Which processor is faster?

[CaptainCaveMann]

Hp dv1000 with a 1.5 pentium m vs. ibook 1.33 g4? Also both machines have 512 memory. These are the two notebooks i have a choice between. :confused:

[edesignuk]

The 1.5 P-M will be faster, but not so much faster that I'd say you'd be stupid to get the iBook.

Which OS do you want, that is the question? :p

[Sun Baked]

It will all come down to which OS you want to use, and the applications.

[blackfox]

As your question was phrased, the HP will be faster. In some cases probably considerably so. In other Altivec-optimized apps (for mac) the difference may be negligible.

Still, there are more important things than raw speed, and the ease-of-use and functionality should more than make up for time lost encoding or rendering, especially considering the time you will have to take to properly secure your XP system.

Without knowing more, that is all I can suggest.

[CaptainCaveMann]

i want macs os but a year or two down the road i dont want to be like omg my computer sucks its sooooo slowwwwwww you guys know what i mean? So i was thinking maybe i should buy the faster windows comp so i get more for my money for a long period of time i am not what you would call rich. However i love macs os :cool:

[blackfox]

i want macs os but i a year or two down the road i dont want to be like omg my computer sucks its sooooo slowwwwwww you guys know what i mean?

Again, what will you be doing, and what do you mean by "slow"?

I am writing on my four-year-old Pismo, which is a converted G4 500. I do not think it is slow. Sure, if I am doing some hardcore rendering it is not fast, but with plenty of RAM, 90% of the activities I do on it work well and quickly.

Do not worry about the future and being "cutting-edge". There will always be something newer and faster available, but most computers, mac and pc alike, are useable (in terms of power) for a long time.

[tveric]

Windows alone will slow down your computer enough to wipe out the slight clock-speed advantage that the non-mac laptop would have. I have a 667 powerbook and it wipes out my brother's Dell 2.4 GHz Celeron machine at web browsing, photoshop, whatever. Okay, not exactly the same situation, I know, but there's a lot to be said for how much inherently faster the Mac OS is than Windows.

[edesignuk]

Windows alone will slow down your computer enough to wipe out the slight clock-speed advantage that the non-mac laptop would have. I have a 667 powerbook and it wipes out my brother's Dell 2.4 GHz Celeron machine at web browsing, photoshop, whatever. Okay, not exactly the same situation, I know, but there's a lot to be said for how much inherently faster the Mac OS is than Windows.
Celeron = Complete and utter *****.
P-M = Very good CPU.

[Westside guy]

i want macs os but a year or two down the road i dont want to be like omg my computer sucks its sooooo slowwwwwww you guys know what i mean?

Only you know what sort of personality you have.

If you're the type of person who buys a cutting edge x86 system and then, two years down the road, says "omg my computer sucks its sooooo slowwwwww" then you will be equally dissatisfied with Macs two years down the road.

But having worked in both worlds, I don't think the average person will have this reaction to a Mac after two years any more than they would to a PC.

The whole processor speed argument of PPC vs. x86 has been beaten to death in this forum many times. :D People will initially try to answer your questions once they figure out your specific concerns - but at some point the Mac and PC fanboys will come in and the thread will degrade into "does not" / "does too".

[CaptainCaveMann]

OK these are the applications and progs i run right now on my amd 1800 with 512 memory at 400 megs with a 128 nvidia video card and a 120 gig hard drive at 7200 rpm. As follows; Studio mx,photoshop,microsoft office,web browsing and e-mail,aim messenger and msn messenger.Also games like wc3,halflife,ut2004

[daveL]

I'm not understanding how you make this decision based on CPU speed. You either like OS X and everything that goes along with it, or you like Windows XP with all the things (mostly bad) that goes with it.

[CaptainCaveMann]

Only you know what sort of personality you have.

If you're the type of person who buys a cutting edge x86 system and then, two years down the road, says "omg my computer sucks its sooooo slowwwwww" then you will be equally dissatisfied with Macs two years down the road.

But having worked in both worlds, I don't think the average person will have this reaction to a Mac after two years any more than they would to a PC.

The whole processor speed argument of PPC vs. x86 has been beaten to death in this forum many times. :D People will initially try to answer your questions once they figure out your specific concerns - but at some point the Mac and PC fanboys will come in and the thread will degrade into "does not" / "does too".I agree with most of that.Maybe i should ahve been more specific.In two years what im saying is i dont want my 1500 dollar computer to be so outdated im almost forced to buy another one and litterally have to throw the old one in the trash can because its lost every single utter value because there are programs and other os's that require far superior hardware

[CaptainCaveMann]

I'm not understanding how you make this decision based on CPU speed. You either like OS X and everything that goes along with it, or you like Windows XP with all the things (mostly bad) that goes with it.I like fast! Thats what i like.Snappy and fast mac osx is awesome but slow is not

[Sun Baked]

If you want the fastest processor today, buy the PC.

