthing like 20%. The Centrino is variable and provides a better computing experience because it is better designed and suited for mobile computers. Apple should take a page from Intel's book on this one.

iJon
Jul 1, 2003, 12:39 AM
most centrinos get 3 hours at the lowest, 7 as the highest. powerbook is lucky to get 4 max

iJon

daveg5
Jul 1, 2003, 01:34 AM
www.barefeats.com
i believe they tested it a 2-2.5X faster then the 17" powerbook

daveg5
Jul 1, 2003, 01:35 AM
Originally posted by daveg5
www.barefeats.com
i believe they tested it a 2-2.5X faster then the 17" powerbook
http://www.barefeats.com/#quick
oops my bad its only 20-100% faster,
sorry folks

praetorian_x
Jul 1, 2003, 09:21 AM
Originally posted by daveg5
http://www.barefeats.com/#quick
oops my bad its only 20-100% faster,
sorry folks

Yeah, its only twice as fast, for $300 less. Thats *nothing*.

: - /

Faster apple. 970 pbs now.

Cheers,
prat

gopher
Jul 1, 2003, 09:51 AM
Originally posted by Rezet
1.6Ghz good loaded centrino is $1999.
I might be able to get 1Ghz Pbook for the same price.

I know Pbook is a better machine overall, but as for power, do you think 1Ghz overall can beat or atleast match centrino?
Not trying to mock anything. Just wondering.

Much slower than the Powerbook.

Look at these specs:

http://forgetcomputers.com/~jdroz/09.html

Remember the 1 ghz G4 in the Powerbook is about the same as a 933 Mhz G4 and maybe a little faster.

Pete_Hoover
Jul 1, 2003, 10:07 AM
I'm going to say that the PB is slower.

ouketii
Jul 1, 2003, 10:09 AM
hey you know it doesnt really matter what you cram into your laptop, yo uare not going to open it and admire the processor or give cute names to your 802.11 card. it really jsut matters what it lets you do. centrino isn't completely new, it is mostly built from a pentium3. but it gets the job done with long battery life. g4/g3 are desktop procs, not really new, but mac os is hella tight so i don't care.

ouketii
Jul 1, 2003, 10:18 AM
oh, and also, it is the Pentium M chip, not centrino, you should be comparing. centrino is just a marketing name from intel that companies get to slap on if they use the pentium m, the chipset, and intel's old 802.11b card. it cuts out third parties, because you have to use intel stuff to be called centrino. and come on, the centrino marketing is really good, i was in the durham apple store yeserday, and a woman asked if the ibook had centrino. she probably meant wi-fi, which intel markets as internet aywhere (no mention that you need a basestation). umm, end rant now.

Cubeboy
Jul 1, 2003, 12:35 PM
Originally posted by gopher
Much slower than the Powerbook.

Look at these specs:

http://forgetcomputers.com/~jdroz/09.html

Remember the 1 ghz G4 in the Powerbook is about the same as a 933 Mhz G4 and maybe a little faster.

Hah, thats hilarious, always amusing to read an article in which the author has no idea what he's talking about. :p

Catfish_Man
Jul 1, 2003, 01:06 PM
Centrino will win. The Pentium-M is a very nice little chip. Low power, efficient, and quick. The reason it's not in desktops is that it doesn't reach high enough clockspeeds (the top one is about equal to a 2.4GHz P4, while the top P4 is 3.2GHz). It also might be more expensive than a P4, I'm not sure. The Powerbook is amazing in other ways, but not performance.

yzedf
Jul 1, 2003, 01:46 PM
Centrino is faster, and the battery will last longer, in most applications.

PB has OS X, and associated apps.

For me, if I was getting the G5 for a desktop (you are), then I would get the PB, just for network compatibility and ease of sharing stuff.

VIREBEL661
Jul 1, 2003, 02:20 PM
OS X beats the CRAP out of windoze... Maybe the pentium is faster or whatever, but the OS really sucks...

Buy the Mac - you'll be glad you did...

gopher
Jul 1, 2003, 03:34 PM
Originally posted by Cubeboy
Hah, thats hilarious, always amusing to read an article in which the author has no idea what he's talking about. :p

Umm...that author happens to be one of the formost authorities on why using a Mac is better. And believe it or not the G4 is much
better a CPU than most of Macrumors makes it out to be. I have not seen a Pentium that can hold a candle to my 800 Mhz G4. The software is so much easier to use on a Mac, I save time in the long run.

iJon
Jul 1, 2003, 04:35 PM
Originally posted by gopher
Umm...that author happens to be one of the formost authorities on why using a Mac is better. And believe it or not the G4 is much
better a CPU than most of Macrumors makes it out to be. I have not seen a Pentium that can hold a candle to my 800 Mhz G4. The software is so much easier to use on a Mac, I save time in the long run.
you say its a good chip but then turn around and say how it has good software. the g4 gets spanked by every current intel and amd chip. now the g5, thats a whole nother story, and that story still isnt clear.

