View Full Version : New TiBook processor sucks big!!
Oct 31, 2001, 06:02 PM
Check out these specs for the new rev b. tibook.
Is it just me or are these specs looking less and less like a G4 and more like a pentium/athlon/wincrap. The only specs the new chip edged the old tibook out in were the same sort of fast clock rate things that the pentium and athlon processors beat the G4 at!! Damn, damn, damn!! I don't want to play games on my powerbook. I want to be able to run Final Cut pro and Cinema 4D at breakneck speeds while flying to where ever!!! Sure that new graphics chip is a great improvement to the old rage but I would gladly trade in that for a 550 Mhz powerbook with the SAME CHIP as the previous one. Or even better, just give me the old one with a new graphics chip and faster firewire. Apple has to stop this crap with forcing Motorola to turn out higher clock chips while sacrificing the lean mean processing power of the original G4's. We talk so much about the crap of the Mhz myth and yet we are running blindly into it.
Oct 31, 2001, 09:21 PM
Originally posted by Onyxx
Check out these specs for the new rev b. tibook.
Is it just me or are these specs looking less and less like a G4 and more like a pentium/athlon/wincrap.
For pretty much the same price as the old 500Mhz powerbook, you get a 667 Mhz powerbook, which I notice is /not/ reviewed. I'm pretty damn fond of mine, let me tell you. Oh, and wildly faster graphics that can run external displays really well and firewire which doesn't actually suck.
I don't see what you're complaining about here. Would you expect the 550 tibook to be so wildly superior in every respect to a machine that it's actually much cheaper than?
Nov 1, 2001, 11:39 AM
the MHz myth may be a trap apple is falling into, but what do you think will happen to apple laptop sales is wintel hits a mobile 2 GHz before apple hits the 1 GHz mobile mark
you know and i know that MHz is not everything, but try telling that to the average non techie buyer who wants to get the best perceived deal for his 2-3 grand of hard earned money
sure, laptops have come way, way down in price in the high tech field, but most people cannot look past the speed when spending what is still a lot of cash for most of us
Nov 1, 2001, 12:00 PM
is there anyone out there that has traded in their old Ti500 for a new 667?
Nov 1, 2001, 02:01 PM
Why you ONYXX and the rest of the fools are eating the idea of "editing video on a plane" or "playing DOOM at the beach", etc...?
Dou you run your life base on tv comertials?
Do you ever think in how many times you get on a plane in a year?
Do you really have such ammount of work and so little time that you are gonna do it (editing video) in a plane?
Do you at list know or work editing something? Because if you do you wouldn't say "editing in a portable".
Please, use you brain and quit been so blind about what you are buying and what you are talking about. Do not be a product of the media, be a real person that live resolving problems in real life.
A TiBook or any other portable computer are the worst digital work stations to do anything. May be, to do a last time retouching of something in Photoshop or modify some picture in front of the client in Illustrator, but not to edit video or audio.
You can edit video on them but it doesn't mean you are gonna buy it to do it. Less of the 1% of the people that have a portable computer use them for something different than Word, Excel, OutLook, Power Point, or may be Photoshop.
-The LCD are not big enough yet to open the canvas plus the menus, see After Effects.
-The HD are never as fast as a Barracuda or something like it (that is what you need to edit video).
-The Hard drive are not large enough to carrie all the video some one need to edit something.
-And if you ever do that, the battery is gone already because 3/4 of the time you were doing renderings.
-It is anoying trying to do something in a plane or in a car or any where else.
So, if you have a portable think about the real use of it. Many people think the Pismo is better deal than a TiBook. I'm sure most of the people buy an iBook to run iToons only, or at list 80% of the time, or to show to their friends all the Apple comertials and trailers they just downloaded.
That is ok, but do not critisize something because you can not edit in a plane, specially who wanted to be on a plane this days?
Else, I do not know eny body who edit video who owns a portable. It is always better to do it in a real work station with your 1.5G of ram , 64MB of video ram, etc.
