why apple laptops will stay behind PC's in pure speed...

[Soc7777777]

compare the newst offerings from apple and intel.. the 1.33-.1.5 ghz G4 and the 1.8-2.0 ghz pentium m.... the pentium m at 2 ghz is much faster than the 1.5 g4.. heck its even a better chip at 1.5 then the g4 is at 1.5...... so why is apple falling behind in moble processor speeds.... 1 reason

Intel researches and creates the pentium m (and designs it...) SPECIFICLY for mobile computers... apples problem is they create desktop processors (whether ibm or moto) and then wait to 'fit' them in a laptop... where as intel realizes that there should be two entirely different approaches... the pentium m is going to keep getting better... and by the time the g5 reaches the laptops, they will be merely 'catching up' with the comperable pcs.. then the Pcs will come out with the 64 bit pentium m like chip that will distroy the g5 and once again apple will be behind... before i argued that apple needed to make an ultraportable computer... well what i should ahve said... is that apple should seperate their desktop and laptop researching.... when the g5 hits the powerbook in 'two thousand and.. whenever' (steve jobs talking about longhorn... keynote... january)... it will be a trimmed down single processers at underclocked because of heat issues.... where apple should be reasearching BOTH mobile AND desktop processors... they are actually just researching desktop... and when they are done with that, they start tyring to get that desktop processor to fit in the mobile form factor....

apple needs to get their act together and start some reaserching on mobile processors....

all this being said.. im STILL buying an apple because OS X is THAT good... i'd take a slower apple machine running OS X any day of the week over a fast wintel machine that will crash on me all the time..

apples are STILL a better value because of OS X and design and hardware quality (not counting speed)... but i think they can do better in the mobile area... (yes i still think that the duel 2.0 ghz is the fastest computer in that price range... competing with P4 EE)

haha now i know im going to be attacked by a whole crowd of apple fanatics... saying stuff like 'the g4 is better than the fastest pentium 4, the fastest pentium m, blah blah blah..... oh well im ready for that

i think the new powerbook g5s shoudl use that carbon light and durable formfacter... something that stands outand screams... 'look at me, im different'

[Soc7777777]

i think ibooks are a good deal and offer good performance for the price...

[wide]

Even so, the Pentium 4 3.4 GHZ can be found in many laptops from many companies. And it is faster than the 1.5 GHZ G4 (although it may be bulkier).

[musicpyrite]

You are aware that clock cycles (http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=3997) have nothing to do with the speed of the computer right? ;)

[QCassidy352]

PC laptops are faster, no question. I agree - apple should use a processor designed for laptops from the ground up.

[Mav451]

You don't buy Apple for pure speed -_-.

This applies to both laptops AND desktops. Yes, Apple is always going to be "slightly" (or not at all, according to others) slower in a pure H/W sense. But that's not what they're famous for.

Apple is good b/c of their individual style, industry leading innovations, and intuitive and beautiful OS. All of these don't require the fastest H/W.

The 3.4Ghz is a DESKTOP Replacement. Not a "laptop". My opinion of a laptop is a middle ground between battery/performance. The Pentium-M's are at the sweet spot, and you are right about that.

On the clock cycles argument, I would hesistate to generalize clock cycles as NOT necessarily meaning more performance. Higher clock speeds on the same chip still mean higher performance (3.0 G5 vs. 2.0 G5 for example); it is the cross platform comparison that is more confusing. Hell, the Pentium-M is a living testament of that, as an example different core designs in the Intel Corp itself (P4 vs. Pentium 3).

With even MORE hesistation is Apple's willingness to generalize FLOPs as the "end all" benchmark. *_* It is, afterall, just another benchmark. In all honesty, cross platform comparisons will always be a gray area--the reason the OS argument (which one is better) comes up so often.

[mkrishnan]

So pardon my ignorance; are the G4 processors used on iBooks and PBs exactly the same as the ones used in iMacs and eMacs running at the same speed, ie no optimization for running mobile or extra speed switching tech or lower power/heat? Is it just that this series even in desktops runs on the low power side? It's kinda suprising that the 12" iBook and PB get as good battery #s as they do with a processor not designed for mobile from the ground up....

Does this also mean that in all likelihood, the G5s when/if they arrive on laptops, will not be any lower power consumption than the ones that are out there now, or do they optimize as they go to revision dies / fab processes for the processor and just make all of them lower power by the time it hits laptops?

[wrldwzrd89]

So pardon my ignorance; are the G4 processors used on iBooks and PBs exactly the same as the ones used in iMacs and eMacs running at the same speed, ie no optimization for running mobile or extra speed switching tech or lower power/heat? Is it just that this series even in desktops runs on the low power side? It's kinda suprising that the 12" iBook and PB get as good battery #s as they do with a processor not designed for mobile from the ground up....

Does this also mean that in all likelihood, the G5s when/if they arrive on laptops, will not be any lower power consumption than the ones that are out there now, or do they optimize as they go to revision dies / fab processes for the processor and just make all of them lower power by the time it hits laptops?
It's true - the PowerBook and iBook G4 use the same G4 processors that the desktops once used, although the new 1.33 GHz and 1.5 GHz models have never appeared in any Apple desktop as of when I posted this. The situation for the G5 is different, since the G5's maximum (not typical) power consumption isn't yet low enough for use in a laptop without lowering the clockspeed. Once PowerPC G5s appear with maximum power consumption in the 20-30W range, we'll see them in PowerBooks.

[johnnyjibbs]

You are aware that clock cycles (http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=3997) have nothing to do with the speed of the computer right? ;)
Thanks for that link, it was an interesting read.

I can feel happier about my 1GHz G4 now!

[LethalWolfe]

apple needs to get their act together and start some reaserching on mobile processors....


Apple doesn't do the R&D for the chips they use. IBM and Motoral do. And, as others have stated, CPU speed can be an unreliable measuring point for a computers performance. Unfortunetly that fact is lost on the average consumer (and ignored by marketing and retailers). AMD went to a "speed rating" because it's chips started out performing higher clocked Intel chips. Intel is talking about moving to a speed rating system and dropping "ghz." It's about working smarter, not harder. Just look at the leaps Apple has made w/the G5. FCP 4.5 running on a top of the line G5 can pull more streams of video in realtime than a faster (dual 2.8 Xeon), hardware assisted PC-based Avid Media Composer Adrenaline. What Apple is doing w/o hardware assistance is turning a lot of heads.

As long as Apple keeps performance (not neccisarily ghz) relatively close I'll be happy. As you said, there are many other compeling reasons to buy a Mac.


Lethal

[Jonathan Amend]

compare the newst offerings from apple and intel.. the 1.33-.1.5 ghz G4 and the 1.8-2.0 ghz pentium m.... the pentium m at 2 ghz is much faster than the 1.5 g4.. heck its even a better chip at 1.5 then the g4 is at 1.5...... so why is apple falling behind in moble processor speeds.... 1 reason

Intel researches and creates the pentium m (and designs it...) SPECIFICLY for mobile computers... apples problem is they create desktop processors (whether ibm or moto) and then wait to 'fit' them in a laptop... where as intel realizes that there should be two entirely different approaches... the pentium m is going to keep getting better... and by the time the g5 reaches the laptops, they will be merely 'catching up' with the comperable pcs.. then the Pcs will come out with the 64 bit pentium m like chip that will distroy the g5 and once again apple will be behind... before i argued that apple needed to make an ultraportable computer... well what i should ahve said... is that apple should seperate their desktop and laptop researching.... when the g5 hits the powerbook in 'two thousand and.. whenever' (steve jobs talking about longhorn... keynote... january)... it will be a trimmed down single processers at underclocked because of heat issues.... where apple should be reasearching BOTH mobile AND desktop processors... they are actually just researching desktop... and when they are done with that, they start tyring to get that desktop processor to fit in the mobile form factor....

apple needs to get their act together and start some reaserching on mobile processors....

all this being said.. im STILL buying an apple because OS X is THAT good... i'd take a slower apple machine running OS X any day of the week over a fast wintel machine that will crash on me all the time..

apples are STILL a better value because of OS X and design and hardware quality (not counting speed)... but i think they can do better in the mobile area... (yes i still think that the duel 2.0 ghz is the fastest computer in that price range... competing with P4 EE)

haha now i know im going to be attacked by a whole crowd of apple fanatics... saying stuff like 'the g4 is better than the fastest pentium 4, the fastest pentium m, blah blah blah..... oh well im ready for that

i think the new powerbook g5s shoudl use that carbon light and durable formfacter... something that stands outand screams... 'look at me, im different'

I'm guessing you didn't know this, but the Pentium M is just the continuation of the good old Pentium 3.

[dopefiend]

I'm guessing you didn't know this, but the Pentium M is just the continuation of the good old Pentium 3.

Nope

Intel® Pentium® M Processor
Introducing Intel® Pentium® M processor, a new microprocessor designed from the ground up for mobility, with a mobile-optimized chipset, and an integrated Wireless LAN solution. Intel® mobile processor innovative design techniques allow faster execution of instructions at lower power


http://www.intel.com/design/mobile/processors.htm#MProcessor

If you scroll down a bit, you will notice the p3 line still exists as a totally seperate line of mobile processors.

[Jonathan Amend]

Nope



http://www.intel.com/design/mobile/processors.htm#MProcessor

If you scroll down a bit, you will notice the p3 line still exists as a totally seperate line of mobile processors.

Let me put it this way... Intel's claim that the Pentium M was designed from the ground up is as true as Apple's claim that the G5 is the fastest personal computer in the world.

[wide]

I'm guessing you didn't know this, but the Pentium M is just the continuation of the good old Pentium 3.

You're probably thinking of the Pentium 3-m and Pentium 4-m chips that were P3s and P4s designed for mobility. The Pentium-M is entirely different, it's an entirely new architecture.

Also, didn't Intel offer to make a chip compatible with Mac OS, and didn't Apple refuse? I guess Intel can make damn good chips after all...

[wide]

Let me put it this way... Intel's claim that the Pentium M was designed from the ground up is as true as Apple's claim that the G5 is the fastest personal computer in the world.

Wrong again. Intel did design the Pentium-M for mobile computing. They set out with the desire to make a chip with good performance and battery life, and they did this by using their SpeedStep technology (which was first designed with the Pentium III). Still, that does not mean the Pentium-M was not designed from the ground up (even if it used other technologies). While on low battery, say 20%, or when doing really basic (or no) computing, my chip will reduce its speed from 1.7 GHZ to around 200 MHZ!

[Jonathan Amend]

Wrong again. Intel did design the Pentium-M for mobile computing. They set out with the desire to make a chip with good performance and battery life, and they did this by using their SpeedStep technology (which was first designed with the Pentium III). Still, that does not mean the Pentium-M was not designed from the ground up (even if it used other technologies). While on low battery, say 20%, or when doing really basic (or no) computing, my chip will reduce its speed from 1.7 GHZ to around 200 MHZ!

I'm not saying that it wasn't designed for mobile applications, but it was based on the Pentium 3.

[Jonathan Amend]

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=8386

[Mord]

Once PowerPC G5s appear with maximum power consumption in the 20-30W range, we'll see them in PowerBooks.

the 970fx currently consumes 25 watts at 2.0 GHz apple really wants it in the 10-15 watt range

and all this stuf about apple not haveing low power mobile prosessors there are 745x = high power consumption desktop chip
744xA or B = laptop chip


it's crystal clear Moto makes low power versions of there chips the reason they are slower is because motorola is a small crappy company that cant make decent chips anymore that is why we need to WAIT untill the 9xx archetecture becomes established so that IBM can make a low power version

[wide]

motorola is a small crappy company that cant make decent chips anymore that is why we need to WAIT untill the 9xx archetecture becomes established so that IBM can make a low power version

Are you kidding me? Motorola is a huge company, and they are going to release a new chip soon (I hope) under the name of their newly organized subsidiary, Freescale Semiconductor (www.freescale.com). And they are crappy too? In Q1 2004, they raised the prices of their products AND made more money than in the past--a lot more money. Look at their quarterly report to see just how much they have made (I forget, but it was on CNBC in early April).

[Mord]

Are you kidding me? Motorola is a huge company, and they are going to release a new chip soon (I hope) under the name of their newly organized subsidiary, Freescale Semiconductor (www.freescale.com). And they are crappy too? In Q1 2004, they raised the prices of their products AND made more money than in the past--a lot more money. Look at their quarterly report to see just how much they have made (I forget, but it was on CNBC in early April).

so there a skanky small company?

there are small in comparison to IBM, AMD and Intel

the fact that they made lots of money dose not change the fact that there chips are slow

I love my dual g4 cube but IBM is the future

(but i do hope a mac will have a e600 in it so that mac osx supports it for an upgrade to my beloved cube)

[wide]

so there a skanky small company?

there are small in comparison to IBM, AMD and Intel

Motorola is an enormous company, and I do not know what made you think otherwise. They are ranked 61 in the 2003 list of the Fortune 500 companies, which is based off year-end revenues. Microsoft is at 46. Intel at 53. Motorola's total revenue in billions of dollars last year was $27.058. Microsoft's was at $32.187. Intel's was $30.141. I couldn't even find AMD on that list. You may think that all Motorola makes is phones and the G4 chip, but in actuality they have a vast array of high-profit products.

Did I mention that their revenue increased greatly this last quarter (Q1 2004)?

