PDA

View Full Version : Performance Centrino vs G4


Likvid
Oct 14, 2003, 06:24 AM
I have looked everywhere for reliable shoot-outs between the G4 1.33GHz or even 1,42GHz and the Centrino 1,6 or 1,7GHz processors in Photoshop?

All the tests i have found have excluded the Centrino, sales tactic?

Does anyone have any links?

patrick0brien
Oct 14, 2003, 09:47 AM
Originally posted by Likvid
I have looked everywhere for reliable shoot-outs between the G4 1.33GHz or even 1,42GHz and the Centrino 1,6 or 1,7GHz processors in Photoshop?

All the tests i have found have excluded the Centrino, sales tactic?

Does anyone have any links?

-Likvid

I used a T40 Centrino for a while right next to my 12PB.

It's ok, it really is, but then, that's all it is.

First achilles heel - Windows XP. Overall ok, but clunkier that OS X and I know that with every patch, it slows down another increment.

2. It's not noticeable faster.

3. Battery time is pretty good - the fact that the processor ramps to where you need it is great. But this has a downside. As you swing your processor, your battery estimation swings too. It is difficult to tell when you will lose juice as a result - and I ran smack into dead-batt a number of times.

4. The WiFi chip is not upgradeable.

Result:

I returned the T40, and purchased a T30, that has a Pentium 4m, and does processor step - but not so wildly as one in a Centrino chipset. It has a mini PCI card slot - just like the Airport Extreme card slot. I have a 802.11a/b/g card on the way - eat that Centrino! And I carry an iGo Juice so I cam plug in [either machine] wherever I wish.

G3-Pwnz-G4
Oct 14, 2003, 02:51 PM
ummm...centrino is intel's wireless internet thing. that's like comparing a P4 to airport.

Chealion
Oct 14, 2003, 02:56 PM
G3-Pwnz-G4 - Centrino is a processor... with a 802.11b capabilities built-in. It has a slower clockspeed then the P4, but Intel themselves market it the same way anyone else with less MHz has, raw clock speed isn't everything.

G3-Pwnz-G4
Oct 14, 2003, 02:58 PM
ahhh...my bad.

patrick0brien
Oct 14, 2003, 03:03 PM
-Gents

Actually, the Centrino is a chipset that combined the Pentium 4m with a build in WiFi card (802.11b) and processor stepping capability.

Any configuration that is not this, is not Centrino. You can have a Pentium 4m with a wireless card, but if the card is removable - bzzzt! Not a Centrino.

Centrino is the whole package - and a kind of Eggs-In-One-Basket package at that.

Chealion
Oct 14, 2003, 03:10 PM
Thanks for the complete clarification Patrick. I thought the processor was different from the P4M, guess I was wrong.

Macpoops
Oct 14, 2003, 03:13 PM
i was under the impression that the Pentium 4m was the power hog everyone complains about in a laptop. While Centrio is the term for the Pentium M proc with wireless lan card attached.

THe Processor behind Centrino is the Pentium M not the Pentium 4m they ARE 2 different processors. So rigth now there are 3 different chips used in Wintel laptops. The Pentium 4, Pentium 4m and the lower mhz same work Pentium M

patrick0brien
Oct 14, 2003, 03:14 PM
Originally posted by Chealion
Thanks for the complete clarification Patrick. I thought the processor was different from the P4M, guess I was wrong.

-Chealion

Oops! You're right. It's the Pentium M, not the Pentium 4M.

Confused yet?

You can tell I find it hard to remember which came first... (lousy branding)

[EDIT] Doh! Poops got the click on me!

Chealion
Oct 14, 2003, 03:16 PM
:) Yeah I was right. (I believed it was the M, not the 4M).


Lousy branding? Are you sure they didn't intentionally brand it that way to mess up those who would debate about what Intel did?

tpjunkie
Oct 14, 2003, 03:53 PM
its typical sales bull so that they can market a chip that goes against the mhz myth they created

Catfish_Man
Oct 14, 2003, 04:14 PM
OK. to clear up some confusion:

Pentium M: Enhanced Pentium 3 with SSE2, better power saving features, and a 400MHz bus. Faster per clock than the Pentium 4 (similar in per clock performance to a G4, from what I've heard). Very nice chip overall.

Centrino: Pentium M with a certain chipset that has wireless networking.

shadowfax
Oct 14, 2003, 04:19 PM
say what you all want, heh, but the Pentium M is a superior chip design that is far out of step with Intel's usual crap. Apple BADLY needs technology analogous to that developed for the Pentium M in order to stay truly competitive in the laptop market. sure, the Pentium M will always be limited from pairing it with XP, but as a chip it is far superior in every way to a G4, barring the fact that it is CISC.