[Edited by mymemory on 11-01-2001 at 03:03 PM]
Nov 1, 2001, 04:28 PM
the only high tech gadget i use on a plane or at the beach would be pencil and paper...still the best gadget yet...actually napkins and the backs of business cards work just as well...and while we are talking about the real world and not commercials, i find that business cards work well when there is no dental floss around after i get chicken stuck in my teeth
Nov 1, 2001, 04:36 PM
well Memory, the truth is that I spend most of my time away from where I live and considering that I DO use a portable to render 3d, edit in final cut pro, and make extensive use of photo shop; I'd have to say that your comment is pretty damn irrational and one sided. When I meant editing on a plane I was not refering to apple's idea of grabing an ibook and editing a home movie for my girlfriend while sitting between two other people. I was trying to portray the fact that lots of people are MOBILE PROS!! We don't do stuff at home and when we do we use our "work stations". I own a Pismo and have used the thing to death ever since i got it. I was hoping the apple would come out with a portable that would actually be able to replace my faithful Pismo and allow me to take advantage of the power of the g4 on the road. I didn't go for the rev A because it was the same graphics card and firewire controler. I was hoping that the rev B would address all of those and bring a better processor to the table but I was sorely mistaken. If you really think that all that people do with a laptop is run Microscum products and brag, then you have another thing comming mymemory.
Nov 1, 2001, 04:47 PM
Actually, I do use my PowerBooks on planes. Usually for listening to music, and maybe some html work. The last time I flew, it was with an old WallStreet, but I'm gearing up to take my Pismo to Hawaii for the holidays, and yes I do intend to use it on the plane and yes I can easily get the battery to work for a good 4 hours. A couple of my co-workers have the 500-mhz TiBooks loaded up with 768 megs of RAM and 30 gig hd's. With the wide screen and all, they are more than capable of being used for editing, although we use our dual-processor G4's for intensive rendering work. I have a 400-mhz Sawtooth with 448 megs of RAM at home and I have to admit that the Pismo is better behaved a lot of the time, even though it has less RAM. Yes, Photoshop does run a bit slower on the PB, but not annoyingly so. And yes, I have used Photoshop on a plane. Why should it be that people don't take full advantage of the technology available to them? If thre was wireless high-speed internet access on planes, I would be in heaven.
[Edited by Miles on 11-01-2001 at 05:50 PM]
Nov 1, 2001, 05:18 PM
I have a 500MHz TiBook that I picked up pretty much as soon as they became available earlier this year and have been loving it. I did increase the memory to 512MB within a week. Other then that, I have just been using it.
I run OS X 10.1 99% of the time on it and also have no compaints about Apple there.
I admitt that I wanted one of the new TiBooks that were announced, but then I thought about it for a few moments... my current one does all that I ask of it and some. Also, I would rather not have to sell my current one right now in order to get a new one.
People are talking about the video chip on the new ones.. while it is nice that Apple has finally listened to our comments and put a better one in, it is not enough to make the move. I have stopped gaming on the laptop since I don't have the time at work, and I have a pair of perfectly good desktops for that. If I want to play a game, I power up the G4 500MHz (single chip) with the Radeon 32MB video card, 1.5GB of RAM, and the pair of 40 GB drives. If the game is for the pc only, then I power up the box I built (not going to give money to the other computer makers).
Maybe in a couple of years when Apple releases a G5 laptop I will consider upgrading. Then again, only if I can see the advantage with what my needs are. At this point, I am thinking about getting a new tower when they come out with either a 1GHz or better processor, or the G5 is released. Maybe in 6 months or so.. at least I hope so.
Some of us use our computers for more than logging on to this forum to crap on Apple's product line.
I have used powerbooks on many occasions to edit video, and yes even a few times on an airplane!
I do prefer my studio to do this, but in my line of work you have to go where the action is, and they don't always have power outlets to plug into.
I know a bunch of people who have tiBooks that they regularly edit rough cuts of their features on while still shooting. I have used mine to edit TV segments, and webmovies for immediate posting. For this kind of stuff, they're great. Sure I wish I had the power and monitor space of my studio setup, but for a few grand and few pounds you can't beat the G4book.
"...and to drink, Peru!"
Nov 1, 2001, 05:34 PM
I'm with AlphaTech....
I always want the newest thing just like most of u guys. However, I'm not going to get rid of my TiBook 500 that I just got finished upgrading the HD in, just to have a minor speed bump. I honestly don't need the extra power, I just think it would be cool to have. And, like u AlphaTech, I'm also waiting for either the G5 tower or Book to come out before I make another purchase!