If you want the machine that tends to age better with the newest OS as the years go by, buy the Mac.

[UnixMac]

OK these are the applications and progs i run right now on my amd 1800 with 512 memory at 400 megs with a 128 nvidia video card and a 120 gig hard drive at 7200 rpm. As follows; Studio mx,photoshop,microsoft office,web browsing and e-mail,aim messenger and msn messenger.Also games like wc3,halflife,ut2004

Dude, get the Mac. The 1.33 G4 IS faster than a 1.5 Pentium in every one of those apps. Clock for Clock a G4=1.3 P4's ... in most apps.

Also, OS X kicks ass over Winblows.. Mac's have a lot longer shelf life than winblows computers... thus their much higher re-sale value.

get the Mac and don't look back.

[CaptainCaveMann]

If you want the fastest processor today, buy the PC.

If you want the machine that tends to age better with the newest OS as the years go by, buy the Mac.Thanks

[blackfox]

OK these are the applications and progs i run right now on my amd 1800 with 512 memory at 400 megs with a 128 nvidia video card and a 120 gig hard drive at 7200 rpm. As follows; Studio mx,photoshop,microsoft office,web browsing and e-mail,aim messenger and msn messenger.Also games like wc3,halflife,ut2004
Well, I hate to suggest it, but you may want to stick with a PC. Studio MX and Photoshop are expensive programs to replace with mac versions, and some of the MX suite runs fairly poorly on the mac side. Also gaming will be relatively poor.

If you can afford to replace the programs and can deal with fairly anemic gaming, macs are so much more enjoyable to use. Still, considering, I reluctantly have to recommend a PC.

One important note, however. If you want your machine to last and be useable for a long time, then pay attention to build-quality as well as specs.

A friend of mine bought a much faster PC laptop when I bought my Pismo four years ago, but it broke last year. So my computer wins the longevity contest. Also consider warranties and customer support.

I think HP builds pretty good machines, but I do not know. I do know that IBM laptops are among the best in the WinTel world, but you pay for them.

Good luck.

[CaptainCaveMann]

Dude, get the Mac. The 1.33 G4 IS faster than a 1.5 Pentium in every one of those apps. Clock for Clock a G4=1.3 P4's ... in most apps.

Also, OS X kicks ass over Winblows.. Mac's have a lot longer shelf life than winblows computers... thus their much higher re-sale value.

get the Mac and don't look back.Awesome thanks for the good advice :)

[CaptainCaveMann]

Well, I hate to suggest it, but you may want to stick with a PC. Studio MX and Photoshop are expensive programs to replace with mac versions, and some of the MX suite runs fairly poorly on the mac side. Also gaming will be relatively poor.

If you can afford to replace the programs and can deal with fairly anemic gaming, macs are so much more enjoyable to use. Still, considering, I reluctantly have to recommend a PC.

One important note, however. If you want your machine to last and be useable for a long time, then pay attention to build-quality as well as specs.

A friend of mine bought a much faster PC laptop when I bought my Pismo four years ago, but it broke last year. So my computer wins the longevity contest. Also consider warranties and customer support.

I think HP builds pretty good machines, but I do not know. I do know that IBM laptops are among the best in the WinTel world, but you pay for them.

Good luck.What do you mean his laptop "broke"? Do you mean it crashed because crashes can be fixed and if it was a hardware issue like viruses destroying the mb then you can send it back to the factory and they can repair it also

[edesignuk]

Dude, get the Mac. The 1.33 G4 IS faster than a 1.5 Pentium in every one of those apps. Clock for Clock a G4=1.3 P4's ... in most apps.
Really don't think so...:rolleyes:

[Jovian9]

Buy a 12" PowerBook 1.33GHz instead of the iBook 1.33GHz. The speed difference b/t the Mac or PC will be negligible. The speed and efficiency of the OS for Mac will be greater than that of XP. The time saved on a Mac by not downloading anti-virus/updates/blahblahblah will be huge. The PC will be a bit faster, but how much time do you want to spend securing your PC?

[blackfox]

What do you mean his laptop "broke"? Do you mean it crashed because crashes can be fixed and if it was a hardware issue like viruses destroying the mb then you can send it back to the factory and they can repair it alsoLogic board failure. After 3+ years, it was no longer covered by any warranty and it was cheaper for him to replace it with a new machine. His optical drive and battery also had ceased to function.