Macpoops
Oct 14, 2003, 04:37 PM
Far superior? It's got a faster bus(thats superior). A simlar clock and now it uses similar amount of power but in a different manner then the G4, IE it still steps. While the G4 is just as efficent running full bore. What Apple needs is an efficent and low power G5 not Intel tech. Intel just took a page from the PPC design philosophy

dongmin
Oct 14, 2003, 04:41 PM
after 11 posts, and not 1 addressing the initial inquiry.

anways, according to this ars thread (http://arstechnica.infopop.net/OpenTopic/page?a=tpc&s=50009562&f=8300945231&m=1150967585), the centrino 1.6 ghz comes in at around 250, PS7bench normalized score. The 1.0 ghz G4 PB 17" came in at 196. So if we say the performance increase is linear, the 1.25 ghz G4 should yield 245. I forget what architectural improvements there are with the new PBs but the reality shouldn't be that far off.

So to sum up, a 1.25 ghz G4 is roughly equivalent to a 1.6 ghz Centrino in PS7Bench performance.

shadowfax
Oct 14, 2003, 04:54 PM
yes, and you can get the Pentium M in laptops up to 1.8 GHz; you can only get a 1.33 GHz G4 on the 17 inch AlBook. Intel is definitely ahead of the G4 (and the G5, really) on mobile tech.

macpoops: think of it this way: how about a G4 with processor scaling a la the Pentium M? the peak speeds it could reach would be much higher, plus it would be much more efficient on battery. and no, when you aren't using the Pentium M, the power consumption is insanely low, as in on the order of 1/2 of what a G4 dissipates in idle or low processor usage. the G4 would dissipate about 20 Watts at 1.3 GHz, i believe, while a 1.6 GHz centrino does 25 watts at that clock rate. however, you would only be at 1.6 GHz on it during the times that you are running intensive apps. if all you're doing is browsing the net, we're probably talking on the order of 10 watts or less--the Pentium M dissipates 12 watts at 1.1 GHz...

and i don't understand where you got that intel is copying PPC design. PPCs don't have anything on the order of clockrate scaling or shutting down specific sectors of the processor. this technology takes a cue more from nVidia and ATI, if anyone.

dongmin
Oct 14, 2003, 05:08 PM
Originally posted by shadowfax
yes, and you can get the Pentium M in laptops up to 1.8 GHz; you can only get a 1.33 GHz G4 on the 17 inch AlBook. Intel is definitely ahead of the G4 (and the G5, really) on mobile tech.

On the other hand, the G4 is at the end of its development. Apple is squeezing out what little performance increases it can. It'll be interesting to see what Apple brings out in 5-6 months from now. Will it be another iteration of the G4, or will it be the rumored .09-process 970? If it's the 970, it should positively blow away anything Intel has to offer.

G3-Pwnz-G4
Oct 14, 2003, 05:12 PM
Originally posted by dongmin
On the other hand, the G4 is at the end of its development. Apple is squeezing out what little performance increases it can. It'll be interesting to see what Apple brings out in 5-6 months from now. Will it be another iteration of the G4, or will it be the rumored .09-process 970? If it's the 970, it should positively blow away anything Intel has to offer.
dual 3ghz g5's...ahhhhhh....:D

shadowfax
Oct 14, 2003, 05:13 PM
yeah, it will blow the current pentium M out. but Intel already has announced their specific intentions of fabbing the next iteration of the Pentium M on .09 microns. that will be hitting the market in the next 6-8 months, more than likely. Intel has definitely got the edge on mobile processing. IBM will have to make a 970 with some really good power saving stuff on it to stay in the game. they probably won't do clock scaling, but just making a .09 micron 970 won't be enough to pass up intel.

shadowfax
Oct 14, 2003, 05:14 PM
Originally posted by G3-Pwnz-G4
dual 3ghz g5's...ahhhhhh....:D even at .09 microns, in a laptop, that would turn your testicles into fried eggs stuck upside down to the pan that would be the bottom of your powerbook...

G3-Pwnz-G4
Oct 14, 2003, 05:16 PM
umm...pentium laptops already do that. my friend's dad has a dell with a p4m, and it gets HOT, not to mention pretty lousy battery times.

shadowfax
Oct 14, 2003, 05:23 PM
Originally posted by G3-Pwnz-G4
umm...pentium laptops already do that. my friend's dad has a dell with a p4m, and it gets HOT, not to mention pretty lousy battery times. i'm not talking about the old implementation of speedstep, which was not very effective. but even then, it was a lot better than the chip would have been had it not had speedstep. i don't see your point...

legion
Oct 14, 2003, 08:46 PM
I'll answer the original inquiry...