Here is the link to the Fortune 500 list for 2003 revenues:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/2004-03-22-fortune-500-list_x.htm

...and you might want to check out the Motorola website to see what other technologies they produce. www.motorola.com

I also found this to be really, really interesting:

http://e-www.motorola.com/files/32bit/doc/white_paper/PPCCORESWP.pdf

Check out Page 6...it has information about the e600 chip that requires only 10 watts of power. Wow. It looks like Motorola might be doing something good after all!

A hallmark of the G4 core is its optimal balance of high performance and low power dissipation, delivering gigahertz-class performance at less than 10W--making it an optimal solution for power-sensitive embedded applications [10.4 Tiger, anyone?:)].

Another hallmark of the G4 core, as well as the e600 core, is the AltiVecTM technology, a 128-bit vector processing engine designed to accelerate a wide range of computationally intensive applications......

This article is copyrighted 2004, so no, it is not old or outdated.

PS: Freescale Semiconductor's 2003 sales were $4.9 billion (USD).

[LethalWolfe]

Are you kidding me? Motorola is a huge company, and they are going to release a new chip soon (I hope) under the name of their newly organized subsidiary, Freescale Semiconductor (www.freescale.com). And they are crappy too? In Q1 2004, they raised the prices of their products AND made more money than in the past--a lot more money. Look at their quarterly report to see just how much they have made (I forget, but it was on CNBC in early April).


I think Hector's comments were geared towards the limited scope of Motorola in the world of computer CPU's.


Lethal

[Fukui]

You don't buy Apple for pure speed -_-.
We used too!!!

[Koodauw]

While one can argue about true speed for hours, and I would guess even days, the thought that comes to my mind is " It doesn't really matter. " True speed is not everything to all people. I doubt most users could not tell a 200 Mhz difference in a current x86 or PPC format. I mean other than the 3 seconds it takes for safari to launch, my 867 computer is plenty fast. But anyways, I will let everyone get back to the " Which is truely Faster arguement"



#500

[Bigheadache]

No offence guys, but this whole thread is pretty stupid. Its a bit harsh having a go at Apple when they don't have anything to do with CPU design and manufacturing. I am sure they would love to have something which is remotely competitive with Dothan, but at the end of the day, its what they can get from IBM and Motorola.

[ddtlm]

On the subject of P-M's relation to P-3, I think its pretty clear that the P-M is more distinct from the P-3 than the P-3 was from the P-2, the P-2 was from the P-Pro, or Celerons and Xeons were from any of those. (Did you realize that Intel's first truely new x86 core since the P-Pro was the P-4?) Seems to me that people trying to call the P-M a P-3 just have an agenda to push against Intel. But somehow connecting the P-M to a processor core predating the G3 strikes me as highlighting just how good the core was. Seriously, some people here appear to want to believe that G3s, G4s and G5s are getting their butts kicked in the mobile space by a glorified Pentium Pro. :D Hey if thats what you want to believe...

wide:

While its true that Moto is large, most of that bulk is doing things other than designing processors suitable for Macs. Same goes for IBM. On the other hand, Intel is both large and primarily designing processors, hence the size comments people make all the time. Neither IBM nor Moto can afford to spend nearly as much on processors as Intel can.

[Jonathan Amend]

No offence guys, but this whole thread is pretty stupid. Its a bit harsh having a go at Apple when they don't have anything to do with CPU design and manufacturing. I am sure they would love to have something which is remotely competitive with Dothan, but at the end of the day, its what they can get from IBM and Motorola.

Nobody's stopping Apple from using Dothans either =)

Actually, I think it is plausible. Apple would just have to make a special BIOS that only comes with their computers (like all Macs already do) and they'd still have their OS+hardware lock (as long as the protection isn't crap like on the XBox).

[Jonathan Amend]

On the subject of P-M's relation to P-3, I think its pretty clear that the P-M is more distinct from the P-3 than the P-3 was from the P-2, the P-2 was from the P-Pro, or Celerons and Xeons were from any of those. (Did you realize that Intel's first truely new x86 core since the P-Pro was the P-4?) Seems to me that people trying to call the P-M a P-3 just have an agenda to push against Intel. But somehow connecting the P-M to a processor core predating the G3 strikes me as highlighting just how good the core was. Seriously, some people here appear to want to believe that G3s, G4s and G5s are getting their butts kicked in the mobile space by a glorified Pentium Pro. :D Hey if thats what you want to believe...


I don't have anything against Intel. I like Pentium 3s and Pentium Ms (although I think the P4 sucks). I only brought it up to counter the G4's being both a desktop and a laptop chip as an excuse for its low performance =)

[legion]

While on low battery, say 20%, or when doing really basic (or no) computing, my chip will reduce its speed from 1.7 GHZ to around 200 MHZ!

No it won't. Pentium M lowest step is 600MHz; for both Banias and Dothan. If your system is telling you it is going to 200MHz, then your system has problems from the BIOS or the ACPI drivers.

[Stojamow]

Agree...

On the whole it seems that Mac is behind the PC but as someone pointed out the performance of FCP HD (4.5) we can ask are the software supplied by third parties optimized for Mac as well as they are optimized for PC ?!?

We also have that old conversation started by me which was then closed as it started to show up in search engines :rolleyes: ...

In the meantime I think you might find this interesting:


Check this out (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,1274138,00.asp)

....click the link for performance table.

[wrldwzrd89]

I don't have anything against Intel. I like Pentium 3s and Pentium Ms (although I think the P4 sucks). I only brought it up to counter the G4's being both a desktop and a laptop chip as an excuse for its low performance =)
Regarding the G4, it is a strange chip in that respect - the fact that it's equally at home in a desktop or laptop (although that wasn't the case when it was first introduced); it looks like the PowerPC G5 will follow the lead the G4 set ass far as when it appears in laptops. As far as the Pentium 4 is concerned, its biggest problem is its high heat production. The second biggest problem it faces is the HUGE penalty for pipeline stalls because of its LONG pipeline. The rest of its features aren't that bad, but those two factors really kill its potential.

[wide]

No it won't. Pentium M lowest step is 600MHz; for both Banias and Dothan. If your system is telling you it is going to 200MHz, then your system has problems from the BIOS or the ACPI drivers.

That's what I would have thought, too. But my System information in the Control Panel seems to think differently. It didn't go down to 200 MHz this time, but it went well below 600 MHz:

[Macdantheman07]

To get back to the point of this topic. yes the Pentium -M is a better chip than the G4. Everyone knows that the G4 is lacking in many things. The G4 was designed for embedded products, which is why its bus speed is so slow. The great things about the G4 are that it has a very small power consumption and it can offer OK performance for its low clock speed. IBM has ignited the fighting spirit within Motorola to come out with the FreeScale chips or the e600 e700 chips. The e700 chips will be 32/64 bit!!! competition is good for IBM and Moto. It gives them both incentives to geth their chips in production faster. I think the Mac community is about to see a big jump in performance by both motorola and IBM. If IBM and Motorolla can be assured by apple that they would be able to sell at least 250,000 G5s and e700s per quarter, i think they would try harder for us.

Steve Jobs is not stupid, he knows that most of the Mac line is lacking in performance. I'm sure his people in california are working on something that will blow people away for January. I'm assuming either an e700 2ghz powerbook or a G5 single 2ghz powerbook.

[ifjake]

yeah i think apple should try to get Motorola or IBM to produce a mobile chip. 64 bits in a notebook isn't going to work unless they specifically design a chip to do that. unfortunately that's beyond apple's control. i personally like my notebook computers mobile. none of that desktop replacement stuff.

[gundamguy]

Yeah I love my 12 pound Toshiba work makes me lug around, 3 ghz, nearly 2 inches thick, almost burns my hands and is loud as hell with the giant fan and exhaust at the rear, oh and my 90 minutes of battery life are great too. All this for just under 3 grand. Ill take my 12" ibook with over 5 hours of battery life and 4.9 pounds of joy.

[Nik_Doof]

You're probably thinking of the Pentium 3-m and Pentium 4-m chips that were P3s and P4s designed for mobility. The Pentium-M is entirely different, it's an entirely new architecture.

True, the Pentium-M (for what i've read about it) is a whole system arch, not just a processor. Mainly its a P3 derretive processor with extended instructions for processing speedups. Also most of the new Centrino "system" is built for speed with wifi applications etc..

[Vlade]

You are aware that clock cycles (http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=3997) have nothing to do with the speed of the computer right? ;)

Actually clock cycles have ALOT to do with a CPU speed, because Clocks * Operations Per Clock = overall speed of CPU, and then you have to add into effect things like RAM and the system bus, where G4s are WAY WAY WAY behind PCs.

[Mord]

I think Hector's comments were geared towards the limited scope of Motorola in the world of computer CPU's.


Lethal

aye yes

I dont care that moto' in the $$$$$ all i care about is there current best chip's proformence which amazingly both sucks and blows at the same time

(btw i am not dissing anyones powerbooks they are great but just not that fast)

[Steven1621]

to further echo the others: you don't buy an apple notebook for speed

[JFreak]

to further echo the others: you don't buy an apple notebook for speed

yes, but that doesn't mean that i wouldn't want to ;)

i use protools and absolutely have to have a laptop (because i do live sound with it and will not keep dragging a desktop on the road), and in protools you simply cannot have too much power. i would like that apple laptops would be true desktop killers, meaning as fast as the single-cpu powermac. ("as fast" being at most 10% slower).

oh well, maybe some day.

[legion]

That's what I would have thought, too. But my System information in the Control Panel seems to think differently. It didn't go down to 200 MHz this time, but it went well below 600 MHz:

It's wrong. Look to see if Dell had any BIOS updates. It's just a matter of the system not recognizing how to handle the chip family, it doesn't affect performance other than it's displaying incorrect information.

[mmmdreg]

You are aware that clock cycles (http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=3997) have nothing to do with the speed of the computer right? ;)

actually they do.. a 3GHz P4 is faster than a 2GHz P4 ;)

[JFreak]

actually they do.. a 3GHz P4 is faster than a 2GHz P4 ;)

not much, actually. a 3GHz pentium only generates a great deal more heat than 2GHz pentium.

[blue&whiteman]

hey guys! just to remind you all. this is a mac forum. there are thousands of pc forums to go do all this in.

[Vlade]

not much, actually. a 3GHz pentium only generates a great deal more heat than 2GHz pentium.

Do you have any idea what the hell your talking about? I just opened SiSandra2004 on my PC 1 foot to the left of my mac, and the Pentium 4 3.0 GHZ is scoring 7377/4054/2217, while the 2.0GHZ is scoring 4918/2703/1478. Do the math before you talk.

[Soc7777777]

Yeah I love my 12 pound Toshiba work makes me lug around, 3 ghz, nearly 2 inches thick, almost burns my hands and is loud as hell with the giant fan and exhaust at the rear, oh and my 90 minutes of battery life are great too. All this for just under 3 grand. Ill take my 12" ibook with over 5 hours of battery life and 4.9 pounds of joy.

either you bought that years ago or you are a complete sucker and they sold you a piece of crap for lots more than its worth.... i havnt seen a 12lb computer in a while... and for just under 3 grand???? that should have gotten you a P4 EE w/ 1GB ram and 256 mb video....... you got ripped off

[Soc7777777]

somone said you buy an apple laptop not for the speed.... well its pretty hard to convince someone to switch based on the 'experience' of the computer... its hard to trust a company so much that you will buy a slower product for the same price for the 'experience' (haha i def. would... but that a tuff sell to the avg pc user)... ALSO... while i think the G4 is an inferior chip to the pentium m... i think the G5 is on par with pc cpu speeds... i'd take a G5 over a P4 at teh same speed.... the only pc processor i would take over the 2.0 ghz DP G5 is the P4 EE..... besides that... (and maybe the AMD 64 FX-51 and FX-53) i would take the G5... but the G5 wont be in laptops anytime soon... and by then intel will either have the second version of the pentium m (pentium 2m?? haha .. or pentium m 2, or whatever they do to name chips)... or they will have the current pentium M at like 3ghz and still consuming less power then they do now...

BTW the person who said clock cycles have nothing to do with cpu speed is a moron.... overall cpu speed is a combination of RAM (video included).. bus speed... cache memory... frequency (ghz)... pipline length... number of pipline stages... type of memory... ondie mem. ... and some other things im prob. forgetting... but some have a greater effect then others.

[wide]

Soc777...w/e:

For 3 thousand dollars, even today you cannot get an extreme edition CPU in a laptop, let alone the 1 gb ram and 256 mb video card. the EE costs 600-1000 dollars more than the 3.4 GHz P4 chip, depending on whether you buy the 3.2 ghz EE or the 3.4 ghz EE. I do not think any laptop manufacturers put the EE in their laptops anyway, because it overheats a ****load.

[JFreak]

Do you have any idea what the hell your talking about? I just opened SiSandra2004 on my PC 1 foot to the left of my mac, and the Pentium 4 3.0 GHZ is scoring 7377/4054/2217, while the 2.0GHZ is scoring 4918/2703/1478. Do the math before you talk.

i was comparing pentiums to pentiums. read and think before you talk ;)

[MorganX]

Soc777...w/e:

For 3 thousand dollars, even today you cannot get an extreme edition CPU in a laptop, let alone the 1 gb ram and 256 mb video card. the EE costs 600-1000 dollars more than the 3.4 GHz P4 chip, depending on whether you buy the 3.2 ghz EE or the 3.4 ghz EE. I do not think any laptop manufacturers put the EE in their laptops anyway, because it overheats a ****load.

