Performance Centrino vs G4

[Likvid]

I have looked everywhere for reliable shoot-outs between the G4 1.33GHz or even 1,42GHz and the Centrino 1,6 or 1,7GHz processors in Photoshop?

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

Does anyone have any links?

 

[patrick0brien]

Re: Performance Centrino vs G4

Originally posted by Likvid
I have looked everywhere for reliable shoot-outs between the G4 1.33GHz or even 1,42GHz and the Centrino 1,6 or 1,7GHz processors in Photoshop?

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

Does anyone have any links?

-Likvid

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

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

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

2. It's not noticeable faster.

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

4. The WiFi chip is not upgradeable.

Result:

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

 

[G3-Pwnz-G4]

ummm...centrino is intel's wireless internet thing. that's like comparing a P4 to airport.

 

[Chealion]

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

 

[G3-Pwnz-G4]

ahhh...my bad.

 

[patrick0brien]

-Gents

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

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

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

 

[Chealion]

Thanks for the complete clarification Patrick. I thought the processor was different from the P4M, guess I was wrong.

 

[Macpoops]

i was under the impression that the Pentium 4m was the power hog everyone complains about in a laptop. While Centrio is the term for the Pentium M proc with wireless lan card attached.

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

 

[patrick0brien]

Originally posted by Chealion
Thanks for the complete clarification Patrick. I thought the processor was different from the P4M, guess I was wrong.

-Chealion

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

Confused yet?

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

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

 

[Chealion]

Yeah I was right. (I believed it was the M, not the 4M).


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

 

[tpjunkie]

its typical sales bull so that they can market a chip that goes against the mhz myth they created

 

[Catfish_Man]

OK. to clear up some confusion:

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

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

 

[shadowfax]

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

 

[Macpoops]

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

 

[dongmin]

after 11 posts, and not 1 addressing the initial inquiry.

anways, according to this ars thread, the centrino 1.6 ghz comes in at around 250, PS7bench normalized score. The 1.0 ghz G4 PB 17" came in at 196. So if we say the performance increase is linear, the 1.25 ghz G4 should yield 245. I forget what architectural improvements there are with the new PBs but the reality shouldn't be that far off.

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

 

[shadowfax]

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

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

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

 

[dongmin]

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

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

 

[G3-Pwnz-G4]

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

dual 3ghz g5's...ahhhhhh....

 

[shadowfax]

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

 

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by G3-Pwnz-G4
dual 3ghz g5's...ahhhhhh....

even at .09 microns, in a laptop, that would turn your testicles into fried eggs stuck upside down to the pan that would be the bottom of your powerbook...

 

[G3-Pwnz-G4]

umm...pentium laptops already do that. my friend's dad has a dell with a p4m, and it gets HOT, not to mention pretty lousy battery times.

 

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by G3-Pwnz-G4
umm...pentium laptops already do that. my friend's dad has a dell with a p4m, and it gets HOT, not to mention pretty lousy battery times.

i'm not talking about the old implementation of speedstep, which was not very effective. but even then, it was a lot better than the chip would have been had it not had speedstep. i don't see your point...

 

[legion]

I'll answer the original inquiry...

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

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

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

 

[Macpoops]

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

 

[shadowfax]

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

i don't think so... panther is supposed to speed things up...