The Pentium M 1.6 will totally kill the new 17" PB at 1.33Ghz. How do I know, I have both of them and they aren't even in the same ballpark. (the 17" PB is provided by work and the T40p Pentium M 1.6 is my personal) When I received the new 17"PB, I tested it to see what I'd run on it and it is slow (it has twice as much RAM as the T40p too) compared to the speed of the Pentium M. You can try any crossplatform app you want and the results are always the same with the 17 lagging far behind (my second test was going through the Adobe suite of apps to see if there was any thing that would make the PB really perform... but came up with nothing.) The 17" in now just my "play" machine to try out all the OSX stuff (I have ADC) and a pretty paperweight.

As for wireless not being upgradeable on the T40, it's located on the miniPCI card which can be swapped out (of course, not going with an Intel solution, will make the branding non-Centrino-- which has never bothered me.) All in all, the Pentium M laptop is a real winner (it even slays the dual G4 running Panther Server.) Only problem now is that when we (myself, the IT dept, and fellow computer enthusiasts at work) went through all these tests, the IT group is a bit depressed since the dual G4 is only 5 months old and fully maxed and was supposed to be the server for one group for sometime. It doesn't look good to have that machine degraded by a laptop. The 17" was almost going to be returned, but the screen saved it (hey, it's still pretty!)

(An interesting result of the test was that running the Dual G4 1.4 in single chip mode, it outperformed the 17" 1.33 PB but just a smidgen at the same RAM levels (the systems were recalibrated out of curiousity) and both running Panther)

Macpoops
Oct 14, 2003, 11:07 PM
So your running a pre-release beta OS with software that isn't optimized for the changes in the new OS...probably doesn't make that much of difference but it definately opens the door for quite a bit of doubt

shadowfax
Oct 14, 2003, 11:45 PM
Originally posted by Macpoops
So your running a pre-release beta OS with software that isn't optimized for the changes in the new OS...probably doesn't make that much of difference but it definately opens the door for quite a bit of doubt i don't think so... panther is supposed to speed things up...

patrick0brien
Oct 15, 2003, 09:14 AM
Originally posted by legion
...totally kill...slow...slays...outperformed...

-legion

I've heard these qualitative words, as well as "slaughtered", "totally destroyed" when referring comparisons of the Pentium M and Pentium 4 to the performance of the G4.

These are all relative terms. The original question was a quantitative request for a shootout - which precludes benchmark tests as well because benchmarks measure tachometeric speeds, but tend to miss the "cornering abilty" and "road hugging" performance of a computer.

Personally, I found the overall performance of the two to be relatively comparable - of course, that's from a Mea$ly Office perspective, but I'm no fool, I know the T40 will outperform the 867 when pressed.

I'd be interested in seeing numbers. Someone with identical art and identical filters in photoshop, or running Filemaker queries, with a stopwatch.

But I have an add-on question: Who really cares anymore? Seriously. What do you need the speed for?

acj
Oct 15, 2003, 02:16 PM
So much confusion here. Funny how we laugh at PC users when they don't understand Apple.

A side note I wanted to mention about the Pentium M. Some laptops with that processor have DOUBLE the battery life of a G4 when playing DVDs. They might be more similar when doing more processor intensive stuff, but I thought it was cool that a laptop could play dvds on one battery throughout a 4 hour flight.

iPC
Oct 15, 2003, 03:00 PM
Originally posted by acj
So much confusion here. Funny how we laugh at PC users when they don't understand Apple.

A side note I wanted to mention about the Pentium M. Some laptops with that processor have DOUBLE the battery life of a G4 when playing DVDs. They might be more similar when doing more processor intensive stuff, but I thought it was cool that a laptop could play dvds on one battery throughout a 4 hour flight.
Yeah, 2hrs of DVD on my iBook (max volume, only 4 bars used on screen brightness), and it is nearly done (less than 1/2 hr left). Turning off airport card probably would add 15min... and that is for the power friendly G3 800 with proc speed set to slowest setting OS X allows while on battery power. *sigh* Too bad the optical drive is not a removable module like the G3 powerbooks were...

patrick0brien
Oct 15, 2003, 03:16 PM
-All

That battery time is the most attractive component to me, but I abrogated that as I have the iGo Juice, therefore never needing to use the battery of either machine (T30, 12PB - I travel with both), so I save $1500

asphalt-proof
Oct 15, 2003, 05:49 PM
I don't know if this helps but there are lots of sites showing comparisons of the Pentium M chip to a desktop processor. they usually show that an 1.6 M chip equals a 2.4Ghz. desktop processor. If you wanted, then to compare a desktop to a G4 desktop you could draw some ROUGH idea of a speed comparison. I think that thre are no comparisons because the main competition for the M chip is the 4M and AMD chips.
The Pentium M is undeniably fast. As for the (con) profusion of options for laptop processors... when the M chip came out it was really hard to figure out if a consumer was buying the 4M chip, the M chip, or a P4 chip. The only sure way to tell was te centrino logo. I noticed that someone is using the T40p. That was the only laptop that was compelling to me when looking for a computer. thankfully I switched to a Mac though. By the wy, how do you like the IBM. I fell in love with it, but did not want to deal with XP anymore.

patrick0brien
Oct 16, 2003, 09:09 AM
Originally posted by asphalt-proof
By the wy, how do you like the IBM. I fell in love with it, but did not want to deal with XP anymore.