Actually, the 2Ghz Dothan performs on par with the 3.2Ghz EE and is shipping in laptops now. As a matter of fact, there are many of us geeks salivating for dekstop Dothan motherboards.

[MorganX]

Let me put it this way... Intel's claim that the Pentium M was designed from the ground up is as true as Apple's claim that the G5 is the fastest personal computer in the world.

Actually the Pentium M cores was designed in Haifa, Israel and is a completely separate core from Northwood and Prescott. Intel is dumping the formers in favor of the Pentium M core across the board.

[wide]

Actually, the 2Ghz Dothan performs on par with the 3.2Ghz EE and is shipping in laptops now. As a matter of fact, there are many of us geeks salivating for dekstop Dothan motherboards.

i know, didn't say otherwise. the dothan (and even banias :)) is an incredible chip. still, it's performance can't really overcome the EE until the dothan is paired with faster ram and a better graphics card.

has anyone found dothan 2.0 GHz vs. G4 1.5 GHz benchmarks :D ?

[Soc7777777]

Soc777...w/e:

For 3 thousand dollars, even today you cannot get an extreme edition CPU in a laptop, let alone the 1 gb ram and 256 mb video card. the EE costs 600-1000 dollars more than the 3.4 GHz P4 chip, depending on whether you buy the 3.2 ghz EE or the 3.4 ghz EE. I do not think any laptop manufacturers put the EE in their laptops anyway, because it overheats a ****load.

you have no idea what you are talking about... for 2649 you can get a p4 EE 3.2ghz with 1gig (512x2) memory.. and 128mb of video memory for 2649 plus tax and shipping.... FROM HP... that is an overpriced company... so with alot of looking you could probibly find it cheeper.... if i would have chosen the cheeper graphics card you could have bought a 256mb ATI Radeon for about 400... and that would STILL be under 3 grand.... face it... you got ripped off by toshiba.. (btw this computer is around 9lbs)

[Xapplimatic]

No offence guys, but this whole thread is pretty stupid. Its a bit harsh having a go at Apple when they don't have anything to do with CPU design and manufacturing. I am sure they would love to have something which is remotely competitive with Dothan, but at the end of the day, its what they can get from IBM and Motorola.

I agree, this whole thread is really stupid, but this assertion is nolonger true. It's only true that Apple didn't have anything to do with the design of the chips *UNTIL the G5*.. Apple was heavily involved in the design of the G5. They worked hand in hand with IBM to the first customizable PPC chip series to fruition (thank you IBM!!) and I assure you they are working hand in hand on the first laptop version as well... They don't want to be in another Motorola style dry spell. The fact that IBM and Apple worked together to achieve this is a testiment to why the G5 is such a quantum improvement over the G4. With the Motorola situation, Apple was stuck with whatever Motorola had to offer, whenever they got around to offering it. The G5 is a role reversal. Apple gave IBM the realistic design specs they wanted and with considerable consultation, revisions, and much design genius, IBM delivered the chip within the timeframe given.

Now about the general topic here... and this is gonna be REALLY LONG WINDED!!! (Sorry, well, not really!)

As a whole I must say I find any "Apple laptops are slower" statement is about as true as saying consumers want to "rent" music from Microsoft. Only on the engineering plane of theoretical existance could someone really justify such a generalization. Let's talk about REAL-WORLD speed. As a part time computer tech and an installer of high speed data services for the local cable provider, I must say that in the field--and that's as real as it gets--speed is something which is perceivably affected by many factors which have nothing to do with Megahertz at all! Speed extends beyond the processor to a large extent.

Real-world, my PowerBook runs circles around even most of the PC desktops I've seen in the field. The speed of extremely redundant operations like doing spell check in MS Word may be one of the operations most greatly influenced by the clockspeed of the CPU, but I could care less about such a useless contest as it amounts to only seconds a day difference in me getting things done. Boot time is also inane since my PowerBook pretty much only gets rebooted following an OS or security update. Real "speed" must be measured in terms of the overall efficiency of the computing experience.. Mac world did an awesome job of making this point comparing Panther to Jaguar in terms of productivity a few months back where they measured the average times of roughly a dozen similar day to day tasks and then came to a fairly well-backed conclusion that the substantive time savings over the course of a year brought by new and revised features actually pay for the OS update and then some.

In terms of overall use-efficiency as a guage of system speed, clockspeed and bus speed are certainly contributing factors, but also things such as overall application reliability, usefullness, efficiency, and those same factors again in terms of the OS are also significant contributors to the end view of speed. I am talking about the general overall speed of completing normal daily tasks on the machine without encumberance, error correction, and hassel. The OS and even overall realiability in general of the software you use counts for something, undeniably. A bad OS or a set of bad applications can completely sand-bag the fastest processors available into submission quite easily. I find most recent Mac laptops and desktops much faster than the fastest Wintels sold since the overall Mac user experience is not subjected to and sand-bagged by a. pop-ups (unless you run other than the standard IE browser which isn't likely as most PC users don't know Mozilla even exists). b. blue-screen of death, excessive application failures and other run-time errors (online surveys confirm what I've seen in the field installing cable modems--most PCs are still running win 98 regardless of all the XP hype.). c. bootup errors and other serious OS corruption bug show-stoppers. d. online spyware plagues and virus outbreaks (which will suck any "faster" pentium into less than competitive--"slug"--speed or even useless-land in no time.. Even if spyware free, add to that time wasted having to scan for and remove spyware every few days.. add to that time having to scan every email for viruses, every file download, bootup scan.. add to that time having to seek help for and remove viruses that couldn't be scanned for or stopped by any normal user) ...oh ya.. pc laptops are a lot faster.. yeah.. umm .cough gag. sure. right.. whatever.

[Jonathan Amend]

Actually the Pentium M cores was designed in Haifa, Israel and is a completely separate core from Northwood and Prescott. Intel is dumping the formers in favor of the Pentium M core across the board.

Please read the whole thread thoroughly.

[Soc7777777]

I agree, this whole thread is really stupid, but I must say that are assertion isn't exactly true. Apple didn't have anything to do with the design of the chips, true only *UNTIL the G5*.. Apple had a *LOT* to do with the design of the G5. They worked hand in hand with IBM to create the optimal desktop version of the first customizable PPC chip series (thank you IBM!!) and I assure you they are working hand in hand on the laptop version as well... They don't want to be in another Motorola style dry spell. The fact that IBM and Apple worked together to achieve this is a testiment to why the G5 is such a quantum improvement over the G4. Apple gave IBM the design specs they wanted and IBM delivered.

Now about the general topic here... and this is gonna be REALLY LONG WINDED!!! (Sorry, well, not really!)

As a whole I must say I find any "Apple laptops are slower" statement is about as true as saying consumers want to "rent" music from Microsoft. Only on the engineering plane of theoretical existance could someone really justify such a generalization. Let's talk about REAL-WORLD speed. As a part time computer tech and an installer of high speed data services for the local cable provider, I must say that in the field--and that's as real as it gets--speed is something which is perceivably affected by many factors which have nothing to do with Megahertz at all! Speed extends beyond the processor to a large extent.

Real-world, my PowerBook runs circles around even most of the PC desktops I've seen in the field. The speed of extremely redundant operations like doing spell check in MS Word may be one of the operations most greatly influenced by the clockspeed of the CPU, but I could care less about such a useless contest as it amounts to only seconds a day difference in me getting things done. Boot time is also inane since my PowerBook pretty much only gets rebooted following an OS or security update. Real "speed" must be measured in terms of the overall efficiency of the computing experience.. Mac world did an awesome job of making this point comparing Panther to Jaguar in terms of productivity a few months back where they measured the average times of roughly a dozen similar day to day tasks and then came to a fairly well-backed conclusion that the substantive time savings over the course of a year brought by new and revised features actually pay for the OS update and then some.

In terms of overall use-efficiency as a guage of system speed, clockspeed and bus speed are certainly contributing factors, but also things such as overall application reliability, usefullness, efficiency, and those same factors again in terms of the OS are also significant contributors to the end view of speed. I am talking about the general overall speed of completing normal daily tasks on the machine without encumberance, error correction, and hassel. The OS and even overall realiability in general of the software you use counts for something, undeniably. A bad OS or a set of bad applications can completely sand-bag the fastest processors available into submission quite easily. I find most recent Mac laptops and desktops much faster than the fastest Wintels sold since the overall Mac user experience is not subjected to and sand-bagged by a. pop-ups (unless you run other than the standard IE browser which isn't likely as most PC users don't know Mozilla even exists). b. blue-screen of death, excessive application failures and other run-time errors (online surveys confirm what I've seen in the field installing cable modems--most PCs are still running win 98 regardless of all the XP hype.). c. bootup errors and other serious OS corruption bug show-stoppers. d. online spyware plagues and virus outbreaks (which will suck any "faster" pentium into less than competitive--"slug"--speed or even useless-land in no time.. Even if spyware free, add to that time wasted having to scan for and remove spyware every few days.. add to that time having to scan every email for viruses, every file download, bootup scan.. add to that time having to seek help for and remove viruses that couldn't be scanned for or stopped by any normal user) ...oh ya.. pc laptops are a lot faster.. yeah.. umm .cough gag. sure. right.. whatever.

ok heres the problem with your argument... my computer is set to scan for virus' spyware... clear internet cache and ALL maintinence tasks ON ITS OWN... i do not manually waste any of my time doint that... and my computer flies...

Your arguements only apply to those who do not know how to use and keep track of a pc. Just like you can waste alot of time in mac os x if you dont know what your doing.

secondly, not everyone leaves their computer on all the time so startup time IS a factor...

word is one of the most commonly used applications in the world... so that IS a factor...

also.. when you said that apple picked tasks and timed them... there is a huge problem with comparing to pcs using that method... APPLE CHOSE THE APPS AND TASKS... clearly there was never a chance they could lose because they wouldnt pick one where apple would lose... give me the chance to pick a bunch of apps that pcs would be better at and i could make the G5 look slower than a P3... (which is sooooo far from the truth)...

also... you cant use the 'most pc users are running 98' arguement... because we are comparring current computers... thats like comparing XP pro to mac os 8

also the clockspeed of a computer does contribute to the speed... but you have to find a balance between clockspeed and pipeline stages... idealy we would have a 3 ghz computer running through only 4 pipline stages... (which would DISTROY ALL computers speeds now considering all other factors equal)

[stockscalper]

Well I just did a comparison of my new 1.5 GHZ Powerbook with a colleagues new HP running also at 1.5 GHZ. The verdict, Powerbook all the way. When I look at the chip specs, it's no wonder. The HP has a 3600 rpm drive compared to my 5400 rpm drive. The HP has a 32 K video card, compared to my Powerbook's 128 K card. The HP uses the old wi fi "B" technology, while my Mac uses the "G" spectrum. Plus the HP is thick, heavy, clunky and runs hot as hell. Not to mention not as fast as the new Powerbook. My advice is you need to stay off crack because you are living in the real world.

[Soc7777777]

Well I just did a comparison of my new 1.5 GHZ Powerbook with a colleagues new HP running also at 1.5 GHZ. The verdict, Powerbook all the way. When I look at the chip specs, it's no wonder. The HP has a 3600 rpm drive compared to my 5400 rpm drive. The HP has a 32 K video card, compared to my Powerbook's 128 K card. The HP uses the old wi fi "B" technology, while my Mac uses the "G" spectrum. Plus the HP is thick, heavy, clunky and runs hot as hell. Not to mention not as fast as the new Powerbook. My advice is you need to stay off crack because you are living in the real world.

haha and that hp computer also sells for less than half the price of your computer... haha and ifyour friend tells you he payed anymore than 1000 for that computer.. he got ripped off

[Soc7777777]

that ocmputer he is running is old and has a pentium 4-m processor... which would mean that the powerbook would clearly be faster...

[blue&whiteman]

that ocmputer he is running is old and has a pentium 4-m processor... which would mean that the powerbook would clearly be faster...

if you're so pro pc and want a pc laptop so bad then go buy one and leave us mac users and our macs the hell alone!

[dopefiend]

if you're so pro pc and want a pc laptop so bad then go buy one and leave us mac users and our macs the hell alone!

Bro, take a pill and step awake from the browser....

[Phinius]

Intel researches and creates the pentium m (and designs it...) SPECIFICLY for mobile computers... apples problem is they create desktop processors (whether ibm or moto) and then wait to 'fit' them in a laptop...

The G4 was not designed to be used solely as a desktop chip, it was targeted for the embedded market. Two different markets, but due to the embedded market performance demands becoming much more similar to what is needed for notebooks, the G4 is going to gain ground compared to the Pentium-M in the next few months.

The Pentium-M topped out at 1.7GHz on a 130-nm process size and the G4 has essentially reached the end on the same process size at 1.5GHz. That's about a 13% frequency advantage for the Pentium-M compared to the G4.

Now, the Pentium-M moved to a smaller 90-nm process size and it's current top frequency is 2GHz. Compare that to the upcoming 2GHz G4 on the same process size and the G4 will have gained 13% on the Pentium-M. In defense of the Pentium-M it is expected to reach 2.1GHz in the first quarter of 2005, which will be as much as a 5% frequency increase compared to the G4.