iJon

gopher
Jul 1, 2003, 04:38 PM
Originally posted by iJon
you say its a good chip but then turn around and say how it has good software. the g4 gets spanked by every current intel and amd chip. now the g5, thats a whole nother story, and that story still isnt clear.

iJon

The G4 does not get spanked by AMD or Intel. Obviously you've been reading PC biased benchmarks. There are times when the G4 is faster and times when the Pentium is faster. But the G4 is faster where it counts because the software you need the speed on is faster on the G4. Any speed issues you are having with a G4 are due to improper maintenance of the computer and these tips will help you out:

http://www.macmaps.com/Macosxspeed.html

iJon
Jul 1, 2003, 04:45 PM
Originally posted by gopher
The G4 does not get spanked by AMD or Intel. Obviously you've been reading PC biased benchmarks. There are times when the G4 is faster and times when the Pentium is faster. But the G4 is faster where it counts because the software you need the speed on is faster on the G4. Any speed issues you are having with a G4 are due to improper maintenance of the computer and these tips will help you out:

http://www.macmaps.com/Macosxspeed.html
oh i have no speed issures with my g4, i manage macs everyday, and i keep them in line. this is why the g5 is such a great thing for the mac community, because even with apple teaming up 2 processors in their g4, intel was stlil wiping the floor with the g4'w why do you think steve jobs would choose intel over his own beloved g4's down at pixar, because time equals money over there, and g4 couldnt cut it.

iJon

yzedf
Jul 1, 2003, 04:59 PM
Originally posted by VIREBEL661
OS X beats the CRAP out of windoze... Maybe the pentium is faster or whatever, but the OS really sucks...

Buy the Mac - you'll be glad you did...
There is more than one OS available to run on the x86 hardware don't ya know...? :mad:

PC != MS Windows

ZildjianKX
Jul 1, 2003, 05:19 PM
Originally posted by yzedf
There is more than one OS available to run on the x86 hardware don't ya know...? :mad:

PC != MS Windows

I can't agree with you more. I hate it when people say PCs suck just because of windows... I dare them to say *nix sucks... :)

praetorian_x
Jul 1, 2003, 06:17 PM
Originally posted by gopher
Umm...that author happens to be one of the formost authorities on why using a Mac is better. And believe it or not the G4 is much
better a CPU than most of Macrumors makes it out to be. I have not seen a Pentium that can hold a candle to my 800 Mhz G4. The software is so much easier to use on a Mac, I save time in the long run.

OMFG! Gopher has been frozen in ice for two years!

Really, man, you need to relax. Apple/Moto fell behind. Any *reasonable* person can admit this. Deep breaths, deep breaths. Say it with me: "Bandwidth choked g4s can't keep pace with current p4s" There, that wasn't so bad, was it? Lets see how the g5s look when they hit the streets. Looking good now, so we can have hope, properly tempered by realism.

Its better for the platform in the long run it *we* (yes, I'm a mac fan) proponents are honest with others and, perhaps more importantly, ourselves.

Cheers,
prat

CorneredBeast
Jul 1, 2003, 08:23 PM
Here's my experience since April:

April - Take delivery of Dell Latitude D800 (1.6GHz Pentium-M, 768MB, 40GB, 802.11b+g). Gorgeous 1920x1200 pixel display, not one dead or stuck pixel. Very fast, could give my P4 2.6 desktop a run for it's money. Battery life was ~4 hours with active use, decent screen brightness, etc. The problem was, it was built like a piece of **** (specifically the keyboard was *very* flimsy). RMA'd to Dell after 3 weeks. :mad:

May - Take delivery of IBM Thinkpad T40p (1.6GHz Pentium-M, 1GB, 40GB, 802.11a+b). Display was OK, but nowhere close to the Dell's display in terms of viewing angle and contrast. Speed-wise, at least as good as the Dell, if not better. Built-in TCPA subsystem... hmmm. Battery life was an astounding 7 hours+ with active use (the T40p comes with the high-capacity battery). Built like a brick ****house. RMA'd to IBM after 2 weeks, only 'cause it would NOT run my VPN software - bummer. :( I really wanted to keep it.

June - Get Virtual PC 6 + Win2K, install on my good 'ole 667 PB, get my VPN client up and running. Of course, it runs more slowly than it did on the Dell, but at least it runs. :p The PB is also built like a brick ****house, and looks better than the IBM. Also, no trusted computing initiative ************. :D

Moral - I had what I needed all the time: my trusty Powerbook. Sure, the P-M's are faster - but that doesn't make up for all the aggravations, large and small, that accompany the use of a Windows computer (I even tried Red Hat 9 on the IBM, won't do THAT again). There is no substitute for the Mac experience.

jayscheuerle
Jul 1, 2003, 08:42 PM
Flip a coin or pick the OS you want to use. It's not really about the machine anymore anyways. They're all fast enough for most tasks.

You can run just about every OS on a Mac. There's one that's missing on a PC.

