Macbook pro 1.83Ghz faster than Dual 1.25Ghz G4?

Discussion in 'Buying Tips and Advice' started by Wano, Jan 11, 2006.

  1. Wano macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2002
    #1
    I have a dual 1.25ghz G4 that I am thinking of selling and getting a macbook pro. Will the macbook pro be faster than the G4?
     
  2. spinne1 macrumors 6502a

    spinne1

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2005
    Location:
    Hermitage, TN USA (near Nashville)
    #2
    Without any benchmarks to measure with, how would anyone (outside of Apple) know?
     
  3. Toreador93 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2003
    #3
    If you're that worried, I would say wait for benchmarks. But with the information we've been provided (cracked OSX running faster on PCs, Pentium M being faster per clock than G4, etc), I would say the MacBook will be much faster at most things.
     
  4. Koodauw macrumors 68040

    Koodauw

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2003
    Location:
    Madison
    #4
    Didn't you watch the Keynote, those Safari pages loaded like.... instantly. ;)
     
  5. Chundles macrumors G4

    Chundles

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2005
    #5
    I'm just going to say "Yes."

    No inside info or industry knowledge, just a broad "Yes."
     
  6. Josh396 macrumors 65816

    Josh396

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2004
    Location:
    Peoria/Chicago, IL
    #6
    Well Steve Jobs said during the Keynote that a single core in the Intel Duo 2.0 in the new iMacs was faster then 2.1 Ghz G5. My guess would be that it should be much faster as long as the software you're using is running at full speed. If it's as fast as Apple is making it out (especially the test comparing it to the old G4 Powerbooks), then I would imagine it should run as well or better under Rosetta too. But you may want to wait to see some of these under benchmarks to make sure.
     
  7. Daveway macrumors 68040

    Daveway

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2004
    Location:
    New Orleans / Lafayette, La
    #7
    Considering Apple's claims. The new mac could be 2-3x faster than a DP 1.25G4.
     
  8. iWho? macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2006
    #8
    well, it depends. Mac seems like they don't release important info on these new intels processors.

    so, if these "Duos" are the same as the Pentium Ds, they are basicaly a joke. Intel messed up with the netburst architecture. The Pentium EE was beat by the X2 3800+ in most benchmarks, and the X2 3800+ is 1/4 the price. However, if the Duo uses the new Yonah core, it is almost equal to the X2 3800+, but again, more expensive. With the Yonah core, Intel shortened the pipeline and lowered the clock, resulting in a more efficiant processor. Because the clocks on the Duo are significantly lower than the Pentium D, I am guessing the Duo is a Yonah core. This means that while it's a big increase from the older G4s, I wouldn't say it is worth the high price that is being charged.

    Since PPC is out the window, the only contenders are AMD and Intel. Until Intel can get their act together and make a comparable processor to the ones AMD has out, i see no reason to spend $2000 on a new computer.
     
  9. CanadaRAM macrumors G5

    CanadaRAM

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2004
    Location:
    On the Left Coast - Victoria BC Canada
    #9
    Doing some things. Maybe.
     
  10. topicolo macrumors 68000

    topicolo

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2002
    Location:
    Ottawa, ON
    #10
    It has already be established on many pc hardware sites (Anandtech even did benchmarks of the Core Duos) that the new macbook processor is the yonah.
     
  11. Daveway macrumors 68040

    Daveway

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2004
    Location:
    New Orleans / Lafayette, La
    #11
    But, of course.:)
     
  12. iWho? macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2006
    #12
  13. gusanitoverde macrumors 6502

    gusanitoverde

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2003
    Location:
    Northern California
    #13
    What about my Machine?

    I have a powermac Dual 1.42 Last generation G4. Beautiful and faithful machine. Should I ever get rid of it for the new intel Macs?

    Thanks.:confused:
     
  14. Toreador93 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2003
    #14
    Get rid of it when you need more power, and all software you use is fully supported/transitioned. If that means you can wait for a generation or two, better for you :)
     
  15. erkanasu macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2006
    #15
    what if you dont even own a mac yet? the macbook pro being the possible first. then do you buy?
     
  16. eXan macrumors 601

    eXan

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2005
    Location:
    Russia
    #16
    Keep it, unless someone has a gun pointed at your head. 1.42 is a pretty powerful machine, cuz it has 2 Mb L3 cache. Wait a couple generations of Mac Pro (PowerMac), then buy.

    Just remember, your machine doesn't get any slower when new generation of computers come out.
     
  17. MRU macrumors demi-god

    MRU

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2005
    Location:
    Ireland
    #17
    No-one is going to be able to tell us how fast these machines truly are for day to day tasks until universal binary updates to all our software is released.

    However I'd be as shocked as hell if the new mac's weren't faster than the existing PowerPC range (excluding the dual-core G5's, which I think they'll probably have similar performance - 1.83 duo core to 2Gh dual core G5, 2ghz Duo core - 2.3 Dual Core G5)...