The G4 fastest bus speed is now 167MHz, but Motorola will move that to at least 333GHz when the 2GHz G4 arrives in the next few months. Motorola (or to be more accurate FreeScale) mentions that the next G4 will have DDR and DDR2 capabilities. Which means the G4 should be capable of more than a 333MHz bus speed.

Main memory latency will be improved for this upcoming G4 by moving the memory controller onto the processor. In other words, the delay time communicating with main memory will be reduced.

So whatever speed advantage the Pentium-M has compared to the G4 now will be greatly reduced when the next G4 arrives. A Motorola executive stated in 2003 that the G4 will double in frequency about every 18 months, so that would be about July or August of 2004 when this update should arrive. Seeing how IBM and Intel have transitioned to the 90-nm process and Motorola is working with two chip making partners, this G4 made on a 90-nm process should be showing up very shortly.

the pentium m is going to keep getting better... and by the time the g5 reaches the laptops, they will be merely 'catching up' with the comperable pcs.. then the Pcs will come out with the 64 bit pentium m like chip that will distroy the g5 and once again apple will be behind...

The G5s main target is not the notebook computer market. If Apple comes out with a G5 PowerBook it will be mainly to satisfy the demands for one by their customers.

It's in the desktop and small server markets that the G5 will make major performance gains compared to what Intel will offer. The top frequency of the 970 is 60% less than the Pentium 4 on the same process size. Since the 970 is expected to reach 3GHz in about August, that would place it about 15-20% behind the frequency of the Pentium 4. In other words the 970 will have gained considerably in performance compared to the Pentium 4. By January the 970 will get another boost in speed when the Power5 derived version comes out. That could give another 40-50% speed increase with the addition of a bigger cache and multi-threading capabilities.

Intel has stated the currenlty produced 90-nm Prescott Pentium 4 will top out at 5GHz and there was a updated Tejas version in the wings that was to be produced late in 2004 or early 2005. But, Intel found out that the maximum power usage of Tejas was going to approach 150 watts and that was unacceptable evidently because Tejas has been cancelled. Now that leaves Intel with extending the Prescott platform a few months while they work on a Pentium-M derived replacement for it. The Pentium-M is no match for the Pentium 4 in performance for the desktop, so Intel is probably going to be speeding the transitioning to a dual-cpu Pentium-M on a 65-nm process. To counter that IBM could easily fit two 970FX processors on one chip at the 65-nm process size.

All-in-all the Mac should be gaining considerable ground in performance comparisons with the Intel chips in the next few months.

[KingSleaze]

Absurd supposition. Every laptop will always lag behind the performance of a desktop machine. Every manufacturer must wait several development cycles on a new processor, until the technology is mature enough to support the processors use in a laptop. A desktop can support a more vigorous cooling system than a laptop.

[Vlade]

i was comparing pentiums to pentiums. read and think before you talk ;)

Actually I was comparing a Pentium 4 to another Pentium 4, I thought I kind of implied that by specifying Pentium 4 and only pentium 4

[Vlade]

This thread makes me want to rant on the whole mac scene, I am sick of mac zealots (Not anyone here specifically but I see alot of them on this board and other mac places). I have came to the conclusion that I need both a mac and a $300 custom build PC that contrary to popular belief, DOESN'T Crash, DOESN'T have virus, and XP looks good enough for me. Quotes like this prove to me that people think they are better than other people just because they use a mac

f you're so pro pc and want a pc laptop so bad then go buy one and leave us mac users and our macs the hell alone!

I think my rant is just about as useful as my old rants on why macs are superior to PC (which I will never type/say again unless I am talking with a very intelligent person that is open minded), so I will just shut up.

Sorry for this post being off topics, if someone wants to move it they can, but I won't be adding to the thread anymore

[blue&whiteman]

what can you expect when a pro pc person comes on here bitching about apple laptops..

its not like mac users never get abuse from pc people. infact.. I would say mac users get far more abuse over their computer of choice over anything pc users get from mac users.

if you want to talk pc go to a pc forum... if you wanted to talk about vacuums would you go to a bicycle forum?

[wide]

you have no idea what you are talking about... for 2649 you can get a p4 EE 3.2ghz with 1gig (512x2) memory.. and 128mb of video memory for 2649 plus tax and shipping.... FROM HP... that is an overpriced company... so with alot of looking you could probibly find it cheeper.... if i would have chosen the cheeper graphics card you could have bought a 256mb ATI Radeon for about 400... and that would STILL be under 3 grand.... face it... you got ripped off by toshiba.. (btw this computer is around 9lbs)

ok, i might be wrong. but apparently you have no clue what you are talking about either.

1) hp is not an overpriced company. their computers are like dells and gateways: cheap and ugly. that computer was a 10 pound piece of crap.

2) i don't have a toshiba, that was someone else in this thread. look at sig ..

[wide]

and can someone delete this thread, please? there's no point having a thread where we all argue and nothing else.....

[Jonathan Amend]

ok, i might be wrong. but apparently you have no clue what you are talking about either.

1) hp is not an overpriced company. their computers are like dells and gateways: cheap and ugly. that computer was a 10 pound piece of crap.

2) i don't have a toshiba, that was someone else in this thread. look at sig ..

Actually, Gateway makes a laptop that's thinner and lighter than any current PowerBook or iBook while still having a DVD burner:

http://products.gateway.com/products/GConfig/prodDetails.asp?system_id=200xl&seg=hm

[MorganX]

i know, didn't say otherwise. the dothan (and even banias :)) is an incredible chip. still, it's performance can't really overcome the EE until the dothan is paired with faster ram and a better graphics card.

has anyone found dothan 2.0 GHz vs. G4 1.5 GHz benchmarks :D ?

The 2.0 overclocked to 2.4 overcame in many areas (http://www.x86-secret.com/articles/cpu/dothan/dothan-7.htm) a 3.4EE AND Athlon FX 64. When it get's a faster bus, oh boy. I think that's why it's Intel's core moving forward. But they're not going to ramp it up that fast. Too much money to be made on the Prescott 90nm at the moment. :mad:

[Soc7777777]

yeah this thread needs to be deleted... many people have changed my topic... and turned it into a mac defense when it was never attacked... all i said was in pure speed macs are behind.. and will stay for the foreseeablefuture... but anyway im buying one because i like the OVERALL PACKAGE better than a pc... but clearly there are alot of people here who refuse to respond to logic...

PC vs Mac basic comparison
PCs advantages over a MAC
Faster hardware
Varity of software
Status Quo (many people are familier and know windows)
cheeper (yes they are!)
better choice for gamers
you can customize your computer for your needs
you can build one (easily and cheeply)
Mac advantages over PCs
Software is optimized more for macs
less companies involved in the producing of the computer
look nicer
Much much harder to get virus's
Spyware (or lack of)
MAC OS X (big one) until longhorn comes in 2050 or whatever... :)


Overall if you dont know how to use windows WELL then you should get a mac... windows xp is a great program if you know how to maintain it... if not then you should def. own os x.... so all of the mac lovers here quit crying because your computers do not dominate in every aspect... they are just another company with a different approach... they are good for some people and not for others (good for much more than 2 percent of buys though... should be more like 25 percent)...

apples worst enimy is mac fanatics who think everything about apples is better... because thats a tuff pill to swolllow...

but.. im actuall off to buy some apple stock... i have faith in the longterm performance of the company.. although i think itunes will slowly decline...

[LaMerVipere]

Wow, I've never seen such a sad and wretched display of Mac zealots reacting so negatively to something before they can even give it some reasonable thought. :rolleyes:

[mcfudd]

windows xp is a great program if you know how to maintain it...

I think this statement is code for .... Windows XP is full of bugs and the only people who can use it are:

1. Those willing to pay monopoly prices for a buggy OS, a fundamentally flawed operating system.

2. Those who lack the knowledge that there are better operating systems out there (UNIX for example).

3. Those willing to reboot every 10 minutes because XP sucks royally!!!!

You just don't know what you are missing dude. I feel sorry for you. You are in the grip of the MATRIX. (Even a MS clone can appreciate the twisted humor of using that movie as a reference).

Unplug for a few minutes and try to discover why you are giving money to a company like Microsoft.


apples worst enimy is mac fanatics who think everything about apples is better... because thats a tuff pill to swolllow...

Most companies in the US would KILL for a loyal following like that of Apple Computer, Inc.

What is really sad are people who even make an attempt at defending Microsoft and its terrible, illegal business taticts.

I do not do business with companies that violate federal law without remorse, perjure themselves in court, and crush innovation.

[thatwendigo]

Actually, Gateway makes a laptop that's thinner and lighter than any current PowerBook or iBook while still having a DVD burner:

http://products.gateway.com/products/GConfig/prodDetails.asp?system_id=200xl&seg=hm

Gateway 200XL
Windows XP
Penitum-M 1.6ghz
512MB PC2700 (2x256)
80GB 5400RPM drive
DVD-RW
2x USB2.0, 1x FireWire 400 (4-pin, unpowered), 1x VGA, 1x S-Video
14.1" XGA TFT (1024x768 max resolution)
Intel Extreme Integrated Graphics
10/100 Ethernet
802.11g
Works 7.0
Norton AntiVirus 2004
XP Plus Digital Media Edition
Norton Internet Security 2004
MusicMatch Jukebox Plus (powers the iPod on PCs, prior to iTunes)
0.95" H x 12.42" W x 10.2" D and 4.35 lbs (120.34 in^3)
Cost: $2,544.97

Apple PowerBook 15"
OS X 10.3.4
MPC7447A 1.5ghz
512MB PC2700 (2x256)
80GB 5400RPM drive
4x SuperDrive
2x USB 2.0, 1x FireWire 400 (6-pin, powered), 1x FireWire 800, 1x DVI, 1x S-Video (adapters for DVI to VGA and S-Video to Component included)
15.2" widescreen TFT (1280x854 max resolution)
ATI Radeon 9700 128MB
Gibabit Ethernet
802.11g
BlueTooth
Back-lit, light-sensing keyboard
1.1" H x 13.7" W x 9.5" D and 5.7lbs (143.16 in^3)
Cost: $2,599.00

yeah this thread needs to be deleted... many people have changed my topic... and turned it into a mac defense when it was never attacked...

This is the second time you've launched one of these "not an attack" threads, and yet you keep screaming that it isn't the assault that we can see it is.

but clearly there are alot of people here who refuse to respond to logic...

Yes, there apparently are. :rolleyes:

PCs advantages over a MAC
Faster hardware
Varity of software
Status Quo (many people are familier and know windows)
cheeper (yes they are!)
better choice for gamers
you can customize your computer for your needs
you can build one (easily and cheeply)

The hardware is arguably "faster," depending on what processor you use and what task you are seeking to accomplish. There is no clear winner in all facets of performance at this point. Also, if you want to use the argument that things shouldn't change for the better because of the status quo, then we should never have freed slaves or allowed women to vote, because those were both what people were used to at one point. As a final point, computer assembly isn't easy enough that my grandmother could do it, and she's not a stupid woman, so that really denies that building your own is so simple that it ought to be a consideration for anyone who isn't already a power user.


apples worst enimy is mac fanatics who think everything about apples is better... because thats a tuff pill to swolllow...

The possessive form of Apple is "Apple's," enemy is spelled with an "E," and the correct word to have chosen in before the ellipses is "are," as in "Apples are better." Also, I would find anything "tuff" to be tought to swallow.

[Jonathan Amend]

Gateway 200XL
Windows XP
Penitum-M 1.6ghz
512MB PC2700 (2x256)
80GB 5400RPM drive
DVD-RW
2x USB2.0, 1x FireWire 400 (4-pin, unpowered), 1x VGA, 1x S-Video
14.1" XGA TFT (1024x768 max resolution)
Intel Extreme Integrated Graphics
10/100 Ethernet
802.11g
Works 7.0
Norton AntiVirus 2004
XP Plus Digital Media Edition
Norton Internet Security 2004
MusicMatch Jukebox Plus (powers the iPod on PCs, prior to iTunes)
0.95" H x 12.42" W x 10.2" D and 4.35 lbs (120.34 in^3)
Cost: $2,544.97

Apple PowerBook 15"
OS X 10.3.4
MPC7447A 1.5ghz
512MB PC2700 (2x256)
80GB 5400RPM drive
4x SuperDrive
2x USB 2.0, 1x FireWire 400 (6-pin, powered), 1x FireWire 800, 1x DVI, 1x S-Video (adapters for DVI to VGA and S-Video to Component included)
15.2" widescreen TFT (1280x854 max resolution)
ATI Radeon 9700 128MB
Gibabit Ethernet
802.11g
BlueTooth
Back-lit, light-sensing keyboard
1.1" H x 13.7" W x 9.5" D and 5.7lbs (143.16 in^3)
Cost: $2,599.00


The computers are very comparable, and you forgot to bold the dimension and weight advantage of the M200. I did not post the link to the laptop to state that it was superior to iBooks or PowerBooks, but instead to counter "1) hp is not an overpriced company. their computers are like dells and gateways: cheap and ugly. that computer was a 10 pound piece of crap.". I think your defense mechanism is a a bit too sensitive.

[h'biki]

haha now i know im going to be attacked by a whole crowd of apple fanatics... saying stuff like 'the g4 is better than the fastest pentium 4, the fastest pentium m, blah blah blah..... oh well im ready for that

i think the new powerbook g5s shoudl use that carbon light and durable formfacter... something that stands outand screams... 'look at me, im different'

Considering the single processor 1.5 G4 is only barely slower than the 1.6 G5, a Powerbook G5 is going to need a significant clock advantage over the Powerbook G4 for it to be a vast improvement. How that compares to a 3ghz P4... it IS really hard to quantify. In the end, its whether its fast enough for you... and when you're dealing with renders... everything is too slow.