Nov 1, 2001, 06:18 PM
... about. If you get a portable... your going to have limitations. True, when you get a Mac protable... you have less limtations. But... I mean.. you can do your edditing and gaming on your TiBook but you cant expect it to run as well as a fat ass work station with a bucket of RAM. I have a buddy that does all of this web desine, flash anamation, photo editing, gamming, Windows emulation, etc on his pismo. He can do it just not as well as he could if he had a desktop. It may take a few more seconds to render some bryce image but ... you got a portable.. thats the traid off. I say the new vid card is an improvment.. now gamers can get a few more frags when jacking in to a LAN and playing a little unreal. They are very nice toys but I dont see them as real production machiens. I know it would be plenty for what I do. I'm with mymemory... just not so angry about it. :)
Nov 1, 2001, 08:21 PM
the 550 is fast. its on my lap now. ITS VERY VERY fast. especially on 10.1
have you used one yet ?
my last mac was a Performa6500/275 / this speed that i have is mindblowing i cant even imagine what the 667 offers.
a little while back professionals were gawking and drooling over the 500 mHz G4 desktop.
we now have a 667 in a LAPTOP.
im amazed you arent impressed.
moreso that you feel the need to moan about what is available so much.
wait till Rubinstein and Tevanian cram a 1 gHz g4 into a 1 inch thin enclosure...
but until then...
we are all going to have to put up with more and more threads from people like you, devoted to moaning about all the speed we dont have without apreciating that which we do.
i love it
Nov 1, 2001, 08:27 PM
blair witch was made on macs...really
you can tell that someone edited that piece on an airplane while it was in a storm
...just do your graphics on the ground
Nov 1, 2001, 10:52 PM
You people don't seem to get what i'm saying. I'm saying that we have taken a step backward with the new processor. I didn't say it wasn't fast just that the old one is faster at all the applications that count (when I say count, I do not consider scrolling or playing quake, tests that count. I want to see raw processor power). I'm guessing that many of you haven't even taken a look at the barefeats tests. If you did you would know what im talking about. Oh and to all of you that can't wait for a gigahertz processor, what good is a gigahertz processor if it only performs as well or worse than the present processors? So you can that you have a gigahertz processor? Come on. If you are reading around these forums you aren't oblivious to how much ******** this mega/gigahertz thing is. All it's for is marketing to compete with the pc market, nothing else. If motorola wasn't being pushed to put out a " gigahertz" processor we might have 400 mhz processors or something that are more efficient and run cooler than the giga wonder chip. gigahertz these days seems to be a buzz word. If they were making a 4 stage pipeline 2 mb level 2 cache at full clock speed g4 running at 1 gigahetz it would be different. Instead we have something that is having it's pipeline extended to enable it to reach higher clock speeds; just to reach higher clock speeds not for an increase in processor power! PPC chips were designed to be lean and powerfull, these days they are slowly growing more and more chunky just so they can reach the magic gigahertz. So what if we don't reach a gigahertz. Apple users will still buy apples because they are better machines not because they run at at super fast clock speeds. leave the high clock speeds for the novices that only see the numbers. That way they can scroll through microsoft word documents at break neck speeds because thats all a high clock speed seems to be good for.
Nov 2, 2001, 11:14 AM
I have a 400 MHz G4 at home, and feel no serious envy for any of the newer processors. The original 7400 chip was very well designed, and my Sawtooth is probably the most stable G4 I've ever worked on. I think the focus needs to be shifted to fewer pipeline stages, wider memory paths, and more efficient circuts. No, the average consumer may not understand the fact that clock speed does not equal actual computations, but the average consumer isn't in the market for a G4 either. Give them a gigahertzy iMac, or invent some intermediate processor. I guess what I'm saying is that apple needs to make the G4's raw processing power, and then throw something with big numbers at the consumers...or maybe they should stop quoting processor speed in megahertz and start quoting it in gigaflops.
Nov 2, 2001, 11:15 AM
I for one, hope that when Apple reaches the GHz level, enough of the architecture will support it to make it blow the pants off anything else that is not a Mac. That includes any p4 (or whatever they will be called at the time) at 2GHz+.
My G4 500MHz tower does everything I ask it to, including games. I am just about ready to get the new G4 (or G5 when it comes out) mainly because of the other changes that Apple has implemented between my system and the current ones. Such as a faster bus speed, higher ATA level and higher video cards. All will contribute to what I use the system for. Maybe by when I am ready they will also be putting faster burners into the systems. The 8x they use now, are slower then the external I have. Enough to make it worth it to have the external.
