Re: Re: Re: I've fallen to the temptation of the dark side
Originally posted by TMJ1974
Ummm...not quite. The 1.4 Centrino would be compared with the PowerBook. The Centrino has 400Mhz FSB, the PowerBook is 167Mhz, the iBook is still at 100Mhz. Pentium M's in Centrino notebooks support SSE2, and outperform their P4 brothers. The G3 doesn't support the Apple equivalent, AltiVec. The Pentium M has 1MB L2 cache on all models. I didn't buy the 12" PowerBook because Apple was cheap and cut the L3 cache.
and
This is as bad as something a wintel fanboy would say about a Mac. Centrino DESTROYS ANY IBOOK OR POWERBOOK. Clock for clock it is faster than the Athlon.
Please get your facts straight.
I am going to pit my dual G4 against my 1.6GHz notebook tonight in some benchmarks - games I think. Surely the G4 will beat the crap out of a single CPU system with an inferior video card and half as much RAM. Right?
OK. OK. Unlike some "fanboys" out there, I'll own up to the fact that I may have been wrong. Every store model Centrino I've seen has been QUITE slow, and their battery life specs are only now approaching what Apple's had for years... add to that the infamous Intel Hype Machine (which has stated that "the Pentium 4 is the only way to experience the internet", "the Pentium 4 processor is the only choice for video and 3D" and "Intel's mobile technology allows for new cutting-edge wireless internet access" (cutting edge? Um, 1999, anyone?)... based on these, I've held the Centrino in low favor for quite some time.
Perhaps I was wrong. I'm willing to admit that.
Thanks TMJ for a very informative post. I don't like to be in the dark about any technology--Mac or PC--and that helped put it in perspective. (I've never said the G3 was a speed machine either.. quite the opposite, but I assumed that was also true of Centrino)
Lewdvig, do you have anything to back up the fact that it's "faster than an Athlon"? I find that rather difficult to believe--why not use them in more desktops, then? Surely we could do better than 900-watt towers (the ones at my school)...
Also, PLEASE stop using games as a test of computer performance. It's just not fair! Windows games get every tweak, every optimization, and the most current drivers. Mac users get bad ports, crappy drivers, and no tweaks at all. It's ridiculous. The only game (sadly) that really is optimized on every machine out there, that I know of, is still Quake III, much as I hate to admit it. But even with Quake the video card drivers give it ridiculous framerates... so who knows.
You're welcome to benchmark, and I would think the dual with a better card and twice the RAM will probably be better than the PC (even as optimized as the game might be), but this isn't a very good test of anything except that games are written for Windows...