[Sabbath]

I agree with most of that.Maybe i should ahve been more specific.In two years what im saying is i dont want my 1500 dollar computer to be so outdated im almost forced to buy another one and litterally have to throw the old one in the trash can because its lost every single utter value because there are programs and other os's that require far superior hardware

Well if you look at the prices on ebay of a two year old iBook you will find they hold their value remarkably well for a computer. However the PC will be quicker for most tasks straight off, the pentium M is a really good chip. I personally would not go for the PC based on the OS but thats an issue for you to weigh up.

I dont know what the PC you are looking at is like, but I would presume it would have a higher resolution than the 14" iBook. I personally do not like the size of the 14" iBook, when you consider the low resolution and that may be an issue to you too. If you don't require a superdrive I would go for the portability of the 12" iBook instead, the resolution is the same and the portability of the machine is great.

Really you just have to weigh up what matters to you, but now the PC should be faster, where as 2 years down the line I would expect the mac to be faster as with each new OS your mac will get faster not significantly slower. Your mac would also be worth more 2 years down the line. Oh and just in case you want to play games, get the PC for gaming (its not that the iBook will be a lot slower its just games come slower to mac, there are fewer of them and they're more expensive) or better still get the a console.

[UnixMac]

Really don't think so...:rolleyes:

Even the most fanatical of PC defenders and lovers will tell you that a G4 puts out more flops per clock cycle than a P4... where do you think the whole Megahertz Myth marketing campaign was born? It became harder and harder to sell that the G4 was faster when the P4 was more than double the speed of the G4 sure, but otherwise at similar clock speed... it is a computer engineering fact that the G4 has more processing power for a given clock cycle.. The number 1.3 was cited in a comparison aggregate of several apps and came up with a 1.3 differential for Mhz... but this guy in this post tells it better than me... read carefully.

http://www.macopinion.com/columns/engine/01/07/25/talk/96.html

[tveric]

Really don't think so...:rolleyes:

what's it like to just stalk the macrumors forums day after day, for 10 hours a day, in order to put down macs and promote windows, without ever offering anything of substance to the rest of the readers?

[daveL]

what's it like to just stalk the macrumors forums day after day, for 10 hours a day, in order to put down macs and promote windows, without ever offering anything of substance to the rest of the readers?
I'mfairly sensitive to trolls, but I haven't felt that edesignuk's posts were Mac negative. Maybe I just missed something. Sorry for the OT.

[Sabbath]

what's it like to just stalk the macrumors forums day after day, for 10 hours a day, in order to put down macs and promote windows, without ever offering anything of substance to the rest of the readers?

Ok I don't think you can claim edesign stalks the boards, his posts seem to contribute to about a third of all posts meaning he is the board! hahaha. More seriously the point here is the chip in question is not a P4 we should be carefully not to classify all pentium chips in the same bracket. The pentium M which the initial post is about is a really good mobile chip, and at least the equal of the G4 clock for clock, not a regular p4 which is slower than a G4 clock for clock. The poster asked if which chip was faster and that is what people have tried to answer, the PC chip will be faster, but the iBook is a damn good package and has plenty going for it. Answering the question and saying the PC chip is faster is not being anti-mac.

[zen_state]

Celeron = Complete and utter *****.
P-M = Very good CPU.

I think it was PC World magazine that called the celeron the "guttless wonder" :)

[Sun Baked]

Looking at the specs, the only problem I can see with the HP DV1000 -- is the Intel Extreme Graphics used with that model's Intel Centrino chipset.

[zen_state]

Again, what will you be doing, and what do you mean by "slow"?

I am writing on my four-year-old Pismo, which is a converted G4 500. I do not think it is slow. Sure, if I am doing some hardcore rendering it is not fast, but with plenty of RAM, 90% of the activities I do on it work well and quickly.

Do not worry about the future and being "cutting-edge". There will always be something newer and faster available, but most computers, mac and pc alike, are useable (in terms of power) for a long time.


spoken like a true geek like myself :) I too feel the same way. I have a powermac G4 500 and with its 1GB ram it totally fills my computing needs without too much effort. runs panther at a very usable speed.

[UnixMac]

Ok I don't think you can claim edesign stalks the boards, his posts seem to contribute to about a third of all posts meaning he is the board! hahaha. More seriously the point here is the chip in question is not a P4 we should be carefully not to classify all pentium chips in the same bracket. The pentium M which the initial post is about is a really good mobile chip, and at least the equal of the G4 clock for clock, not a regular p4 which is slower than a G4 clock for clock. The poster asked if which chip was faster and that is what people have tried to answer, the PC chip will be faster, but the iBook is a damn good package and has plenty going for it. Answering the question and saying the PC chip is faster is not being anti-mac.

The P4M is indeed a superior chip to the P4, but I was addressing the P4M when I stated that there is a 1.3 differential... as with the standard P4 the differential is 2.0 or so... Again, the G4 with Altivec at 1.33 Ghz is a faster CPU than a P4M period. I say this based on first hand information as a guy living here in Phoenix AZ and having spent quite a lot of time at discussing this with the very engineers who work at both Motorola and Intel here in the valley. Many of them are my neighbors.