The G4 has been given a really bad rap. Its a well designed chip -- very economical - but with serious bus speed issues. It also has better altivec performance than the G5. Apple used to have a serious lead over PCs in performance, they lost that, but now everyone assumes they are slower and more expensive, when thats total ************.

[dopefiend]

but now everyone assumes they are slower and more expensive, when thats total ************.

They are ;)

But the OS is so worth it.

[Fukui]

apples worst enimy is mac fanatics who think everything about apples is better... because thats a tuff pill to swolllow...

This is unfortunately the truth, in many cases, though not always...
Hopefully, in the near future, we can add "faster" and "greater variety of
software" to the check list. :)

[legion]

The hardware is arguably "faster," depending on what processor you use and what task you are seeking to accomplish. There is no clear winner in all facets of performance at this point.
Actually there is a clear winner in performance in all facets when comparing processors. Though the dual G5 vs dual Xeon/or single P4 vs dual AMD/single AMD debate is debatable for who's on top, the Pentium M vs the G4 is not. The Pentium M, since its debut, has been the clear winner; all facets, all the time. The engineers at Motorola would admit it and the engineers at IBM would admit it; Intel targeted the mobile segment with a damn good chip with very high performance and very low power consumption. I'd love to see any test with similar clocked G4s vs P-Ms where the G4 succeeds even in matching the P-M performance; the only caveat is that it has to be a test the exercises the processor and not the gpu (since this can vary wildly from top-of-the-line graphics cards to integrated graphics in the Intel-based laptop market.)

The possessive form of Apple is "Apple's," enemy is spelled with an "E," and the correct word to have chosen in before the ellipses is "are," as in "Apples are better." Also, I would find anything "tuff" to be tought to swallow.
It's humourous that while trying to correct someone else's spelling and grammar to show your superiority that you misspelled tough with "tought." :eek: Also, "chosen in" is used incorrectly; you can have just "chosen" or you could remove the whole "chosen in" verbiage. If you're going to get on a high horse, it's probably best to proof your comments.

[blue&whiteman]

*beating a dead horse*

[Mord]

can someone post links to some benchmarks please to reinforce there points?


Main reason i like my macs, they work and they are by no means slow an i dont own a mac above 1GHz my fastest mac is a dual 450MHz cube.
and i dont just check my email I render in 3d use photoshop and play the odd very payable game of halo, wolfenstine, and mohaa.

[dopefiend]

Main reason i like my macs, they work and they are by no means slow an i dont own a mac above 1GHz my fastest mac is a dual 450MHz cube.
and i dont just check my email I render in 3d use photoshop and play the odd very payable game of halo, wolfenstine, and mohaa.

Upgrade to a G5 or a high speed x86.....

You don't know speed! :D

[Fukui]

Considering the single processor 1.5 G4 is only barely slower than the 1.6 G5, a Powerbook G5 is going to need a significant clock advantage over the Powerbook G4 for it to be a vast improvement.
This is largely a compiler issue.

[blue&whiteman]

Upgrade to a G5 or a high speed x86.....

You don't know speed! :D

if its that easy then you can buy a new one for him.

[Soc7777777]

The possessive form of Apple is "Apple's," enemy is spelled with an "E," and the correct word to have chosen in before the ellipses is "are," as in "Apples are better." Also, I would find anything "tuff" to be tought to swallow.

HAHAHA the best part about your response is that i do not care about grammar... and while you try to correct me on it, you make many mistakes...
first of all you said that 'are' should be used instead of is in the phrase "everything about apples is better"... thats just crazy... consider this... your subject is everything... your verb is is.. (or in your case are)... 'about apples' is a prep. phrase... so your basic sentance is 'everything is better' with a prep phrase added in... so you want me to put everything ARE better? thats a subject/verb disagreement... i did too well on my ACTs to let that go by ;)

[blue&whiteman]

this isn't english class in high school. its a mac forum.. no need to be formal with anything.

[socbyset]

I wonder if the fact that portables are making up a larger proportion of apple's computer sales will lead (or has led) them to ask their suppliers for a processor line more focused on laptops, even if a couple years ago it wouldn't have made financial sense.. overall computer sales are flat while notebook sales are surging, last I read. It seems the sensible thing to do.

[mikebatho]

Jeeez.

Spen d a few days using Quark, Photoshop & Illustrator on a PC laptop and you'll find the unreliability even more frustrating on the go, than on a home based machine. There will always be things that PCs are better for, why go on and on and on about it.

I will always conduct my business on a mac, as they are the better all round machine for the type of graphics work I do.

Anyone who buys and uses a mac because they look cool, then run WORD & EXCEL on it are pretty dumb anyway....

[Mord]

Upgrade to a G5 or a high speed x86.....

You don't know speed! :D


hmm yes i a 15 year old student am going to pull 3k for a g5 out of my @ss just to shave a few seconds off my medial tasks

x86 ewwww dont even go there the complex instruction set is sooo thierty years ago

I'm so riscey

[h'biki]

hmm yes i a 15 year old student am going to pull 3k for a g5 out of my @ss just to shave a few seconds off my medial tasks

x86 ewwww dont even go there the complex instruction set is sooo thierty years ago

I'm so riscey

except G4s are G5s are not RISC. By definition, Altivec is NOT a reduced instruction set!

[johnnyjibbs]

Anyone who buys and uses a mac because they look cool, then run WORD & EXCEL on it are pretty dumb anyway....
Well Microsoft has the monopoly on office products. Word and Excel have their shortcomings and annoyances, but I have yet to find better alternatives.

What's wrong with running a Mac because you prefer Mac OS to Windows? Also, why can't it look cool :p

[Mord]

except G4s are G5s are not RISC. By definition, Altivec is NOT a reduced instruction set!


you make no sense I am not one to poke fun at somone's english but "g4's are g5's" what?

the ppc arcitechture is based on the redused instruction set as stated on motorola's site (freescale)

http://e-www.motorola.com/webapp/sps/site/prod_summary.jsp?code=MPC7457&nodeId=03C1TR046708718653

and i quote: "The MPC7457 host processor is a high-performance, low-power 32-bit implementation of the PowerPC RISC architecture with a full 128-bit implementation of Motorola's AltiVec™ technology"

the g4 is not just an altivec unit it in an advanced g3 with altivec bodged on the side as a vector prosessing unit desighned to improve proformence.

however the g5 is a totally different beast built around the ibm power4 core with a shrunk die and altivec bodged on aswell.

i did not say that altivec was a reduced instruction set i implyed that the prosessors that apple are currently useing are based on the redused instruction set and not on the complex instruction set that is used in x86 counterparts. (and yes i know modern x86 cpu's are RISC cpu's with a kind of hardware emulation but I am talking about the end result here)

[johnnyjibbs]

you make no sense I am not one to poke fun at somone's english but "g4's are g5's" what?
I think he meant "g4's and g5's are not RISC."

[Mord]

I think he meant "g4's and g5's are not RISC."

well they are

[Anna]

Investigate the Pipelining theory. INTEL are not .... and never will be faster than apple :D (I hope) :)

[blue&whiteman]

except G4s are G5s are not RISC. By definition, Altivec is NOT a reduced instruction set!

umm.. all the cpu's apple uses are risc.

set the crack pipe down.

[Mord]

umm.. all the cpu's apple uses are risc.

set the crack pipe down.

crack is for lightweights

lsd mmm.... helosigionaticness

I now love pc's and i think michel dell in a wonderfull innovative man who obiously loves the world heherheheheh.....

[Mord]

crack is for lightweights

lsd mmm.... helosigionaticness

I now love pc's and i think michel dell in a wonderfull innovative man who obiously loves the world heherheheheh.....

I think i speak for the crack smoking population of mac rumors (other wise known as the ones who posses reality distortion feilds) in that this man dose not represent us.

[Mord]

I think i speak for the crack smoking population of mac rumors (other wise known as the ones who posses reality distortion feilds) in that this man dose not represent us.

damn you crack smokers stealing my password

[AdamR01]

1. Those willing to pay monopoly prices for a buggy OS, a fundamentally flawed operating system.

2. Those who lack the knowledge that there are better operating systems out there (UNIX for example).

3. Those willing to reboot every 10 minutes because XP sucks royally!!!!


1. In the end Windows XP costs about the same as OS X.

2. Depends on what you're using it for.

3. My computer has been up for 12 days (the power went out before then).

[aussie_geek]

People,

Just remember,

You buy a computer to do the work that you want to do on it. Any person that buys a computer just so they can brag that they have the fastest and most powerful computer has rocks in their heads!!

Cmon people just get a computer and use it!!

aussie_geek

[aussie_geek]

3. My computer has been up for 12 days (the power went out before then).

Nice call AdamR01,

My dual tower has not crashed since I got it over two years ago and has been up all the time since. The only time it gets restarted is when there is a software update or a power failure. Try and match that you PC punks :D

aussie_geek

[dopefiend]

Try and match that you PC punks :D

aussie_geek

<insert random linux box being up for 100+ days ---- :p

[blue&whiteman]

I think this uptime war stuff is silly. a reboot once a week or so is a good thing in my mind. my system is always on but I do reboot every 5-7 days because its just a pattern I have always used with macs and it works. its a personal user habit.

[wide]

You buy a computer to do the work that you want to do on it. Any person that buys a computer just so they can brag that they have the fastest and most powerful computer has rocks in their heads!!

That is true, but you also buy a computer to last. People buy the fastest computer not only for bragging rights but so they don't have to buy a new computer for a long, long time.

[stockscalper]

Actually there is a clear winner in performance in all facets when comparing processors. Though the dual G5 vs dual Xeon/or single P4 vs dual AMD/single AMD debate is debatable for who's on top, the Pentium M vs the G4 is not. The Pentium M, since its debut, has been the clear winner; all facets, all the time.
.

Dude get off the crack you've been smoking.

[chv400]

Found this at OWC a while ago

http://eshop.macsales.com/Tech/index.cfm?load=MHz_Myth.html

[dopefiend]

Found this at OWC a while ago

http://eshop.macsales.com/Tech/index.cfm?load=MHz_Myth.html

Any particular reason why you posted this?

[chv400]

To me it seemed to apply to the situation.
Wow you replied before i could close the window

[Mav451]

To me it seemed to apply to the situation.
Wow you replied before i could close the window

dopefiend questioned its relevance b/c the Pentium M is an entirely different architecture from the P4 (P4 = Long pipelines...while Pentium M is much closer to a P3 in efficiency in operations per cycle).

The last P3's, Tualatins, in fact, could run with Athlons in terms of IPC and overall performance, but not many people know that (b/c the P4's were released in the same time period, and completely overshadowed them).

[dopefiend]

dopefiend questioned its relevance b/c the Pentium M is an entirely different architecture from the P4 (P4 = Long pipelines...while Pentium M is much closer to a P3 in efficiency in operations per cycle).

Bingo ;)

[Sun Baked]

Bingo ;)Darn it...

I hate it when that happens.

You get one number away from the winning the $500 Jackpot, and somebody else beats you to it. :(

[timberfish]

Soc7777777, I'd have to say you're so wrong about so many things here. Your main complaint seems to be that Apple should focus on making a mobile chip similar to the new Pentium-M chips that Intel makes. My question is why? My 15" G4 1.5Ghz laptop has a battery life of 3 to 3.5 hours with Airport on and using it actively. That's roughly the same as the Pentium-M laptops because a co-worker has one and he only outlasts my Mac by about 20 minutes in meetings. Also, the speed of a G4 is amazing compared to most of the P4 line and I'm talking about Desktop machines here. My G4 laptop outpaces my 2.8 Ghz P4 w/HT desktop here at work in most cases. Also, I own a Sager laptop with a P4 2.4Ghz chip in it and my Mac blows it away in speed. Oh, and the Sager has a desktop speed P4 in it, so that's not dumbed down for mobile computing. Besides this whole speed argument which I don't want to get into, you're talking about the need for a mobile chip?

The only reason Intel made the Pentium-M is because the Pentium 4M chips sucked and were exactly what you claim the G4's are - dumbed down desktop chips. Well, guess what? That's what most mobile chips are. The Pentium M was developed with power consumption and efficiency in mind. Yes, it was built separately from the P4, but a lot of the architecture is shared. They did make huge improvements in the architecture to be able to handle processes better and more efficiently while requiring less power, but let me also point out that Pentium M chips are not good for powerful apps like video editing, cutting edge gaming and encoding and so on. They aren't meant as desktop replacements. For those, Intel still makes Pentium 4M laptops and sometimes just puts a desktop CPU right in. Terrible battery life of course and always between 8 and 10 pounds - trust me, I know.