Your choice. - j

:cool:

mgargan1
Jul 1, 2003, 09:05 PM
the 1.3 pentium-m roughly equals a 2.3GHz P4, if they made one, and the 1.7 roughly equals a 3.1GHz, if they made one. This is comming from Voodoo computer, and they're very good at benchmarking, and they like AMD products, so I don't think they'd be biased.

Plus i work for Gateway, and that's what they tell us too... yea, i sell gateway's and i use a mac. What's that tell you about windows and pc;s?

Rezet
Jul 1, 2003, 11:20 PM
Originally posted by mgargan1
the 1.3 pentium-m roughly equals a 2.3GHz P4, if they made one, and the 1.7 roughly equals a 3.1GHz, if they made one. This is comming from Voodoo computer, and they're very good at benchmarking, and they like AMD products, so I don't think they'd be biased.

Plus i work for Gateway, and that's what they tell us too... yea, i sell gateway's and i use a mac. What's that tell you about windows and pc;s?


Exactly nothing. I sell satellite dishes and have cable in my house.
I guess, i'll have to go with Centrino, unless ofcourse the upgrade Pbooks at the end of july. Thanx for your responses people. I appreciate it.

gopher
Jul 2, 2003, 12:16 AM
Originally posted by praetorian_x
OMFG! Gopher has been frozen in ice for two years!

Really, man, you need to relax. Apple/Moto fell behind. Any *reasonable* person can admit this. Deep breaths, deep breaths. Say it with me: "Bandwidth choked g4s can't keep pace with current p4s" There, that wasn't so bad, was it? Lets see how the g5s look when they hit the streets. Looking good now, so we can have hope, properly tempered by realism.

Its better for the platform in the long run it *we* (yes, I'm a mac fan) proponents are honest with others and, perhaps more importantly, ourselves.

Cheers,
prat

Frozen in ice for 2 years? Let's put it this way, you show me any software on the PC you think is faster, I'll find you a Mac program that will do it quicker.

iJon
Jul 2, 2003, 12:35 AM
Originally posted by gopher
Frozen in ice for 2 years? Let's put it this way, you show me any software on the PC you think is faster, I'll find you a Mac program that will do it quicker.
folding, maya, lightwave, photoshop, actually probably every adobe app. windows.

iJon

daveg5
Jul 2, 2003, 12:34 PM
Originally posted by iJon
folding, maya, lightwave, photoshop, actually probably every adobe app. windows.

iJon
any 3d game with comparable video card, logic 5.5 cubase sx, unreal 2003, cinema xl, native instruments

billyboy
Jul 2, 2003, 06:34 PM
So what about the marketing bumf spouted about processing speed quotes? As a normal human being, any modern computer should be able tohandle one´s modest needs.

Probably not quite on topic, but I just had a couple of die-hard PC heads gawping in amazement at my "slow" 867 Mhz Powerbook. I was burning a disk while listening to the tracks through surround sound, surfing Google super fast and downloading two software programmes. I dont know how it did it, but when needed, the beachball stayed away. And they were amazed even though I was only burning at 8x and my Mac performance is soon to become outdated.

After a few months of Maccing, I couldnt give a monkeys how zippy a new PC opens, the speed it processes integers or whatever else the benchmark brigade want to quote. My PB with OSX is really fast with long haul multi tasking, a baby could operate it, its an inch thick weighs nothing, plays any DVD beautifully, all the way through with battery life to spare, and overall it looks a timeless million dollars. Oh yeah, and the AAPL shares I bought to show willing rose and are are holding even after the hype of WWDC.

Roll on September, or the time when there is nothing between the scientific and theoretical processor speed scores in either camp. Then people can get back to reality and judge computers by what they do for the average Joe in th e real world.

Meanwhile I am pretty sure one PC bod friend of mine is going to be taking a furtive, long slow walk around Apple stores and might even dare admit to being blown away by the next generation of goods on show. Can you believe he was going to buy a new PC and not connect to the internet just to make sure his office had at least one secure computer. And PCs are supposed to be a cheap option compared to Macintosh!

gopher
Jul 2, 2003, 06:44 PM
Originally posted by iJon
folding, maya, lightwave, photoshop, actually probably every adobe app. windows.

iJon

Sorry all those apps except Premier are faster on a G4.

And what do I need Premier for if I've got Final Cut Pro or Final Cut Express. Neither application is available on the PC.

iJon
Jul 2, 2003, 06:50 PM
Originally posted by gopher
Sorry all those apps except Premier are faster on a G4.

And what do I need Premier for if I've got Final Cut Pro or Final Cut Express. Neither application is available on the PC.
i still dont believe it, apple fell behind long time ago. although i dont do folding anymore(may start back up soon) any one can tell you its faster on the pc. almost every game runs better on a pc. but i especially dont believe you on 3d rendering, with apple's lack of speed and quadro and fire cards. hopefully someone who does this for a living can tell us who is right, and i will gladly take back my words, i just dont feel the g4 can compete.

iJon

gopher
Jul 2, 2003, 06:51 PM
Originally posted by daveg5
any 3d game with comparable video card, logic 5.5 cubase sx, unreal 2003, cinema xl, native instruments

3d games, granted some appear on the PC first, but by the time the good ones get to the Mac they have been optimized for the Mac. With all these games who needs more?