[Mav451]

Even the most fanatical of PC defenders and lovers will tell you that a G4 puts out more flops per clock cycle than a P4... where do you think the whole Megahertz Myth marketing campaign was born? It became harder and harder to sell that the G4 was faster when the P4 was more than double the speed of the G4 sure, but otherwise at similar clock speed... it is a computer engineering fact that the G4 has more processing power for a given clock cycle.. The number 1.3 was cited in a comparison aggregate of several apps and came up with a 1.3 differential for Mhz... but this guy in this post tells it better than me... read carefully.

http://www.macopinion.com/columns/engine/01/07/25/talk/96.html

That sounds right. Mac's G4/G5's are always better at FLOPs b/c of their architecture differences compared to x86. That said, FLOPs don't always necessitate the best APPLICATION or GAME performance.

I wonder if Apple could have gone AMD's route of using PR ratings. Yes, they are just as mischievously thrown around as Intel's Ghz machine, but they serve their purpose for the general public.

2400+ was generally = 2.4Ghz P4 (actually B cores only though).

Likewise, with the A64, AMD is back on track, with the A64 3200+ easily outmaching a 3.2Ghz P4 in performance (in comparison to AXP 3200+, which was only competitive with 3.0 P4's).

[haiggy]

what's it like to just stalk the macrumors forums day after day, for 10 hours a day, in order to put down macs and promote windows, without ever offering anything of substance to the rest of the readers?

Wow... :confused:

[Catfish_Man]

The P4M is indeed a superior chip to the P4, but I was addressing the P4M when I stated that there is a 1.3 differential... as with the standard P4 the differential is 2.0 or so... Again, the G4 with Altivec at 1.33 Ghz is a faster CPU than a P4M period. I say this based on first hand information as a guy living here in Phoenix AZ and having spent quite a lot of time at discussing this with the very engineers who work at both Motorola and Intel here in the valley. Many of them are my neighbors.

The P4M is not the PM. Very different chips (one is based on a modified P6 core, the other on "netburst"). The P4M is merely a lower power speedstepped P4, rather crappy imo. You're correct that for vector code (especially vector code that fits in the G4's cache, avoiding its rather slow bus), the G4 will win. Probably by a significant margin. However... well optimized vector code that fits in the cache is hard to come by. Usually it's *either* vector (streaming data from memory, operating on it, and streaming it back) *or* it fits in the cache (typically branchy integer code, a compiler or a word processor for example). On non-vector code, the G4 is a fairly mediocre processor; probably slightly better than an equivalent Pentium 3, and moderately better than an equivalent Pentium 4. The performance diff between a 1.5GHz PM and a 1.33GHz G4 should be pretty small though. They're both bad at floating point, one is strong at vector, the other at scalar integer.

[Sun Baked]

what's it like to just stalk the macrumors forums day after day, for 10 hours a day, in order to put down macs and promote windows, without ever offering anything of substance to the rest of the readers?Distorting the fact a bit there aren't you?

He's here more like 9.5 hours a day troll hunting. :cool:

[CaptainCaveMann]

That sounds right. Mac's G4/G5's are always better at FLOPs b/c of their architecture differences compared to x86. That said, FLOPs don't always necessitate the best APPLICATION or GAME performance.

I wonder if Apple could have gone AMD's route of using PR ratings. Yes, they are just as mischievously thrown around as Intel's Ghz machine, but they serve their purpose for the general public.

2400+ was generally = 2.4Ghz P4 (actually B cores only though).

Likewise, with the A64, AMD is back on track, with the A64 3200+ easily outmaching a 3.2Ghz P4 in performance (in comparison to AXP 3200+, which was only competitive with 3.0 P4's).Yea but are you talkin laptop p4's or desktop p4's there is a big difference between the laptop version with a 500 meg front side bus and the extremely fast 800 meg frontside bus desktop p4

[Mechcozmo]

They are both nice processors. However!

A Mac ages amazingly gracefully. In a year the only way that you can tell it is not so fast is if you compare it to the latest and greatest out there. I personally have a 6 year old (maybe even older) PowerComputing PowerTower Pro 255. 255Mhz processor. Not even a G3. Runs OS 8.6 like new. I just optimize it every once in a while, make sure it has the right software, and let visitors use it. A guest, who has no idea on how to use anything than your generic Windoze box, can get on it and use it for basic internet browsing and Word 98. They don't say that it is slow-- my grandpa even said, "Wow, this computer is pretty fast, isn't it?" It runs great.