    I don't mind risking it and being a test bed, afterall that's what Apple Care is for, and my previous hardware wasn't exactly perfect...

    My Dual 1.8Ghz G5 had one of the processors die a month after purchase...
    My Hi-Res 15" PB 1.67 had the poor (line ridden) screen and battery life faults..

    How much of a risk is it going to be???
     
  18. Mitthrawnuruodo Moderator emeritus

    Mitthrawnuruodo

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2004
    Location:
    Bergen, Norway
    #18
    If both the MacBook and PowerBook are fitted with 7200RPM HDs, and you haven't got a monster graphics card in the PowerMac**, then I would guess yes.

    Faster CPU + (much) faster bus + new GPU** = Faster! :)

    But if all that will be wasted on Rosetta until whatever apps you normally use goes Universal, that's anybody's guess... ;)
     
  19. jadekitty24 macrumors 65816

    jadekitty24

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2005
    Location:
    The poor section of Connecticut
    #19
    You're asking if a G4 1.83Ghz will be faster than a G4 1.25Ghz? Uhhhhh....
     
  20. Photorun macrumors 65816

    Photorun

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2003
    Location:
    NYC
    #20
    I recently just upgraded a G4 533 (Sawtooth) to a PowerLogix 1.4, even at 533 using Tiger it was "snappy," it's now "snappier" and like another poster said, with the big cache the G4s had, quite adequate machine. I own a G5 2.0 DP and the G4 for many tasks isn't far behind at all, if not almost even (just eyeballing it) in some tasks. For day to day stuff (Mail, Firefox, etc.) the speed differences just wouldn't be enough to matter. Depends on what you're doing with it.

    A computer is a tool for a job, the G4 1.25 DP is a mighty fine tool.

    That being said, the 1.83 is a dual core chip, it has potential do be a monster but realize, until much software is coded to take advantage of this we won't know how big a monster. The the 667 MHz busses and RAM in the Macbook, any native Intel apps will, in fact, be faster than your current G4. OS X, iLife, and anything else, will run appreciably faster. As someone noted upthread, non-native apps are the big thinker. Adobe Apps gamble will be how well Rosetta really does work, as would others. Hints have it that processor intensive apps suffer the most, so video and audio take the biggest hit in Rosetta. To wit, a developer I'm well acquainted with did a test on his Apple leased Intel machine six months ago, Photoshop bogged terribly on a filter test but Dreamweaver (which is so much more text/line based) had very little hit performance-wise through Rosetta.

    I too will be buying a Macbook, this year, but only when Apple stops being cheap and maximizing their profits by putting slower chips in there (the 2.0, and 2.13 Yonah chips are out, Acer is using them, Apple bought the cheaper slower ones so they could screw new adopters for maximum profits). I'm waiting for 2.0 just for geeky aesthetic, bragging rights, and my own stupid "I own a 2 GHz machine now and don't go backwards" even though the "GHz myth" is, in fact, in part, truly that... a myth. Processors, busses, the software and OS that's running on them and hundreds of other factors actually equal speed, NOT the MHz. An analogy: a four cylinder Porsche can dust an eight cylinder (cheesy) Camaro handily despite the (cheesy) Camaro having twice the cylinders and more technical displacement.
     
  21. Photorun macrumors 65816

    Photorun

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2003
    Location:
    NYC
    #21
    Definitely!
     
  22. huck500 macrumors 6502

    huck500

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Location:
    Southern California
    #22
    That's nowhere near what he or she asked...



    >Macbook pro 1.83Ghz faster than Dual 1.25Ghz G4?

    You'll have to wait a bit for a real answer...I'll guess a little faster with Rosetta, a lot with native apps.
     
  23. whooleytoo macrumors 603

    whooleytoo

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2002
    Location:
    Cork, Ireland.
    #23
    There is nothing in this world more useless than an Apple performance benchmark. Every company will bias tests to suit themselves, but Apple seems to take this to a whole new level.

    From completely ambiguous (what were the units on the "Performance per Watt" chart? How did they measure them?) to downright disingenuous (Infoworld have already debunked Apple's SPEC ratings for the Intel machines - Apple used the SPEC tests intended to compare multi-processor machines, thus putting the old iMacs & PowerBooks at an immediate and unfair disadvantage to make the new machines look good).

    Wait until the first sites start doing hands-on reviews, then decide.
     
  24. QCassidy352 macrumors G3

    QCassidy352

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2003
    Location:
    Bay Area
    #24
    if the macbook isn't significantly faster than a 3 year old desktop, then wth are we all getting so excited over? :confused:

    maybe it won't be a *huge* gap until the apps are all native, but it should be a lot faster, yes.
     
  25. Sunrunner macrumors 6502a

    Sunrunner

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2003
    #25

    The big break point for buying a new computer in this current evolution is the point at which the "universal binaries" begin to weigh too heavily on the system. Thats when you know when to upgrade.

    As for me, I usually upgrade when games start coming out with recommended specs that exceed whatever is on my desk... usually seems to work out about right.
     

Share This Page