So maybe the G4 in the laptops wasn't built just for laptops, but so what? My Mac laptop is faster than most P4 desktops (except the high end ones of course) and handles battery amazingly well. What more do you want from a mobile machine? Also, AMD already has an Athlon 64M chip in certain laptops. Check out Voodoo and eMachines for starters. They perform well, but are heavy and expensive (in the Voodoo case they're around $3 to $4K and up). Eventually G5's will be in laptops and when that happens great! But Intel and AMD won't be ahead, they'll just be doing things differently. Right now, any comparable mobile machine on the Windows side is roughly the same price and performs the same as Macs. If you go for less-mobile desktop replacement laptops then yes, the Intels win, but at the same time they weigh 8 to 12 pounds, run hot, and suck battery like nothing you've ever seen. That's my take. Oh, and while this isn't scientific, check out this link to see some of my own benchmarking results in Photoshop between 3 machines on Mac and Windows. http://www.grassapple.com/archives/2004/06/apple_vs_window.html

[Mav451]

You may want to look at the results of an overclocked Dothan (2nd generation Pentium-M chip).

http://www.x86-secret.com/pics/cpu/dothan/bench3-1.png
http://www.x86-secret.com/pics/cpu/dothan/bench3-2.png

http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.x86-secret.com%2Farticles%2Fcpu%2Fdothan%2Fdothan-6.htm&langpair=fr%7Cen&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&prev=%2Flanguage_tools

As you can tell, you do not need a "heavy" desktop replacement to get high-end performance. This is a MOBILE chip competing readily with high-end procs, such as the P4's (EE series) and the Athlon 64 3400+ (highest 754 pin, even though 939, has since been released).

Of course, rite now, the Dothans (735, 745, 755; clocked at 1.7, 1.8, 2.0Ghz respectively) are quite a bit away from 2.4Ghz. The FSB, also, defaults at 400Mhz, while when OCed, it was running at 480Mhz. Obviously, without more testing we have no idea what the chipset limitations are--are there any? Still, this overclock requires some extreme measures, so this clock frequency of 2.4Ghz (and its respective performance) may not be seen for quite some time. While it may not be a feasible frequency now, but in the near future (6-8months), I don't see why not.

Now, in terms of thermal requirements, the Dothan defaults @ 21W...but I'm not sure what 2.4Ghz would mean (probably ~30W maybe)? Even then, the low-power Mobile Athlon 64's are running that, and that is still far from DTR (Desktop Replacement) thermal reqs.

[Mav451]

....That's my take. Oh, and while this isn't scientific, check out this link to see some of my own benchmarking results in Photoshop between 3 machines on Mac and Windows. http://www.grassapple.com/archives/2004/06/apple_vs_window.html

Your results are nothing new. Apple, knows that Photoshop is consistently a good performer for the Mac >> Why do you think that it has been used repeatedly, over and over--so much that it just goes over most people's heads now. I'd say it now garners only a "so what?" reaction now, all b/c of the way that Apple emphasized this fact, ad nasueum since the G3, G4, and now the G5 to prove that the Mac is "superior" to the PC.

Today, it remains just as unconvincing as it was back then. Far too many Mac heads automatically claim platform superiority based on this single benchmark--thinking that its the Holy Grail. In the PC world, more than a single benchmark is used to prove a CPU's competence against the competition in the PC realm.

Tell me, how many hardware sites, for the PC world, use a single benchmark to say the "xxxx processor is superior to the yyyy processor"? The answer is none. Now, even then, entire SUITES of benchmakrs can be skewed (i.e. Tom's Hardware), but that is for another day. The bottom line is that sticking only to a single benchmark is just very short-sighted these days, when the basic requirements necessary for processor (and consequently platform) comparisons already DEMANDS multiple benchmarks.

It is common knowledge to enthusiasts that Intel remains the encoding/media content creation champ, while AMD has excelled as the performance/dollar champ and (overall) in the gaming arena. If either Intel or AMD came out and attempted to CLAIM CPU/platform superiority in the PC world, based ONLY on a single benchmark, it would be pretty naive--b/c both AMD and Intel know better.

You want to be convincing? Stop the Pshop benchmarking, for one. We already know that, now show us something else! It is like saying the WRX is good for rally--well of course it is -_-.

Employ a PLETHORA of OTHER benchmarks to prove your point. That, however, carries quite a few problems in itself, b/c cross-platform applications are rather rare :( Except in the form of games...and PC's have typically dominated in performance in this arena (AMD and Intel trade places as frequently as a sine curve hits 1 and -1). That fact, again, further complicates the Mac vs. PC debate.

[ddtlm]

Mav451:

Far too many Mac heads automatically claim platform superiority based on this single benchmark--thinking that its the Holy Grail. In the PC world, more than a single benchmark is used to prove a CPU's competence against the competition in the PC realm.
Whew, damn straight. For the benefit of anyone still confused, "more than a single benchmark" does not mean going to Apple's PR pages looking for a couple more.

[timberfish]

You want to be convincing? Stop the Pshop benchmarking, for one. We already know that, now show us something else! It is like saying the WRX is good for rally--well of course it is

First of all, I wasn't trying to further the Mac vs PC debate, which I tried to make clear. However, I find it interesting that out of all that I wrote you focused on the last "sidenote" I sent which was a benchmark that I myself claimed was no where near scientific, but interesting. It's interesting because of this... I have a friend who's an Engineer at Adobe and we talked about Photoshop and how it works on Mac vs PC and so on. He claims that they completely rebuild the code (not rewrite) for each platform. Each time this is done they use the optimizers for the platform they're building on whether it be the G4 or P4. So while this is an age-old benchmark used, it's also one of the few fair ones out there for cross-platform comparison. It’s not as if Adobe is making their product to work better on Mac than Windows, it’s quite the opposite. They do their best to make sure it will take advantage of every optimization available on each side. Since the filters run are almost 100% CPU and Memory crunching they are a good indicator of performance. Also, I point them out because I work in Photoshop often and this speed difference is important to me. Okay, so we can put the Pshop bmark aside since that was really a last minute though on my part anyhow, not the basis of my claims.

So here’s the thing.. you cite overclocked CPU benchmarks for a processor and bus speed that don’t exist unless you overclock which shortens the life of your hardware and can damage a computer permanently. Sorry, but I can’t take that as empirical evidence. However, if you look here:
http://www.anandtech.com/mobile/showdoc.html?i=1801&p=16

You’ll see that the Pentium-M (Banias) compares somewhat the same to a P4 2.4 Ghz desktop CPU. However, if you go to the gaming test area you’ll see that the Pentium-M is way behind the P4. This is one of the things I mentioned. The Pentium-M cannot compare in gaming, 3D, or most content creation arenas. Now, if you look at another test here: http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,1590062,00.asp

You’ll see that the new Pentium-M (Dothan) gets an 18% gain over its predecessor in these tests and that’s a direct correlation to it’s increased clock speed. Dothan is running at 2.0 Ghz and is a much better chip than the P4, so yes the new Dothan certainly outpaces the G4 from what I can see. It’s well designed and is 25% faster than the G4 laptop chip. So I grant that Intel is slightly ahead, but when the G5 has a version made for laptops we’ll see 64-bit computing, higher clocks and handling faster DDR memory which will bring Apple right back if not past Intel. However, you can’t look at clock speeds for results because the G5 is a totally different architecture than the P4 or Pentium-M. It’s not X86 so it handles memory and chunks of data differently. So my ultimate point made clear is that Apple doesn’t need a mobile chip built from scratch and Apple laptops compare very well with their PC equivalents in performance and mobility. I am not claiming that Apple is trying to make workstation powerhouse laptops because it’s not. I hope that clears up what I was saying, rather than making you think I’m relying on a Photoshop benchmark. I’m talking about real-world performance and so far, what I see in my office shows that my G4 is faster than all the Centrino systems that I’ve compared it to.

[timberfish]

By the way, just to prove that Photoshop is not some magical program that is built for Apple, here's a great benchmark comparison between the G5 and the top end Intel/AMD chips and it shows Photoshop doing better on the PC side. The rest shows the G5 doing quite well, and just to be clear I'm not bringing the G5 into this, I just wanted to make the Photoshop point. It's not always a Mac thing.

http://www.barefeats.com/pentium4.html

[Mav451]

....
You’ll see that the Pentium-M (Banias) compares somewhat the same to a P4 2.4 Ghz desktop CPU. However, if you go to the gaming test area you’ll see that the Pentium-M is way behind the P4. This is one of the things I mentioned. The Pentium-M cannot compare in gaming, 3D, or most content creation arenas. Now, if you look at another test here: http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,1590062,00.asp

You’ll see that the new Pentium-M (Dothan) gets an 18% gain over its predecessor in these tests and that’s a direct correlation to it’s increased clock speed. Dothan is running at 2.0 Ghz and is a much better chip than the P4, so yes the new Dothan certainly outpaces the G4 from what I can see. It’s well designed and is 25% faster than the G4 laptop chip. So I grant that Intel is slightly ahead, but when the G5 has a version made for laptops we’ll see 64-bit computing, higher clocks and handling faster DDR memory which will bring Apple right back if not past Intel. However, you can’t look at clock speeds for results because the G5 is a totally different architecture than the P4 or Pentium-M. It’s not X86 so it handles memory and chunks of data differently. So my ultimate point made clear is that Apple doesn’t need a mobile chip built from scratch and Apple laptops compare very well with their PC equivalents in performance and mobility. I am not claiming that Apple is trying to make workstation powerhouse laptops because it’s not. I hope that clears up what I was saying, rather than making you think I’m relying on a Photoshop benchmark. I’m talking about real-world performance and so far, what I see in my office shows that my G4 is faster than all the Centrino systems that I’ve compared it to.

I find it odd that you completely disregarded what I said after my statement concerning the overclock. I say "but what are the chipset limitations?" I made it clear that while it is indeed empirical, there is evidence certainly that WHILE it has a small 480Mhz bus (compared to the P4 desktop 800Mhz one), it certainly does not seem to limit its computational abilities in both the Cinema4D benchmark or the mathematical Pi benchmark.

The Dothan is not using much heat at all at this point--and I believe that further refinements in the processor line, that 533 FSB is certainly not out of the realm of possibility. That a DTR version of the Dothan would have the possibility of hitting these kind of performance levels (while I do agree that the DTR version of the Dothan would equate to a brick-like notebook).

Also, nowhere in my statements do I mention the Pentium-M in reference to Banias. I am NOT talking about the Banias. I'm only talking about the 2nd generation Pentium-M (Dothan). I thought I made that very clear in my post, but apparently you felt you had to make an assumption nonetheless. I am confused as to why you would put words in my mouth that I did NOT say.

You also seem to doubt the merits of overclocking--it sounds as if you haven't done it before. If you have, please, then give me an example of your experience with it. If you have NOT, then please, don't question the credibility of a websites information regarding overclocking--if you PERSONALLY have not successfully overclocked yourself.

The one red flag in one of the overclocking myths you brought up got my attention immediately:

1) "Shortens" life of components
Nope, only if you apply too much vCore. Look at my OWN overclock. I applied only 1.65V (from the standard 1.60V) to get a near 500Mhz overclock over my default clock speed. And since 1.65V is a standard vCore for other AIHUB CPUS, such as the 2400+ and 2600+, I am in no way shortening the life of my CPU.

If you don't understand this concept, what does this say on your credibility on understanding (and perhaps even interpreting) overclocking in the FIRST PLACE?

[ddtlm]

timberfish:

The thing about any one benchmark is that, no matter how well optimized for each platform it is, it still only tells you about that one aspect of the machines' performance. Its probably the case that G5s are genuinely better at most Pshop operations than any x86 chips, but thats not useful for people not running Pshop or something a lot like it (code and data wise).

Not that anyone wanted to dwell on this Pshop stuff any longer. ;)

[Mav451]

http://www20.tomshardware.com/mobile/20040510/dothan-01.html

This table should interest you (if you understand overclocking anyway). If we look at the same CPU (Dothan 2.0Ghz), but have 2 versions that run at different voltages, I can guarantee you that one at the lower voltage, if its voltage were raised to the higher voltage (1.276 >> 1.340V), it could easily hit 2.15-2.20Ghz. Easily. And it wouldn't run any hotter, b/c it is running at the same vCore! (if you are comparing 1.340V to 1.340V, voltage is voltage, whether or not the clockspeed is "overclocked" or not, the resulting thermal wattage being the one and the SAME).

[Mav451]

timberfish:

The thing about any one benchmark is that, no matter how well optimized for each platform it is, it still only tells you about that one aspect of the machines' performance. Its probably the case that G5s are genuinely better at most Pshop operations than any x86 chips, but thats not useful for people not running Pshop or something a lot like it (code and data wise).

Not that anyone wanted to dwell on this Pshop stuff any longer. ;)

Lol, ddtlm pretty much summed up my rant in 5 lines.

[timberfish]

I didn't disregard your statement. I read it, but you still refer to overclocked CPUs nonetheless. These are "possible" speeds, not speeds that come with any major manufacturer's system, so I'd rather not go down that road or it really involves a lot of speculation and what ifs.

I'm only talking about the 2nd generation Pentium-M (Dothan). I thought I made that very clear in my post, but apparently you felt you had to make an assumption nonetheless. I am confused as to why you would put words in my mouth that I did NOT say.

I didn't put any words in your mouth nor did I assume you meant the older Pentium-M. Instead I brought it up because I didn't see any benchmarks comparing the new Dothans with any P4 chips. I'm sure they're out there, but I didn't find them right away. So what I did was compared the Banias to the P4 since it's more in comparison with the G4 laptop chip anyhow and then showed that the Dothan really only shows speed improvements due mostly to clock speed increases. I then also conceded that Dothan was further along and faster than the G4 chip as well. I guess I muddied the point a little.