My iMac only seems slow compared to my PowerBook. It blows the socks off of most WinTel computers, despite being 3 years old. (800Mhz G4, SuperDrive).

RAM helps. OS X loves RAM like you wouldn't believe. 512MB is what I recommend, 768MB is a nice preferred amount. I never use the swapfile on my hard disk, (virtual memory, pagefile, etc) due to the amount of RAM I have.

Only difference though... the iBook will stink at games. Unfortunately... sigh... But beyond that the iBook I can see will remain a good computer to use for a number of years. 2.5 years at least. Most likely more. Once you get addicted to Macs, you will keep them all around to use...:)

[CaptainCaveMann]

They are both nice processors. However!

A Mac ages amazingly gracefully. In a year the only way that you can tell it is not so fast is if you compare it to the latest and greatest out there. I personally have a 6 year old (maybe even older) PowerComputing PowerTower Pro 255. 255Mhz processor. Not even a G3. Runs OS 8.6 like new. I just optimize it every once in a while, make sure it has the right software, and let visitors use it. A guest, who has no idea on how to use anything than your generic Windoze box, can get on it and use it for basic internet browsing and Word 98. They don't say that it is slow-- my grandpa even said, "Wow, this computer is pretty fast, isn't it?" It runs great.

My iMac only seems slow compared to my PowerBook. It blows the socks off of most WinTel computers, despite being 3 years old. (800Mhz G4, SuperDrive).

RAM helps. OS X loves RAM like you wouldn't believe. 512MB is what I recommend, 768MB is a nice preferred amount. I never use the swapfile on my hard disk, (virtual memory, pagefile, etc) due to the amount of RAM I have.

Only difference though... the iBook will stink at games. Unfortunately... sigh... But beyond that the iBook I can see will remain a good computer to use for a number of years. 2.5 years at least. Most likely more. Once you get addicted to Macs, you will keep them all around to use...:)Hopefully they will upgrade the pb to that really good new gp the other guy was talking about.128 standard would be shweet!

[Mav451]

Aging gracefully is all about perspective and the respective performance thresholds.

If you're doing word processing, email, browsing (excluding heavy flash)? You could get away with < 300Mhz Intel/AMD's or G3 and lower for Apple.

When you want to have the CPU power to multi-task (CPU strong enough to play with a gig of RAM or more), then you're starting to move to the 800Mhz+ Intel/AMD range or G4's and up for the Apple side.

You wanna Photoshop or do other 2D/3D Content Creation tasks? You're gonna need a lot more grunt. I'd say minimum, bare minimum 2000+ or 2Ghz P4's, and for Apple you will want a dual CPU box (2 x 867's and up).

Gaming? Unfortunately that threshold is dynamic =D.
You could have said that 3.2Ghz P4's were top of the line about 1.5 years ago, but that was before the FX-series was released. You could have said that the FX-series was enough, but that was before Doom3 and HL2/Source was released. Do you know that even CS:Source is CPU-LIMITED!?

Insane. That is why gaming is an expensive hobby. Consequently, that is also why PC hardware is so affordable (but ironically quicker to become "obsolete" if you are looking from a gaming perspective).

Because people are upgrading to newer motherboards and faster, more overclockable RAM, good deals are always easy to find. My 9800 Pro that runs at XT speeds (with a VGA Silencer installed) was found for $170. My 1 Gig of CH-5 RAM was found for only $120. Just a year ago, 9800Pro's sold for close to $350-400. That is how quickly the industry moves people--and that is why I can get such insane deals.

[edesignuk]

what's it like to just stalk the macrumors forums day after day, for 10 hours a day, in order to put down macs and promote windows, without ever offering anything of substance to the rest of the readers?Riiiiiight.

I'm not a Mac fan boy, never will be. I try to give unbiased advice. Intel have a very good chip with the P-M, it's a great CPU. Just because something isn't Apple doesn't mean it's crap http://upload.edesignuk.net/uploaded_data/smilies/wtf.gif

Your post did offer something "of substance" did it? :rolleyes:

[Yotabyte]

Quite true. Some non-apple stuff rocks, like Linux... unless we're talking about a PC running windows XP. I can go on for hours like an old man recalling a fishing trip with regards to the strange viruses I have caught with this PC and the big hairy spyware I fought off with my bare hands etc, but I wont. Regardless, PC's "own" I have 3. :D Shame they are burdened by windows XP, hopefully longhorn (Windows 2012?) will be better...

[combatcolin]

I would hazard a guess in saying that most Mac owners also have a pc knocking around somewhere.

But because Macs age so well you keep them around and there still in use.

After a year or so Windows is so bloody slow even with repeated Virus/Trojan scans that the only thing to do is to re-install Windows.