<http://www.apple.com/games/>
<http://www.macgamer.com/features/futurereleases/index.php>
<http://www.macgamer.com/>
<http://www.macgamefiles.com/>
<http://www.aspyr.com/>
<http://www.gamedb.com/ssps/0/0>
<http://www.idevgames.com/>
<http://www.insidemacgames.com/news/>
<http://www.versiontracker.com/macosx/games>
<http://www.versiontracker.com/macos/games>
<http://www.macupdate.com/games.php>
<http://hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/HyperArchive/Abstracts/game/HyperArchive.html>

By the way, I just got Simcity 4, and wow, what a nice job they did with that.

And if you really want games, get a game machine, they are faster than desktop or laptop machines out there. The true processing speed on a Playstation, Sega, or Xbox is much higher than a home computer. The reason is for some reason gamers never seem to be satisfied with speeds, and that's where the market gets speed first.

As for audio applications, I wonder why so many sound studios use Macs?

http://www.apple.com/pro/index/index.html#promusic

Same with video:

http://www.apple.com/pro/index/index.html#provideo

Hrmm...it isn't as if the Mac doesn't have the tools. I have not seen a case where there is something you can't do on a Mac what you can do on a PC. And the Mac makes it easier and faster. Even with a G4.

iJon
Jul 2, 2003, 06:55 PM
Originally posted by gopher
3d games, granted some appear on the PC first, but by the time the good ones get to the Mac they have been optimized for the Mac. With all these games who needs more?

<http://www.apple.com/games/>
<http://www.macgamer.com/features/futurereleases/index.php>
<http://www.macgamer.com/>
<http://www.macgamefiles.com/>
<http://www.aspyr.com/>
<http://www.gamedb.com/ssps/0/0>
<http://www.idevgames.com/>
<http://www.insidemacgames.com/news/>
<http://www.versiontracker.com/macosx/games>
<http://www.versiontracker.com/macos/games>
<http://www.macupdate.com/games.php>
<http://hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/HyperArchive/Abstracts/game/HyperArchive.html>

By the way, I just got Simcity 4, and wow, what a nice job they did with that.

And if you really want games, get a game machine, they are faster than desktop or laptop machines out there. The true processing speed on a Playstation, Sega, or Xbox is much higher than a home computer. The reason is for some reason gamers never seem to be satisfied with speeds, and that's where the market gets speed first.
sorry to break it to you, but thats probably less than half of all the great games the pc has. anybody cant deny it. apple's arent great gaming machines, but thats beyond the point. describe gaming machine, i have a desktop gaming machine that cost half of my powermac, and it plays the hell out of my games.

iJon

gopher
Jul 2, 2003, 07:02 PM
Originally posted by iJon
sorry to break it to you, but thats probably less than half of all the great games the pc has. anybody cant deny it. apple's arent great gaming machines, but thats beyond the point. describe gaming machine, i have a desktop gaming machine that cost half of my powermac, and it plays the hell out of my games.

iJon

Sorry to break it to you, but your grammar is lousy. "Anybody can't deny it?" If your argument is that my statement is deniable you negated your own argument. Secondly, half those PC games are buggy and worthless. The vast majority of the quality games get on the Mac.

I suggest you look through those links I gave you and find games that let you play what you want to play. They are out there and available for the Mac in one fashion or another. Some may have different titles, but the strategy is the same and the fun is the same.

iJon
Jul 2, 2003, 07:14 PM
Originally posted by gopher
Sorry to break it to you, but your grammar is lousy. "Anybody can't deny it?" If your argument is that my statement is deniable you negated your own argument. Secondly, half those PC games are buggy and worthless. The vast majority of the quality games get on the Mac.

I suggest you look through those links I gave you and find games that let you play what you want to play. They are out there and available for the Mac in one fashion or another. Some may have different titles, but the strategy is the same and the fun is the same.
sorry english teacher. well you go through your links and find me battlefield 1942, planetside, splinter cell. raven shield, enter the matrix, postal 2, star wars galaxies, star wars republic, grand theft auto, freelancer, vice city, metal gear 2, command and conquer, delta force, and ah yes, half life 2. everyone knows the mac isnt a gaming machine. also can you get me eax sound technology as well as some high end video cards i can buy. metal of honor, enigmo, and sims just cant cut it anymore.

iJon

Ikash
Jul 2, 2003, 07:21 PM
English teacher you can't justified medal of honor and games like that man they don't make good games for the macs cuz macs are more graphics and on that games are worthless well i guess the Billions they make on games and the millions of people who play them every day are stupid, i think your opinion counts for anything but get out of the stone age and get updated on whats cracing in the gaming indistry.