-asphalt-proof

It's my third Thinkpad, and I'd say the best yet, though it's outer skin absorbs fingerprints like you wouldn't believe - it's even worse than my 12PB.

But, as you say it's XP Pro...

legion
Oct 16, 2003, 05:16 PM
Originally posted by patrick0brien
-legion

I've heard these qualitative words, as well as "slaughtered", "totally destroyed" when referring comparisons of the Pentium M and Pentium 4 to the performance of the G4.

But I have an add-on question: Who really cares anymore? Seriously. What do you need the speed for?

Those qualitative words only come into play for myself when one laptop that is almost 6 months old is running at the very least 50% faster at most processes over a brand new laptop. Add to that the near silent running, long battery life and cool-to-touch-factor, the 17" PB is outclassed on the hardware level. When I received the 17"PB, my first thought was "this machine is really going to plow through my work"; a few minutes later and I realized that _wasn't_ going to happen. If the difference in performance was less than 20%, then it's not really a big deal because the OS fun-factor makes up for it, however this is/was way too much of a difference.


As for the need for speed... if I have to wait for any operation to run, then I need more speed. Simple as that. The current crop of machines out on the market are still a far cry from what I'd like to use to eliminate any wait periods.

(I'd love to post numerical data on my personal tests, but these were really just run in-house for our comparison use. Around here (the web in general), posting such data where Apple ends up losing is tantamount to a charge of heresy and it seems that I'd have to have all my ducks in a row with testing conditions and such to weather such a flame war.)

legion
Oct 16, 2003, 05:30 PM
Originally posted by Macpoops
So your running a pre-release beta OS with software that isn't optimized for the changes in the new OS...probably doesn't make that much of difference but it definately opens the door for quite a bit of doubt

As another poster mentioned, Panther is far faster than Jaguar so since this was for our own internal use, it was important to see that fastest results we could get from the PB. Leaving Jaguar on and then saying that the PB was slow would have been a pointless test for our usage.

As for "software" optimized for Panther vs Jaguar, I'd hope that isn't necessary ever for a ".1" ugrade. Optimization for a different architecture (eg, the G5) is one thing, but incremental OS updates shouldn't need optimizations.

Personally, I have no "doubt" over performance in the current laptop market and anyone who is wedded to one platform will not be swayed by my results and opinion. I'm just placing this info out there for the OP who was wondering about performance. As my workplace is filled with more Mac zealots than mere Mac-aphiles, if I hadn't performed the tests in front of them, the zealot camp would have never believed me. As it is, none of them are leaving their PBs anytime soon (after all, why would you if the equipment has met your needs so far) but they are now very aware of how far Apple needs to leap forwarded on laptop tech. If you doubt my results that's fine; the one thing that would convince you would be to set up such a side-by-side test yourself to see the results with your own eyes.

fraeone
Oct 16, 2003, 10:30 PM
With the 17"/15" PB costing so much, I can see why the non-bleeding edge performance would be a little disheartening, but I'm preparing to buy a new laptop, and this is what I have come to:

a 12" PB w/ edu discount for 1400
a 1.4ghz Pentium M Dell 600m Laptop, which is slightly larger, and heavier for 1500 - $200 Rebate (configured with 256M, 40GHD, and a Combo Drive, similar to the PB)

To go up to the 1.7 Pentium M, it costs $250 more.

Assuming from previous posts that a 1ghz G4 is probably a little slower than the 1.4 Pentium M; I'm more than happy to pay a couple hundred more for a slightly slower machine with a much better form factor that is able to run a vastly better OS. An IBM T40 at a similar configuration is more like $2000. ($600 to gain back some of that form factor ground)

So my conclusion? If I was planning to spend three grand on a laptop, it's hard to beat the performance of a really loaded IBM T40. Got $1400 to spend? I can't imagine there is anything better than the 12" PB.

Just my take..

switchingGeek
Oct 21, 2003, 11:28 AM
As fraone says, If you have the money to go for an IBM, and you need the performance go for it. But for a $1400 budget, for the price, weight and performance, there are few laptops to beat the 12"PBook.

After seeing two of my friends suffering with their Dell's, I definitely won't be buying one.