[Westside guy]

Hey edesignuk,

I haven't noticed you stalking the forums either - but maybe I've just been distracted by those photos of Kiera. :p

[Dunepilot]

if it was a hardware issue like viruses destroying the mb then you can send it back to the factory and they can repair it also

Is this actually true? In 1999 when the Chernobyl virus rendered a lot of motherboards useless by overwriting the BIOS, the manufacturers were totally uninterested. I know because I saw the numerous angry customers who were offered no assistance first-hand.

[edesignuk]

Hey edesignuk,

I haven't noticed you stalking the forums either - but maybe I've just been distracted by those photos of Kiera. :p
That must just mean I'm good at it http://upload.edesignuk.net/uploaded_data/smilies/dogeyes.gif

;) :p

[Sabbath]

The P4M is indeed a superior chip to the P4, but I was addressing the P4M when I stated that there is a 1.3 differential... as with the standard P4 the differential is 2.0 or so... Again, the G4 with Altivec at 1.33 Ghz is a faster CPU than a P4M period. I say this based on first hand information as a guy living here in Phoenix AZ and having spent quite a lot of time at discussing this with the very engineers who work at both Motorola and Intel here in the valley. Many of them are my neighbors.

I'm not sure if you are now talking about the P4M which was a mobile version of the pentium 4 (I'm not sure if they still make it?) or the pentium M which is the processor part of a the centrino package. My feeling was the general consensus when the 1.5Ghz G4 powerbook came out, was when compared against 1.5Ghz centrinos the G4 was at best equal and sometimes a little slower, obviously it depends on what you are doing and what apps you're using, particularly if the mac app takes advantage of Altivec. However I am quite happy to be wrong (I'd love to be wrong in fact :D ) and I'm sure your sources are more reliable than my "general consensus" if you're talking about the pentium M and not the P4M.

[UnixMac]

I'm not sure if you are now talking about the P4M which was a mobile version of the pentium 4 (I'm not sure if they still make it?) or the pentium M which is the processor part of a the centrino package. My feeling was the general consensus when the 1.5Ghz G4 powerbook came out, was when compared against 1.5Ghz centrinos the G4 was at best equal and sometimes a little slower, obviously it depends on what you are doing and what apps you're using, particularly if the mac app takes advantage of Altivec. However I am quite happy to be wrong (I'd love to be wrong in fact :D ) and I'm sure your sources are more reliable than my "general consensus" if you're talking about the pentium M and not the P4M.

on par until the Vector optimized code apps come into play in the Mac.. iApps (many), FCP, QT, etc..

As for which Pentium we're talking about.. The problem is Intel can't make up their mind what to call something and they have too many names the same thing.

I know the Centrino model you're talking about and the larger L2 cache etc.. of the Pentium-M is a better chip than the mobile P4, but clock for clock I have been told "on average" the G4 is 1.3 times faster in most apps. The G4 is 2X faster than the mobil P4 and more.

There are always going to be exceptions to all of this... some apps will run a lot slower on a G4 than a P4 because they were coded for PC and ported (portable) to the Mac.. but never optimized on the Mac, which is the case for too many apps out there no written specifically for the mac.

[Mav451]

on par until the Vector optimized code apps come into play in the Mac.. iApps (many), FCP, QT, etc..

As for which Pentium we're talking about.. The problem is Intel can't make up their mind what to call something and they have too many names the same thing.

I know the Centrino model you're talking about and the larger L2 cache etc.. of the Pentium-M is a better chip than the mobile P4, but clock for clock I have been told "on average" the G4 is 1.3 times faster in most apps. The G4 is 2X faster than the mobil P4 and more.

There are always going to be exceptions to all of this... some apps will run a lot slower on a G4 than a P4 because they were coded for PC and ported (portable) to the Mac.. but never optimized on the Mac, which is the case for too many apps out there no written specifically for the mac.

The Pentium M is getting Photoshop numbers that compete with the A64 FX-series chips as seen here:
http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=dothandesktop&page=13

The 2.0 Dothan is just 4 seconds shy of the FX-53.

Considering the FX-series chips are in the same realm as the G5's, I have a hard time believing that the G4 is "1.3x faster" or even just being competitive to the Pentium M (Dothan core). I'm not talking bout the Banias core, but the better 2MB L2 Cache Dothan core.


http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=dothandesktop&page=11
Likewise, in gaming, the Pentium M "735" 1.7Ghz model (lowest one) is getting better frames in Doom3 than a Prescott 3.4Ghz (123.3 vs. 122.4). Even more suprising is that in Far Cry, the Pentium M 735 1.7Ghz gets higher frames than even the 3.4EE (extreme edition aka Xeon) >> 110.6 vs. 107.7

With those kind of numbers being produced by the Pentium M, I don't think a G4 is even marginally close. Only the G5 will be able to close in on those numbers.