Avkash

Ikash
Jul 2, 2003, 07:23 PM
more graphics as like if you are a design engineer or whatever. pluse 80 percent of the world has windows pc's im not saying windows is better just stating the fact that they could make more money on windows based games then on mac. i could be wronge but it makes sense

iJon
Jul 2, 2003, 07:49 PM
basically before this gets out of hand ill have my final statment because i hate getting flame wars goign on here, it just leads the threads being closed. i dont look at the macintosh as a gaming platform, all for the same reasons i dont look at at windows machine as a video or sound editing platform. we do get many games, many of them are the top games. but with a lack of some of the very high end and top games that are shown at e3 (the games i wrote above). apple is getting better and but there not close yet to make an impact. apple really needs to get in connections with these people. i know aspyr is doing a wonderful job of dual porting games like elite force and a lof of the tony hawk and those types of pro games. i really do macs had more games because i would like to have just one machine and i lose many potential computer sales just on the fact we dont have the games. these are my opinions and i like to think that many gamers out there agree with me. and by the way, dont play grammer teacher online, nobody appreciates it, it just gets annoying. nobody watches their grammer online.

iJon

Cubeboy
Jul 2, 2003, 07:50 PM
Originally posted by gopher
Sorry all those apps except Premier are faster on a G4.

And what do I need Premier for if I've got Final Cut Pro or Final Cut Express. Neither application is available on the PC.

Look at the powermac review done by Ace's Hardware, Lightwave is clearly significantly faster on a Pentium 4 than a Dual G4 even though Lightwave is well threaded and Altivec optimized (as well as having SSE2 optimizations). Look at Photoshop scores done by Digital Video Editing and Barefeats, apparently the Pentium 4 is also faster in Photoshop, and I know for a fact that it's faster in Maya 4, Seti@home, and Folding. It's faster for pretty much every game, which I believe is one of the best measures of core performance under conditions. It's faster in real world benchmarks, synthetic benchmarks, standard benchmarks and pretty much anything else I've left out.

Come on, the G4 itself is a entire micron process generation behind the current P4s, Athlons, and G5s. It's using a antique system bus thats actually seriously outpaced by the memory, it's FPU and multiple ALUs are nothing compared with the superscalar FPUs seen in the Athlons and G5s or the dual double pumped ALUs seen in the Pentium 4. The advantages it has over the Pentium 4 in pipeline are largely blunted by the Pentium 4's superior branch prediction and optimizations that lessen it's mispredict penalty and we're not even beginning to talk about clock rates. What does that leave us with? Altivec, thats basically all it has left over the Pentium 4 or Athlon.

As most of you have probably figured from my previous paragraph, the G5 changes much of this, the extremely fast FSB takes away the memory bottleneck and will improve performance significantly in nearly every application. Dual Double Precision FPUs takes away any disadvantage from a relatively weak FPU that can only issue one FP instruction every clock cycle, performance on integer code has obviously substantially improved looking at the SPECmarks, and apparently it can also scale alot higher personally, I think we're back in the game although we'll have to wait to see if it's the "fastest desktop computer in the world".

gopher
Jul 2, 2003, 10:10 PM
The G4 is behind the G5s, but I will stand by my statement it is not behind the Pentium IVs that currently are out there or the AMDs that currently are out there. RISC, Altivec, L3 cache, fewer stages all play an important roll in making the G4 a better processor than what the PC world has. The chip is more efficiently designed than either Pentium or AMD and thus you'll find a G4 in notebooks of a reasonable weight (between 4.6 and 7 lbs) and it still is the full G4. The question that started this thread is if the G4 Powerbook is faster or slower than the Centrino, it definitely is faster than the Centrino at most tasks, except those few tasks that have perfect code that are strictly tied to processor tasks per clock cycle. You aren't going to find perfect code, except those few benchmarks that just throw at it strict calculator functions like those Spec benchmarks Pentium users are so proud of. The stages of the Pentium are way too many to diagnose imperfect code and get the processing off the chip soon enough to beat the G4. Where the G4 lacks in bus speed, it has better in its cache, RISC, and a smaller more efficient dye. The G4 may at times exceed a machine 3 times its Mhz speed on the PC side thanks to all the advantages it enjoys. The only reason some programs don't appear to be faster on the G4 is that the programmers who wrote the code didn't take sufficient care to optimize their code for the processor. You should contact the developers of those packages and tell them you'll buy a comptetitor's software unless they start making more efficient software for the Mac.

I'm through with arguing. Go back and read my prior posts on this board where I have repeatedly given you the same statements, and obviously you just believe that PCs are faster for whatever your trollish (a made up word with obvious meaning) reasons are.

