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

Discussion in 'Macintosh Computers' started by Soc7777777, May 29, 2004.

  1. Soc7777777 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2004
    #1
    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'
     
  2. Soc7777777 thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2004
    #2
    oh yeah...

    i think ibooks are a good deal and offer good performance for the price...
     
  3. wide macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 17, 2004
    Location:
    NYC
    #3
    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).
     
  4. musicpyrite macrumors 68000

    musicpyrite

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Location:
    Cape Cod
    #4
    You are aware that clock cycles have nothing to do with the speed of the computer right? ;)
     
  5. QCassidy352 macrumors G3

    QCassidy352

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2003
    Location:
    Bay Area
    #5
    PC laptops are faster, no question. I agree - apple should use a processor designed for laptops from the ground up.
     
  6. Mav451 macrumors 68000

    Mav451

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2003
    Location:
    Maryland
    #6
    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.
     
  7. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #7
    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?
     
  8. wrldwzrd89 macrumors G5

    wrldwzrd89

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2003
    Location:
    Solon, OH
    #8
    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.
     
  9. johnnyjibbs macrumors 68030

    johnnyjibbs

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2003
    Location:
    London, UK
    #9
    Thanks for that link, it was an interesting read.

    I can feel happier about my 1GHz G4 now!
     
  10. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #10
    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
     
  11. Jonathan Amend macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2003
    Location:
    Montreal, Canada
    #11
    I'm guessing you didn't know this, but the Pentium M is just the continuation of the good old Pentium 3.
     
  12. dopefiend macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 6, 2004
    #12
    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.
     
  13. Jonathan Amend macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2003
    Location:
    Montreal, Canada
    #13
    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.
     
  14. wide macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 17, 2004
    Location:
    NYC
    #14
    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...
     
  15. wide macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 17, 2004
    Location:
    NYC
    #15
    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!
     
  16. Jonathan Amend macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2003
    Location:
    Montreal, Canada
    #16
    I'm not saying that it wasn't designed for mobile applications, but it was based on the Pentium 3.
     
  17. Mord macrumors G4

    Mord

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2003
    Location:
    UK
    #18
    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
     
  18. wide macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 17, 2004
    Location:
    NYC
    #19
    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).
     
  19. Mord macrumors G4

    Mord

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2003
    Location:
    UK
    #20
    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)
     
  20. wide macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 17, 2004
    Location:
    NYC
    #21
    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!

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

    PS: Freescale Semiconductor's 2003 sales were $4.9 billion (USD).
     
  21. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #22

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


    Lethal
     
  22. Fukui macrumors 68000

    Fukui

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2002
    #23
    We used too!!!
     
  23. Koodauw macrumors 68040

    Koodauw

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2003
    Location:
    Madison
    #24
    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
     
  24. Bigheadache macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2004
    #25
    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.
     

Share This Page