[UnixMac]

The Pentium M is getting Photoshop numbers that compete with the A64 FX-series chips as seen here:
http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=dothandesktop&page=13

The 2.0 Dothan is just 4 seconds shy of the FX-53.

Considering the FX-series chips are in the same realm as the G5's, I have a hard time believing that the G4 is "1.3x faster" or even just being competitive to the Pentium M (Dothan core). I'm not talking bout the Banias core, but the better 2MB L2 Cache Dothan core.


http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=dothandesktop&page=11
Likewise, in gaming, the Pentium M "735" 1.7Ghz model (lowest one) is getting better frames in Doom3 than a Prescott 3.4Ghz (123.3 vs. 122.4). Even more suprising is that in Far Cry, the Pentium M 735 1.7Ghz gets higher frames than even the 3.4EE (extreme edition aka Xeon) >> 110.6 vs. 107.7

With those kind of numbers being produced by the Pentium M, I don't think a G4 is even marginally close. Only the G5 will be able to close in on those numbers.

The data you cite shows the 3.2 P4 to be 32% faster in photoshop than the PM 1.7 so if you apply this ratio to the G4 using Apples photoshop test... The G4 at 1.5Ghz is faster.

This quote from this link sums it up better: ( http://gflpraxis.no-ip.com/mvp-price.html )

"The Dell has a 1.6 GHz Pentium M, while the Mac has a 1.33 GHz G4. Note that the G4 is actually a desktop processor, but is energy efficient enough that the PowerBook can get up to 6 hours battery (more than almost any mobile processor except the Pentium M, although 4 hours would be more realistic if you have max screen brightness, wireless, and bluetooth all running). Being a desktop processor, and being a G4 (with the velocity engine, and doing more calculations per clock cycle), the G4 would outperform a 1.6 GHz Pentium 4. However, the Pentium M has double the cache of the Pentium 4 (giving it a performance boost over it) and has a faster bus than the G4. Actual speed difference? Difficult to say. I'd guestimate that they're about equal. The cache would give the Pentium M an edge in games if they have equivilant graphics cards, while the architecture of the G4 gives it a boost in video/photo editting. I declare a tie."

And he is comparing a 1.6PM to a 1.33G4...

The 2MB L2 is a huge help for the P4, there is still a 1.3 differential in flops. That is unchangeable.

[johnnyjibbs]

CaptainCaveMan, why not just go ahead and get that iBook? You've been ummming and aaaring about it for some time in several threads. Mac's aren't always quite as fast as PCs in raw speed, but they are not so much slower that it's worth getting the PC just for speed. The Mac has plenty of other useability and productivity advantages to warrant getting it over the PC, as edesignuk said at the start of this thread.

[justinshiding]

Dude, get the Mac. The 1.33 G4 IS faster than a 1.5 Pentium in every one of those apps. Clock for Clock a G4=1.3 P4's ... in most apps.

Also, OS X kicks ass over Winblows.. Mac's have a lot longer shelf life than winblows computers... thus their much higher re-sale value.

get the Mac and don't look back.


I agreed with everything you say....except for the part about the G4 being faster than the Pentium M....Especially the second generation of pentium M chips which (if i recall correctly) have 2mb of l2 cache (might have been l3 but im pretty sure it was 2.) They out preform p4's even though the p4 chips run at much higher clock speeds. Also, they get amazing battery life. They're actually VERY good chips...that being said I would go with the mac. They're prettier ;)

[HiRez]

Let me put it this way: I spent the whole last week on the road working on a 2.4 GHz Pentium PC as a primary machine for graphics in Photoshop and PowerPoint. While I got the job done, I was kicking myself the whole time for not bringing along my old 800 MHz PowerBook, because I know I could have gotten the job done in half the time on it. Not the processing speed, but interacting with the OS, trying to network two computers, waiting for virus scans, several crashes, etc. If they weren't paying me a lot of money to use them, there's no way I ever would. Trust me, get the Mac.

[UnixMac]

I agreed with everything you say....except for the part about the G4 being faster than the Pentium M....Especially the second generation of pentium M chips which (if i recall correctly) have 2mb of l2 cache (might have been l3 but im pretty sure it was 2.) They out preform p4's even though the p4 chips run at much higher clock speeds. Also, they get amazing battery life. They're actually VERY good chips...that being said I would go with the mac. They're prettier ;)

yeah, I don't know about the 2MB L2 version, I haven't kept up with the developments on this.. the original centrino I was told is a 1.3 ratio to the G4 with altivec coded software. This could be out of date info however.