Rezet
Jul 2, 2003, 10:48 PM
Originally posted by gopher
The G4 is behind the G5s, but I will stand by my statement it is not behind the Pentium IVs that currently are out there or the AMDs that currently are out there. RISC, Altivec, L3 cache, fewer stages all play an important roll in making the G4 a better processor than what the PC world has. The chip is more efficiently designed than either Pentium or AMD and thus you'll find a G4 in notebooks of a reasonable weight (between 4.6 and 7 lbs) and it still is the full G4. The question that started this thread is if the G4 Powerbook is faster or slower than the Centrino, it definitely is faster than the Centrino at most tasks, except those few tasks that have perfect code that are strictly tied to processor tasks per clock cycle. You aren't going to find perfect code, except those few benchmarks that just throw at it strict calculator functions like those Spec benchmarks Pentium users are so proud of. The stages of the Pentium are way too many to diagnose imperfect code and get the processing off the chip soon enough to beat the G4. Where the G4 lacks in bus speed, it has better in its cache, RISC, and a smaller more efficient dye. The G4 may at times exceed a machine 3 times its Mhz speed on the PC side thanks to all the advantages it enjoys. The only reason some programs don't appear to be faster on the G4 is that the programmers who wrote the code didn't take sufficient care to optimize their code for the processor. You should contact the developers of those packages and tell them you'll buy a comptetitor's software unless they start making more efficient software for the Mac.

I'm through with arguing. Go back and read my prior posts on this board where I have repeatedly given you the same statements, and obviously you just believe that PCs are faster for whatever your trollish (a made up word with obvious meaning) reasons are.


Gopher, shut it already. You are fighting a losing war. Like 30 people told you G4s are slower than P4s. You obviously are a fanboy in a serious denial.
And don't tell me that best games are made for mac, bacause this just cracks me up.
Macs are good machines and have own advantages, but dont cross the line of truth and facts and move to false assumptions based on personal bias.

ZildjianKX
Jul 2, 2003, 11:31 PM
Originally posted by Rezet
Gopher, shut it already. You are fighting a losing war. Like 30 people told you G4s are slower than P4s. You obviously are a fanboy in a serious denial.
And don't tell me that best games are made for mac, bacause this just cracks me up.
Macs are good machines and have own advantages, but dont cross the line of truth and facts and move to false assumptions based on personal bias.

Well said.

jayscheuerle
Jul 3, 2003, 08:24 AM
Gopher facts, not fiction.... :D

Seriously, I think the quickest dual G4 is maybe competitive with a 2.2 GHz P4 at this point. Plenty fast for anything I have to do (heck, I'm still running a beige G3 at home) and I plan on hooking up with at least a 600 MHz G4 once Panther comes out as my G3 will no longer be supported.

Cubeboy
Jul 3, 2003, 10:26 AM
Originally posted by gopher
The G4 is behind the G5s, but I will stand by my statement it is not behind the Pentium IVs that currently are out there or the AMDs that currently are out there. RISC, Altivec, L3 cache, fewer stages all play an important roll in making the G4 a better processor than what the PC world has (etc etc)

It's quite amusing you should mention those things considering the G5's 16 stage pipeline is nearly as long as the Pentium 4's and considerably longer than the G4's, and it also has no L3 cache. According to your logic, the G4 should royally trounce the G5 as well. Come now Gopher, your contradicting yourself.

Also the current P4's and Athlons are largely RISC chips with only one external CISC layer and their respective cores are formed from RISC designs.

Rasmuskl
Jul 3, 2003, 01:27 PM
Originally posted by iJon
sorry english teacher. well you go through your links and find me battlefield 1942, planetside, splinter cell. raven shield, enter the matrix, postal 2, star wars galaxies, star wars republic, grand theft auto, freelancer, vice city, metal gear 2, command and conquer, delta force, and ah yes, half life 2. everyone knows the mac isnt a gaming machine. also can you get me eax sound technology as well as some high end video cards i can buy. metal of honor, enigmo, and sims just cant cut it anymore.

iJon

Well i guess with all the bad grammar and so on flying around, i guess i will try my broken english.

So the Mac is not a gaming machine and you have a gaming machine on your desktop that is half the price of a powermac. Good for you. Good for Mac. Although I play a few games on my mac, i have no problem with it, run atleast as smooth as PCs of 2.5 the speed etc, but I don't have a mac to play games. And I am glad mac isn't known as gaming platform, we would end up with all the cheap PC based hardware and software crap. Granted I would like to see a few more games on the Mac, and I am sure they will come. but it is not something that is going to make me run out and buy a PC. Worst come to worst i will go buy a console which is 1/20th of the price of high end PC gaming machines.
Why is it that PC heads rip mac heads over the willingness to spend 20% more cash on our machines, and yet there are pc heads that spend $6-9000 (yes that is thousands) to buy custom PCs solely for gaming. go buy a console and a few hundred games instead.
Or get a life.

iJon
Jul 3, 2003, 02:04 PM
Originally posted by Rasmuskl
Well i guess with all the bad grammar and so on flying around, i guess i will try my broken english.