You also seem to doubt the merits of overclocking--it sounds as if you haven't done it before. If you have, please, then give me an example of your experience with it. If you have NOT, then please, don't question the credibility of a websites information regarding overclocking--if you PERSONALLY have not successfully overclocked yourself.

I don't recall doubting the merits of it, I simply pointed out that this is not how the chips are sent out and I don't to convolute the discussion by comparing non-standard chip configurations. It's easier to stick with what you get when you buy, not with what you have tweaked to make the hardware faster. And yes, I have overclocked. I don't feel the need to venture off on the tangent where I describe my experience, but I will say that in doing so I found dozens of articles with disclaimers saying that overclocking could damage or destroy my hardware and they were not responsible. And I'm talking about basic BIOS setting overclocking. There are dangers to overclocking my friend... read Electromigration: http://www.pcguide.com/opt/oc/risksRisksCPU-c.html

and: http://www.boostnews.com/overclocking-dangers.php

So deny it all you want, but you can't run a processor at a higher speed and not expect it to do more work and get hotter. One more (http://www.hwupgrade.com/overclock/cpu/index2.html) So what does it say about "your" credibility that you don't even seem to be aware of ElectroMigration and that it happens much sooner when you overclock? Hmm.

So back to the topic at hand. G4 laptops perform better than P4 mobile chips for sure, and better than a lot of P4 desktop chips as well as some of the Pentium-M chips and often times they don't run at nearly as high of a clock. Good stuff! Again, I'm saying this from experience in the real world for the most part.

[Mord]

timberfish, overclocking is fine as long as you have sufficient cooling to deal with that extra heat the warnings you are posting apply to spotty teenage twats who think there all that because they changed there bios setting without even looking at there temperatures.

I run my B&W at 500MHz from a 400MHz g3 and this is because i got a giant copper socket A heatsink and modified it to fit on my zif socket (had to reshape the clip PM me if you want pics or anything) all that stressing and chips that fail are caused by overheating and that can be controlled by checking the temperature and cooling it down enough my g3 runs no hotter than it did at 400MHz with the old aluminum heatsink. look into the subject from both sides. (I am sure that mav451 uses ether a really good heatsink or a watercooling set or something of the sort and keeps his temperatures not to far from 30 degrees)

I do agree with you on speed and it is also unfair to use benchmarks using overclocked CPU's (and mav451 by the time that 2.4GHz dorithans are available there will be 4GHz pIII's and pb g5's so there's not much point in those benchmarks.

I would like to see some 3d rendering benchmarks on this http://www.e-onsoftware.com/Products/VueIndex.php it's altivec enhanced so should take advantage of a g4 and should be a good comparison it's has very cpu intensive rendering.

[Mav451]

timberfish, overclocking is fine as long as you have sufficient cooling to deal with that extra heat the warnings you are posting apply to spotty teenage twats who think there all that because they changed there bios setting without even looking at there temperatures.

I run my B&W at 500MHz from a 400MHz g3 and this is because i got a giant copper socket A heatsink and modified it to fit on my zif socket (had to reshape the clip PM me if you want pics or anything) all that stressing and chips that fail are caused by overheating and that can be controlled by checking the temperature and cooling it down enough my g3 runs no hotter than it did at 400MHz with the old aluminum heatsink. look into the subject from both sides. (I am sure that mav451 uses ether a really good heatsink or a watercooling set or something of the sort and keeps his temperatures not to far from 30 degrees)

I do agree with you on speed and it is also unfair to use benchmarks using overclocked CPU's (and mav451 by the time that 2.4GHz dorithans are available there will be 4GHz pIII's and pb g5's so there's not much point in those benchmarks.

I would like to see some 3d rendering benchmarks on this http://www.e-onsoftware.com/Products/VueIndex.php it's altivec enhanced so should take advantage of a g4 and should be a good comparison it's has very cpu intensive rendering.

Actually I'm using a "consumer" heatsink (that means it is affordable for everyone, but you do need to know what to buy)--the Thermalright SLK800. I'm doing it all on air, but it is not loud b/c I have a Panaflo H1A on it (40CFM, for around 32dbA of sound).

How many benchmarks of the 2100+ do you see at 2210Mhz? In fact, my overclock is probably on the lower spectrum of possibilities (because I am using Crucial DDR333 RAM)--there are MANY people who run it much higher (2300-2400Mhz, higher FSB as well). But, they are running it at a much higher vCore. You also fail to realize that the 2800+ runs at 2250Mhz, so in effect, there remains a higher "marked" AIHUB chip that runs STABLEY (enough to be sold as such) at this same speed. I think you are confusing careless overclocking with selective overclocking + speed binning, b/c "overclocking" speed-binned processors practically guarantees a high-end chip overclock.

My 2100+ probably WAS a 2800+, but it was remarked as a 2100+. Change multiplier, increase vCore (in my case, to the default vCore of MANY other processors, so it is a proven/stable vCore), increase FSB. Are you going to tell me that the other people who bought the 2800+ RETAIL (running @ 2250Mhz) are going to have a "shorter CPU life"?

[gekko513]

The new Pentium-M has 2MB level 2 cache and 533MHz bus. If you put a 2MB level 2 cache and a 533MHz bus on a G4, I'm almost certain that the G4 would kick some serious Pentium-M ass even if the G4 runs at 1,5GHz and the Pentium-M runs at 2,0GHz.

Unfortunately the G4 so far has only got a 166MHz bus and 512KB cache. Freescale better hurry to fix these issues.

[Mav451]

(http://www.hwupgrade.com/overclock/cpu/index2.html) So what does it say about "your" credibility that you don't even seem to be aware of ElectroMigration and that it happens much sooner when you overclock? Hmm.


You must be joking rite? Look at the date of that website. 1999. That's the year of the AMD Thunderbirds/early Palominos. *Correction, this was before even the Thunderbirds! This was the time of the original SLOT A Athlons--Socket A wouldn't come out until 2000. Of course overclocking was dangerous then--the technology wasn't there yet.* The Thoroughbred B's (what I have) would not be out for another 3 years! Technology accelerates rather constantly, in the CPU world, so you are aware that knowledge, of even last year, may not extrapolate accurately for technology a year later. Knowledge about the 1st generation Athlons/Pentium does not necessarily translate to the 2nd (and 3rd) generation processors. Things have changed CONSIDERABLY since 1999. 1st generation Athlons ran HOT (1.75vcore). On the other hand, the Thoroughbred B's would come out, at a MUCH higher clock speed (1470-2200Mhz compared to the Athlons 700Mhz-1400Mhz), while running much cooler (1.5-1.65Vcore, even the highest vCore remains .10 less than the original Athlon).

What else has changed since then?
1) Superior Heatsink technology (Copper, fin design of the SLK800/900 weren't even available)
2) Quieter, more powerful AIR cooling technology (e.g. Panaflo)
3) C.O.P. technology (CPU Overheating Protection--Shuts down the system when CPU temperatures reach a critical temperature).
4) PCI/AGP locks--though Intel has had it quite some time, their multipliers are locked, so its a moot point for Pentiums anyway; for AMD this allowed for even HIGHER overclocks while letting the rest of the PCI bus and AGP card to remain running at safe speeds--33Mhz and 66Mhz respectively.

Well, #4 pretty much makes this page outdated and misinformed by TODAY's standards: http://www.pcguide.com/opt/oc/risksRisksBus-c.html

The PCI bus can be LOCKED in a plethora of nForce2 motherboards (available since fall 2002), so if that website chooses to stay up to date, it would remove this severely outdated information before becoming the laughing stock to the overclocking community.

For Intel, prevalanet PCI lock technology was available since the advent of the i845: http://www.sharkyextreme.com/guides/hwGuides/article.php/10709_1380951__3

We should also note at this time that many i845D based motherboards (regardless of FSB speeds) lock their AGP and PCI frequencies at 66 and 33 MHz respectively, so there isn't a great danger to your peripherals when overclocking with many high-end i845 DDR motherboards.

[timberfish]

Hector: I know that cooling will make overclocking work without nearly as much risk and damange, but I was just addressing the fact that Mav451 was saying that overclocking doesn't generate any extra heat, nor does it shorten the life of components, which is just not true. So I posted all these articles to prove that overclocking does just that.

Mav451: Processors are marked at their speed because it's determined that that's the speed they can handle safely. Sure, they "could" be marked higher and run higher, I think we all agree on that, but there "are" side-effects. So "yes" I will say that running a CPU at a higher clock than it's rated will shorten its life and be dangerous. I say it and as you can see many reputable sources agree and go into much detail. I can post about 10 other articles from other sources if you like, but I don't want to just dump links on this board.

Hector, I'm glad someone agrees that using overclocked CPU benchmarks only illustrate "possible" future speeds and chip performance and should not be used in a true comparison between common chips on the market. I see that we're now way off topic, so I'll leave it to someone else to bring us back if anyone wants to address what this thread was about.

[Mav451]

Hector: I know that cooling will make overclocking work without nearly as much risk and damange, but I was just addressing the fact that Mav451 was saying that overclocking doesn't generate any extra heat, nor does it shorten the life of components, which is just not true. So I posted all these articles to prove that overclocking does just that.

Mav451: Processors are marked at their speed because it's determined that that's the speed they can handle safely. Sure, they "could" be marked higher and run higher, I think we all agree on that, but there "are" side-effects. So "yes" I will say that running a CPU at a higher clock than it's rated will shorten its life and be dangerous. I say it and as you can see many reputable sources agree and go into much detail. I can post about 10 other articles from other sources if you like, but I don't want to just dump links on this board.

Hector, I'm glad someone agrees that using overclocked CPU benchmarks only illustrate "possible" future speeds and chip performance and should not be used in a true comparison between common chips on the market. I see that we're now way off topic, so I'll leave it to someone else to bring us back if anyone wants to address what this thread was about.

I said it does not generate extra heat if you USE THE SAME VCORE. Its clear, after several posts now, that you still don't understand overclocking. Google searches and "10 other articles" does nothing to rebut my point, b/c you still don't understand what I'm saying! Maybe I will give you yet another example:

Ok, you have several 2800+ chips (2.25Ghz). However, demand for 2100+'s is significantly higher, so instead of producing a combination of 2100+'s and 2800+'s (that would be wasteful production), you could simply only produce 2800+'s to cover ALL bases, and THEN REMARK them as demands sees fit. That is the basis for AMD's overclocking success in the first place.

B/c the 2100+ is actually a "true" 2800+ chip (just marked down), that means it is ALREADY CERTIFIED to run @ 2.25Ghz @ 1.65Vcore. However, the 2100+ only runs @ 1.73Ghz @ 1.6Vcore. So, in the factory/FAB, they do some modifications to make the 2800+ seem like a 2100+ (Multiplier set to 13X, FSB to 133). What I'm trying to say is that these chips are ALREADY CERTIFIED, just remarked.

Now, if my 2100+ was actually 2800+ the WHOLE TIME, why should running it at its "true" speed shorten its life? The answer is, it won't.

Read my entire post next time to avoid these rather glaring misconceptions about overclocking.

And please, no more google searches and 3-5 year old articles that are outdated.

[timberfish]

LOL, Mav451 you are seriously going to focus on the dates of those articles? I mean they clearly talk about hardware concepts that still apply. Electromigration still exists, but if you insist on this then here are some articles from 2003/2004, but they were harder to find because overclocking isn't as big anymore since Intel's move to prevent it and the fact that processors are just so fast now, it's usually not necessary. Anyhow, here's one from 2003 that talks about reducing the life of your comoponents: http://www.cooltechzone.com/articles/overclockingexplained.html

Here's one from 2004 where they use liquid nitrogen to cool the components so they can overclock to 5Ghz which proves that heat "is" an issue when overclocking. http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20031230/index.html

I "do" understand what you're saying about the "fing" vcore. The vcore staying the same is not the only factor that increases the heat or reduces the life of the chip. Look, you find me a source that says you can overclock without touching the vcore and it will be completely safe and "not" increase the heat output or decrease chip life and I'll shut up, okay? If you look on any overclocker enthusaist site (which I visited often about a year ago) then you'll see ads for cooling, warnings about heat and how to cool a cpu and warnings about damage and reduction of component life. These are facts. I'm addressing a couple main things you stated about overclocking: It does not increase heat, it does not reduce processor life. I'm not talking about how to use cooling to reduce heat etc.. The fact is that extra heat "is" generated. If it wasn't don't you think Tom's Hardware guide would have just left the vcore alone and gone to 5Ghz? No, cause they can't without frying the hardware. So knock these articles however you want, but I'm not going to take your "word" over these professionals, sorry.

And I understnad remarking, before you go off on that whole point. I'll bring this up one more time - we are no longer talking about G4 vs P4, we are now talking about overclocking which 95% of the population does not even do.