[CaptainCaveMann]

CaptainCaveMan, why not just go ahead and get that iBook? You've been ummming and aaaring about it for some time in several threads. Mac's aren't always quite as fast as PCs in raw speed, but they are not so much slower that it's worth getting the PC just for speed. The Mac has plenty of other useability and productivity advantages to warrant getting it over the PC, as edesignuk said at the start of this thread.I know Johnny ive been carefully weighing options and spec and all the other stuff for a while now but im still waiting im gonna wait untill panther is standard on every mac laptop thats when im gonna buy

[zen_state]

I know Johnny ive been carefully weighing options and spec and all the other stuff for a while now but im still waiting im gonna wait untill panther is standard on every mac laptop thats when im gonna buy

panther has been standard on every mac for over a year man. I assume you mean tiger and that won't be for at least 3-4 months (maybe 4-6).

about the P4 vs G4 thing.. how can you even compare them in the first place when they are both so totally different and really have nothing in common other than the fact they are both cpu's.

macs serve one purpose and pc's serve another so you need to choose based on what purpose you need your laptop to serve. do you do things that would be better either way or are you more of a fence sitter user? most are.

the question is not what is faster but what you need. if you choose based only on speed you have a 50% chance of not being happy. its just like game consoles. different ones suit different people.

[UnixMac]

panther has been standard on every mac for over a year man. I assume you mean tiger and that won't be for at least 3-4 months (maybe 4-6).

about the P4 vs G4 thing.. how can you even compare them in the first place when they are both so totally different and really have nothing in common other than the fact they are both cpu's.

macs serve one purpose and pc's serve another so you need to choose based on what purpose you need your laptop to serve. do you do things that would be better either way or are you more of a fence sitter user? most are.

the question is not what is faster but what you need. if you choose based only on speed you have a 50% chance of not being happy. its just like game consoles. different ones suit different people.

This makes a lot of sense, cause speed is tied into a lot of variables like OS, Application coding, etc... so in a nutshell.. Get the Mac. OS X by itself is reason enough.

[Alexandernap]

I am new to Macs but I just replaced my IBM t40 Pent M 1.3 with a 1ghz iBook. I can tell you that comparitively my iBook seems much faster. Before I purchased it I was very concerned about the speed, being the low end of the line. I cannot believe how fast it is compared to the IBM. Games are probably about equal (my IBM had an ATI Radeon 7500 Otherwise I am sure the IBM would have been better). I do not use photoshop so I cannot answer that. The amazing w the iBook and OSX is how many programs you can have open at the same time without taking a hit in performance. I would not hesitate to purchase an iBook again. I assumed I would be taking a performance hit when I bought it, but I can say for what I use it for, it beats the IBM by about 10% and probably 30% with several programs open.

[UnixMac]

I am new to Macs but I just replaced my IBM t40 Pent M 1.3 with a 1ghz iBook. I can tell you that comparitively my iBook seems much faster. Before I purchased it I was very concerned about the speed, being the low end of the line. I cannot believe how fast it is compared to the IBM. Games are probably about equal (my IBM had an ATI Radeon 7500 Otherwise I am sure the IBM would have been better). I do not use photoshop so I cannot answer that. The amazing w the iBook and OSX is how many programs you can have open at the same time without taking a hit in performance. I would not hesitate to purchase an iBook again. I assumed I would be taking a performance hit when I bought it, but I can say for what I use it for, it beats the IBM by about 10% and probably 30% with several programs open.

Completely anecdotal but it makes my point, thanks.

[justinshiding]

yeah, I don't know about the 2MB L2 version, I haven't kept up with the developments on this.. the original centrino I was told is a 1.3 ratio to the G4 with altivec coded software. This could be out of date info however.


Yup , I checked, here's an example of one thats on newegg. 2mb of L2 cache...yummy

http://www.newegg.com/app/viewProductDesc.asp?description=34-115-167&depa=3

Also here's a tom's hardware review of the newer pentium M chips

http://www4.tomshardware.com/mobile/20040510/index.html

[Counterfit]

Dude, get the Mac. The 1.33 G4 IS faster than a 1.5 Pentium in every one of those apps. Clock for Clock a G4=1.3 P4's ... in most apps. Except a Pentium M isn't a Pentium 4. It's based on the Pentium 3, and much more efficient per clock cycle than a Pentium 4.

[CaptainCaveMann]

panther has been standard on every mac for over a year man. I assume you mean tiger and that won't be for at least 3-4 months (maybe 4-6).

about the P4 vs G4 thing.. how can you even compare them in the first place when they are both so totally different and really have nothing in common other than the fact they are both cpu's.

macs serve one purpose and pc's serve another so you need to choose based on what purpose you need your laptop to serve. do you do things that would be better either way or are you more of a fence sitter user? most are.

the question is not what is faster but what you need. if you choose based only on speed you have a 50% chance of not being happy. its just like game consoles. different ones suit different people.I meant tiger sorry