As with most things Apple, if you wait long enough, it happens. Six months gives them a show or two to announce and actually ship new products. I just hope we are pleasantly surprised by when happens next.
Nov 2, 2001, 11:50 AM
more tech saavy types like the macrumors posters know bus speed, cache, pipelines, and RAM are just as important but ask yourself, "Who buys most of the macs...techies in the field or everyday people who get wowed by that GHz number vs. the pricepoint?"
having worked for office depot before i was a techie, i noticed that after price, MHz speed was the next most determining factor in sales
Hey, CompUSA dude, back me on this one if you think i am right!
Nov 2, 2001, 12:25 PM
My 867 Quicksliver came with a 12X CD-R drive... I opted not to get the DVD-R... Fast enuph for me... I dont need a CD in under 8 min.
Nov 3, 2001, 12:03 PM
True true, Mhz is still the biggest factor in selling PCs to non-geek civillians.
Nov 3, 2001, 12:07 PM
when i shop for pcs and compare pcs against pcs, with everything else similar such as video cards and monitors, i then use the MHz as a factor
Nov 3, 2001, 12:24 PM
I dont, i look for brands....AMD, Nvidia etc. and then i look for Mhz.
Nov 3, 2001, 02:43 PM
I have just received a 667 MHZ TiBook and I have to say that there might be some reason for concern. I am upgrading from a 400 MHZ G3 Pismo (the original 6 gig HD) and I was excited about this new machine.
First, I've only had the thing for about 17 hours, so it's not completely fair just yet.
So, first of all, I'm using OS X 10.1 almost exclusively. It's definitely faster on this machine. As big of a jump as my machine took going from 10.0.4 to 10.1 it took again. That's how the OS feels anyway, and that's really important.
But, I run the command line version of seti@home and it's dragging. Right now I'd say the 667 is running seti about 5% faster than my 400 MHZ G3.
I know the command line seti isn't altivec enhanced so I didn't expect to see numbers quadruple what they were before, but I was expecting a flat out increase of close to 50%. I've got to give this machine some time to settle in and run a few units, but I'll try and come back and update the thread in a few days.
Any input would be greatly appreciated.
Nov 3, 2001, 03:36 PM
For those of you still who still believe that Motorola isn't producing crap processors just to reach the 1 Ghz mark should take a look at this and then slap themselves in the forehead.
Is it just my eyes or is the new 550 G4 processor slower than the old 500? hmmm. Yeah the new G4 is getting it's ass kicked in every application that it was designed excel at. Take a look at that Bryce chart. 10 seconds! And thats only one frame! If that was a 3 minute animation at a full30 fps that 10 second difference quickly catches up with you. Quoted by Barefeats "the Revision A Titanium was slightly faster in 5 out of 8 tests". That tells me that the new processor just doesn't cut it and that. Plain and simple.
Nov 4, 2001, 10:37 AM
Well there is a reason for this. Have you taken a look at the cache for the new G4? 256kbs! What did the previous one have? 1mb! Think about it; all of these tests need to send a lot of instructions to the processor. Therefore a cache is used to store these instructions. Since the cache on Rev A can hold four times the instructions, it can feasibly be faster than the rev B IF you are doing such things as bryce and what not.
Nov 4, 2001, 10:59 AM
i see there are so many people in the stores who think that MHz is everything, but for certain things, cache is almost as important as mentioned above
now try and tell that to the consumer
Nov 4, 2001, 02:49 PM
Cache is important, but just like the highest MHZ doesn't always equal the fastest machine, the largest cache doesn't always end up making the machine faster. The G4 is capable of using a 2 MB cache, but the most used has been 1 MB (except possibly in the dual 800 MHZ). This is because the speed increase is negligible, and sometimes it hinders speed.
The cache in the new TiBook runs at the full processor speed, not half. The system bus is also faster (although initial throughput tests seem to show otherwise). The previous model was a half speed cache. I would guess that the differences negate each other overall. Some processes will be faster on the older model, some on the newer.
As for seti@home (per my original post), it's running about 25% faster on the 667 MHZ machine than it does on my G3 400 MHZ. The initial 5% increase would have to be considered a fluke. The G3 was probably running an easier set than the G4. Over the course of the weekend the G4 has consistently outperformed the G3, even though I've been using the TiBook and not the Pismo.
If possible, someone with a 500 MHZ TiBook rev. A & a 550 TiBook rev. B should run the same seti work unit on both machines, just to see what happens.