So the Mac is not a gaming machine and you have a gaming machine on your desktop that is half the price of a powermac. Good for you. Good for Mac. Although I play a few games on my mac, i have no problem with it, run atleast as smooth as PCs of 2.5 the speed etc, but I don't have a mac to play games. And I am glad mac isn't known as gaming platform, we would end up with all the cheap PC based hardware and software crap. Granted I would like to see a few more games on the Mac, and I am sure they will come. but it is not something that is going to make me run out and buy a PC. Worst come to worst i will go buy a console which is 1/20th of the price of high end PC gaming machines.
Why is it that PC heads rip mac heads over the willingness to spend 20% more cash on our machines, and yet there are pc heads that spend $6-9000 (yes that is thousands) to buy custom PCs solely for gaming. go buy a console and a few hundred games instead.
Or get a life.
get a life, i do have a life. thanks though. i sell these machines everyday so I know enough that the lack of games is a serious issue after apple. it may not be the target market for apple, but it does break alot of sales when they learn their favorite game isnt on the mac. where did you get 6-9000 dollars from. i built my pc for 1000, and its still more powerful than my powermac, although i dont like it as much. and about the consoles, i do own them. i have a gamecube, xbox, and a ps2. and i own those for the same reason i own my pc, the games i play on my console arent on pc. my pc and game consoles are strictly for games. and my mac is for final cut, photoshop, music, golive, yada yada yada and every other thing that makes my mac and my life productive.

iJon

jayscheuerle
Jul 3, 2003, 02:22 PM
Originally posted by Rasmuskl
Why is it that PC heads rip mac heads over the willingness to spend 20% more cash on our machines, and yet there are pc heads that spend $6-9000 (yes that is thousands) to buy custom PCs solely for gaming. go buy a console and a few hundred games instead.
Or get a life.

PC heads rip Mac zealots because the choice of a Mac is often a subjective choice, one that cannot be explained in terms of MHz or $$, objective specs that they can relate to and compare.

It's as though they're choosing a wife based on her measurements while a Mac user is more interested in personality (ignoring the fact that Macs look better anyways).

As my wife has often said to me in terms of her Grateful Dead fascination, I just don't "get it". And the same can be said about PC users and the Mac platform.

Applications are like destinations- they're pretty much the same when you get there, but it's the ride to the destination that the OS provides, and chances are you'll be spending a lot of time behind the wheel.

What's your vehicle, baby?

XnavxeMiyyep
Jul 3, 2003, 02:30 PM
Ok, so the G4 loses most benchmarks. That means that for running individual applications, Pentium 4's are faster. However, have you ever tried running 12 applications on Pentium 4's? That's where the G4 is faster, in multitasking, mainly because they are all Dual Processors.

jayscheuerle
Jul 3, 2003, 02:40 PM
Originally posted by XnavxeMiyyep
Ok, so the G4 loses most benchmarks. That means that for running individual applications, Pentium 4's are faster. However, have you ever tried running 12 applications on Pentium 4's? That's where the G4 is faster, in multitasking, mainly because they are all Dual Processors.

Have you ever heard of a P4 machine needing 500 megs of RAM to be usable?

That's probably the biggest factor in how many apps you can have open and running at the same time.

Rasmuskl
Jul 3, 2003, 02:41 PM
Originally posted by iJon
get a life, i do have a life. thanks though. i sell these machines everyday so I know enough that the lack of games is a serious issue after apple. it may not be the target market for apple, but it does break alot of sales when they learn their favorite game isnt on the mac. where did you get 6-9000 dollars from. i built my pc for 1000, and its still more powerful than my powermac, although i dont like it as much. and about the consoles, i do own them. i have a gamecube, xbox, and a ps2. and i own those for the same reason i own my pc, the games i play on my console arent on pc. my pc and game consoles are strictly for games. and my mac is for final cut, photoshop, music, golive, yada yada yada and every other thing that makes my mac and my life productive.

iJon

Ijon

I am not that much of a PC head so don't flame me if i get it wrong, but there are several companies out there that makes and sell game computers and almost solely game computers (Falcom something or the other, something north west and some more).

Also I am not trying to judge you but when you have three game consoles and a PCs solely for gaming, you come across as person without a life.
But if you say you have one, i believe you, who am i to argue, I don't know you. And have been acused myself of needing a life because of my hobbies.

So to get back on the thread. I believe that PCs are faster than Macs to this extent. A 3.2 ghz pc is going to be faster than a 1 ghz mac. But i think that when you talk about the G5 you can equivelate a 1.6 G5 to atleast a 2ghz P4 and a dual G5 i believe is faster (at most actions) than any PC processor out there. They are different chips and most knowledgable Tech heads will state that Intel especially makes worse and worse chips. Although the clock speed is increased the overall speed of the chip decreases. It was seen in the PII to the PIII and again in the PIII to the P4 and I think that is why Intel are know selling "low" clock speeds in the Centrino and Itanium.

XnavxeMiyyep
Jul 3, 2003, 02:47 PM
Originally posted by jayscheuerle
Have you ever heard of a P4 machine needing 500 megs of RAM to be usable?

That's probably the biggest factor in how many apps you can have open and running at the same time.
Yes, but once you get above 512 MB of RAM, OS X takes advantage of the RAM and uses it for multitasking better than Windows. (I don't know much about Linux, but it can't run Adobe apps anyway, so I don't know how it could really be compared.)

jayscheuerle
Jul 3, 2003, 02:54 PM
Originally posted by XnavxeMiyyep
Yes, but once you get above 512 MB of RAM, OS X takes advantage of the RAM and uses it for multitasking better than Windows. (I don't know much about Linux, but it can't run Adobe apps anyway, so I don't know how it could really be compared.)