[Mav451]

LOL, Mav451 you are seriously going to focus on the dates of those articles? I mean they clearly talk about hardware concepts that still apply. Electromigration still exists, but if you insist on this then here are some articles from 2003/2004, but they were harder to find because overclocking isn't as big anymore since Intel's move to prevent it and the fact that processors are just so fast now, it's usually not necessary. Anyhow, here's one from 2003 that talks about reducing the life of your comoponents: http://www.cooltechzone.com/articles/overclockingexplained.html

Here's one from 2004 where they use liquid nitrogen to cool the components so they can overclock to 5Ghz which proves that heat "is" an issue when overclocking. http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20031230/index.html

I "do" understand what you're saying about the "fing" vcore. The vcore staying the same is not the only factor that increases the heat or reduces the life of the chip. Look, you find me a source that says you can overclock without touching the vcore and it will be completely safe and "not" increase the heat output or decrease chip life and I'll shut up, okay? If you look on any overclocker enthusaist site (which I visited often about a year ago) then you'll see ads for cooling, warnings about heat and how to cool a cpu and warnings about damage and reduction of component life. These are facts. I'm addressing a couple main things you stated about overclocking: It does not increase heat, it does not reduce processor life. I'm not talking about how to use cooling to reduce heat etc.. The fact is that extra heat "is" generated. If it wasn't don't you think Tom's Hardware guide would have just left the vcore alone and gone to 5Ghz? No, cause they can't without frying the hardware. So knock these articles however you want, but I'm not going to take your "word" over these professionals, sorry.

And I understnad remarking, before you go off on that whole point. I'll bring this up one more time - we are no longer talking about G4 vs P4, we are now talking about overclocking which 95% of the population does not even do.

Well, Tom's is a more extreme example :). But of course, overclocking will *typically* require more Vcore. I think we are talking about two DIFFERENT kinds of overclocking.

Tom's is more of the "reckless" kind (requires LN2, etc.). I'm talking about overclocking on air, with MINIMAL (if any) Vcore adjustments. And concerning overclocking without raising the Vcore? The Barton 2500+ is a testament of this. It could be changed from 2500+ (1.83Ghz 333FSB) to 3200+ (2.20Ghz 400FSB) with one simple BIOS changes*:

FSB: [166 >> 200].

Since the 2500+ already runs with a Multiplier of 11X, all that is needed to hit 2.20Ghz is a simple FSB change.

*denotes mobo/memory requirements*
Obviously, don't do it with a mobo that is not overclocking friendly...ditto with the memory. Don't expect your overclock to hit 400FSB, easily, if you don't have DDR400 memory. Likewise with the chipsets, if you don't have the Ultra400 chipset (and the older D stepping), then of course, it will be harder.

That is more of the "sweetspot" overclocking, where a chip is KNOWN to run at a given frequency/FSB, at the SAME vcore, b/c it is marked down.

2100+ >> 2800+ is exactly the same as 2500+ >> 3200+

**Of course, if you are overclocking beyond this (e.g. 2.4-2.5Ghz with Bartons), then yes, the Vcore is typically higher; at around 1.8-1.95Vcore. That is the type of overclocking I don't recommend, b/c I know it is much more dangerous.

So again, I think we were confusing 2 types of overclocking. I'm mostly concerned with "sweetspot" overclocking, not "reckless" requiring LN2 or Prometia systems...that's left to the people with EVEN MORE time to waste than me! :)

[wPod]

why didnt you just start a thread 'windows is better than OS X' i dont think anyone buys a laptop to have the fastest processor.

and i dont know about you, but ive never seen a wintel laptop that is noticably faster or even at a compareable speed to my 12" PB (867 for that matter!) maybe its b/c of windows runs slow or whatever, but in the basic opening of apps and running apps i notice bit more speed out of my PB. the only intel machine i know that runs 'just a bit' faster than my PB is the P4 3.0ghz desktop i have at work. even my old P4 1.5 ghz machine i had at work seemed slower than my PB.

so, i dont know what all the 'speed tests' have to say, but from the real life tests i have seen myself the G4 kicks the but of the P4 (especially if you compare Ghz to Ghz. . . )

[Soc7777777]

Soc7777777, I'd have to say you're so wrong about so many things here. Your main complaint seems to be that Apple should focus on making a mobile chip similar to the new Pentium-M chips that Intel makes. My question is why? My 15" G4 1.5Ghz laptop has a battery life of 3 to 3.5 hours with Airport on and using it actively. That's roughly the same as the Pentium-M laptops because a co-worker has one and he only outlasts my Mac by about 20 minutes in meetings. Also, the speed of a G4 is amazing compared to most of the P4 line and I'm talking about Desktop machines here. My G4 laptop outpaces my 2.8 Ghz P4 w/HT desktop here at work in most cases. Also, I own a Sager laptop with a P4 2.4Ghz chip in it and my Mac blows it away in speed. Oh, and the Sager has a desktop speed P4 in it, so that's not dumbed down for mobile computing. Besides this whole speed argument which I don't want to get into, you're talking about the need for a mobile chip?

The only reason Intel made the Pentium-M is because the Pentium 4M chips sucked and were exactly what you claim the G4's are - dumbed down desktop chips. Well, guess what? That's what most mobile chips are. The Pentium M was developed with power consumption and efficiency in mind. Yes, it was built separately from the P4, but a lot of the architecture is shared. They did make huge improvements in the architecture to be able to handle processes better and more efficiently while requiring less power, but let me also point out that Pentium M chips are not good for powerful apps like video editing, cutting edge gaming and encoding and so on. They aren't meant as desktop replacements. For those, Intel still makes Pentium 4M laptops and sometimes just puts a desktop CPU right in. Terrible battery life of course and always between 8 and 10 pounds - trust me, I know.

So maybe the G4 in the laptops wasn't built just for laptops, but so what? My Mac laptop is faster than most P4 desktops (except the high end ones of course) and handles battery amazingly well. What more do you want from a mobile machine? Also, AMD already has an Athlon 64M chip in certain laptops. Check out Voodoo and eMachines for starters. They perform well, but are heavy and expensive (in the Voodoo case they're around $3 to $4K and up). Eventually G5's will be in laptops and when that happens great! But Intel and AMD won't be ahead, they'll just be doing things differently. Right now, any comparable mobile machine on the Windows side is roughly the same price and performs the same as Macs. If you go for less-mobile desktop replacement laptops then yes, the Intels win, but at the same time they weigh 8 to 12 pounds, run hot, and suck battery like nothing you've ever seen. That's my take. Oh, and while this isn't scientific, check out this link to see some of my own benchmarking results in Photoshop between 3 machines on Mac and Windows. http://www.grassapple.com/archives/2004/06/apple_vs_window.html
haha im going to ignore the unrelated bs about P4-m chips... because that has nothing to do with p-m chips or g4 chips...

but your attempt at benchmarking is pathetic... haha you are putting 3 machines up against each other in a GRAPHICS INTENSIVE PROGRAM and give one machine (the PB) TWICE the amount of VIDEO RAM... the MAIN factor in graphics like performance...

thats like comparing the acceleration of two cars and having 2 of them go uphill and the other down... thats just not fair..

[Mord]

Here's one from 2004 where they use liquid nitrogen to cool the components so they can overclock to 5Ghz which proves that heat "is" an issue when overclocking. http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20031230/index.html

I "do" understand what you're saying about the "fing" vcore. The vcore staying the same is not the only factor that increases the heat or reduces the life of the chip. Look, you find me a source that says you can overclock without touching the vcore and it will be completely safe and "not" increase the heat output or decrease chip life and I'll shut up, okay? If you look on any overclocker enthusaist site (which I visited often about a year ago) then you'll see ads for cooling, warnings about heat and how to cool a cpu and warnings about damage and reduction of component life. These are facts. I'm addressing a couple main things you stated about overclocking: It does not increase heat, it does not reduce processor life. I'm not talking about how to use cooling to reduce heat etc.. The fact is that extra heat "is" generated. If it wasn't don't you think Tom's Hardware guide would have just left the vcore alone and gone to 5Ghz? No, cause they can't without frying the hardware. So knock these articles however you want, but I'm not going to take your "word" over these professionals, sorry.

overclocking without changing the vcore dose not generate more heat but it works up to a point and it becomes unstable becuase the voltage can't drive the extra clock speed and when you reach that point an increase in vcore is required and with that better cooling is required hence mav415's 2800+ capable heatsink/fan (out of interest what temperature are you running at?)

overclocking is useful because for example you can buy a 2GHz cpu and a 2.5GHz cpu they cost $200 and $500 respectively now for $50 you can get a good heatsink and a powerful fan to deal with the extra heat produced from overclocking from 2GHz to 2.5GHz.

(it's not exactly like this but it was like this with the early celerys and PII's)

so in essence you are getting $500 performance at a $250 price with maybe a little extra noise.

with my g3 overclock I did not toutch the vcore i just changed the multipliers and it booted fine but was a bit unstable so i poped a giant heatsink onto it and then it proved stable this is because when you cool a chip down the resistance in the die decreases and when you dod that less voltage is required so it may prove to become stable without changing the voltage though if i changed the voltage I could probably run at 550MHz there is little point in such an act

[ddtlm]

gekko513:

The new Pentium-M has 2MB level 2 cache and 533MHz bus. If you put a 2MB level 2 cache and a 533MHz bus on a G4, I'm almost certain that the G4 would kick some serious Pentium-M ass even if the G4 runs at 1,5GHz and the Pentium-M runs at 2,0GHz.
Back when G4's had the oversized L2's and L3's I didn't exactly see the situation reversed. Sure a huge memory system on a G4 would help but the core still has "issues" ... first and foremost the solitary scalar FP unit, and lets not forget that it's almost an in-order executing CPU.

[patrick0brien]

-One doesn't buy a notebook for speed.

[ddtlm]

patrick0brien:

When the battle can't be won, change the battle.

[patrick0brien]

-There is no (spoon) battle. This is an invented discussion.

[Mav451]

why didnt you just start a thread 'windows is better than OS X' i dont think anyone buys a laptop to have the fastest processor.

and i dont know about you, but ive never seen a wintel laptop that is noticably faster or even at a compareable speed to my 12" PB (867 for that matter!) maybe its b/c of windows runs slow or whatever, but in the basic opening of apps and running apps i notice bit more speed out of my PB. the only intel machine i know that runs 'just a bit' faster than my PB is the P4 3.0ghz desktop i have at work. even my old P4 1.5 ghz machine i had at work seemed slower than my PB.

so, i dont know what all the 'speed tests' have to say, but from the real life tests i have seen myself the G4 kicks the but of the P4 (especially if you compare Ghz to Ghz. . . )

If you knew how bad the 1.5Ghz (well anything <2.2Ghz for the P4 was based on the crappy Williamette core; e.g. the ONLY P4's beaten by the P3's with nearly a 1Ghz deficit in clock speed).

To put it in apples to apples...its like comparing a 1.33G4 vs. a 1.33G5...which would win? Or to put it even clearer, a 1.0G4 vs. a 1.0G5? (in my attempt to illustrate just how crippled/sad the first P4's were in performance).

[ddtlm]

patrick0brien:

There is no (spoon) battle. This is an invented discussion.
So how do these "invented" discussions differ from normal discussions?

[KingSleaze]

Since it grew over the course of a month, is wildly off original topic. And the original topic is a ridiculous point to begin with. Hey, a Window laptop will always stay behind a Window desktop in pure speed too. What is the point?

Old acronym GIGO.

[gekko513]

gekko513:


Back when G4's had the oversized L2's and L3's I didn't exactly see the situation reversed. Sure a huge memory system on a G4 would help but the core still has "issues" ... first and foremost the solitary scalar FP unit, and lets not forget that it's almost an in-order executing CPU.
The G4 never had more than 512KB on-chip. It has had a max of 2MB off-chip which isn't nearly as fast.

Of course the G4 could be better. It is after all a 4-5 year old design. The G4 doesn't need out-of-order execution nearly as much as most other processors because it has a shorter pipeline.

It is still a very good chip. And at speeds at and above 1.5GHz it is still a remarkable performer because it has kept a relatively short pipeline. But like all other processors it needs to be filled with instructions and data fast enough. The current bus and cache system is the main bottleneck. For most tasks a 2nd FP unit would be just as starved for instructions and data as the 1st.

With a 800+MHz bus and dual memory channels a 2nd FP unit would be very nice, but then again, wouldn't the 2nd unit add to the complexity of the design (determining data dependancy and timing and such)? Maybe they would have to add more stages to the pipeline. Which again would require more sofisticated branch prediction and so on and so forth. All in all a completely different design. I've understood that Freescale is also doing work on next generation processors where they address these issues, but wouldn't that come out as a G5, G5e, G6 or whatever?

It seems to me that for the G4 it would be a simpler design task to add more cache and increase the bus speed. More bang for the buck so to speak.

[gekko513]

but your attempt at benchmarking is pathetic... haha you are putting 3 machines up against each other in a GRAPHICS INTENSIVE PROGRAM and give one machine (the PB) TWICE the amount of VIDEO RAM... the MAIN factor in graphics like performance...
I happen to like the benchmark. It compares real world computers. And besides .. Video RAM isn't very important in Photoshop. Do you really think Apple would by default use less VRAM than most PC vendors if Photoshop would suffer by it. Graphics design is sort of the core market for Apple.

3D games are driving the need for more VRAM not Photoshop.

[patrick0brien]

patrick0brien:


So how do these "invented" discussions differ from normal discussions?

-ddtlm

There is no sharing here, no learning, no knowledge value. It is someone jabbing a fact into the air. And it is a fact that can change in the future. Therefore the only reason to have this conversation is to lock horns.

There is nothing we can carry away from this conversation of any real value.

[Mord]

I disagree i think we are having a nice contradiction of opinions on overclocking there is nothing bad about that? it's always nice to have a nice argument to better ones understanding of the subject surly is this not the point of the forums to share opinions and ideas to better oneself and to educate others what would be the point if we all agreed? and we all knew everything?