And yet Apple continues to sell their machines with 64 MB RAM standard.

Heck, 256 is a joke! Any system running OSX should ship with a single 512 MB chip installed...

Truthfully, my knowledge of Windoze is blissfully limited. Ignorance is bliss in this case... ;)

iJon
Jul 3, 2003, 03:00 PM
Originally posted by Rasmuskl
Ijon

I am not that much of a PC head so don't flame me if i get it wrong, but there are several companies out there that makes and sell game computers and almost solely game computers (Falcom something or the other, something north west and some more).

Also I am not trying to judge you but when you have three game consoles and a PCs solely for gaming, you come across as person without a life.
But if you say you have one, i believe you, who am i to argue, I don't know you. And have been acused myself of needing a life because of my hobbies.

So to get back on the thread. I believe that PCs are faster than Macs to this extent. A 3.2 ghz pc is going to be faster than a 1 ghz mac. But i think that when you talk about the G5 you can equivelate a 1.6 G5 to atleast a 2ghz P4 and a dual G5 i believe is faster (at most actions) than any PC processor out there. They are different chips and most knowledgable Tech heads will state that Intel especially makes worse and worse chips. Although the clock speed is increased the overall speed of the chip decreases. It was seen in the PII to the PIII and again in the PIII to the P4 and I think that is why Intel are know selling "low" clock speeds in the Centrino and Itanium.
what can i say, im a teenager with a job and money to buy what i want. although i dont play my game systems as much as i used to, i have theme because they are cheap and they are fun when the time comes. dont get me wrong, games is not all i do. but sometimes i just like to kick back and play some madden or zelda of some sort. most of my time is spent with my job and doing actual benificial things for my life. personally i like to think of myself doing better than most my friends my age i know who are working at the mall or flipping burgers.

iJon

Rasmuskl
Jul 3, 2003, 03:07 PM
Originally posted by iJon
what can i say, im a teenager with a job and money to buy what i want. although i dont play my game systems as much as i used to, i have theme because they are cheap and they are fun when the time comes. dont get me wrong, games is not all i do. but sometimes i just like to kick back and play some madden or zelda of some sort. most of my time is spent with my job and doing actual benificial things for my life. personally i like to think of myself doing better than most my friends my age i know who are working at the mall or flipping burgers.

iJon

I guess all i can say to you is "Well Done".
Can't argue with success.

Anyways nevermind me. I spent much of my teenage years with my C64 and tapedrive (Wow the amazing speed i got when i got my floppy drive).

XnavxeMiyyep
Jul 3, 2003, 03:08 PM
Originally posted by jayscheuerle
And yet Apple continues to sell their machines with 64 MB RAM standard.

Heck, 256 is a joke! Any system running OSX should ship with a single 512 MB chip installed...

Truthfully, my knowledge of Windoze is blissfully limited. Ignorance is bliss in this case... ;)
You're definitely right about all machines needing 512 MB of RAM. I'm just pointing out that G4's are better at multitasking than the Pentium 4, not sure about the Dual Xeons.

iJon
Jul 3, 2003, 03:11 PM
Originally posted by Rasmuskl
I guess all i can say to you is "Well Done".
Can't argue with success.

Anyways nevermind me. I spent much of my teenage years with my C64 and tapedrive (Wow the amazing speed i got when i got my floppy drive).
lol, i know what you mean. nothing productive comes from having a pc and 3 consoles. its just my way of passing time and having fun. im not big into sports or anything like that, just my leisure time. but i do spend more time on my mac and at work taking that knowledge and selling macs.

iJon

dannyp
Jul 3, 2003, 03:56 PM
if you want to see how bad the G4 is at rendering a Maya scene check out

http://highend3d.com/tests/maya/testcenter/

this is a web site dedicated to many 3d apps.
you can download a test scene, run it on your system and then enter the results into the database (requires a license of maya)

i have a dual amd 2000 that renders the scene in ~1:13
i just got a 1.3 centrino laptop that renders the scene in ~2:15

the fastest entry in the database for a mac is a dual 1.25 at 2:26, but is also well below the rest of the dual 1.25s that were over 3:00 minutes so i wouldnt take that entry too seriously.

look thru the database at some of the speeds and you will see most newer dual xeons will render in under 1 minute, and single p4s between 1 and 2 minutes.

so as far as MAYA goes you can see the speed differences

i am also a heavy after effects user, and have switched to using PCs ( i am a mac lover and use them for "other" tasks) because they are much faster than macs for the apps that i use.

im crossing my fingers to see how well the g5s will stacj up in real life use, and maybe get to switch back to the mac

dp

dannyp
Jul 4, 2003, 07:53 PM
huh....

real numbers posted and no one cares?

i guess some people just like to argue :)