Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Is 1.6Ghz Centrino Faster or slower than 1GHz G4 Pbook?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Is 1.6Ghz Centrino Faster or slower than 1GHz G4 Pbook?

Originally posted by gopher
Umm...that author happens to be one of the formost authorities on why using a Mac is better. And believe it or not the G4 is much
better a CPU than most of Macrumors makes it out to be. I have not seen a Pentium that can hold a candle to my 800 Mhz G4. The software is so much easier to use on a Mac, I save time in the long run.
Click to expand...

OMFG! Gopher has been frozen in ice for two years!

Really, man, you need to relax. Apple/Moto fell behind. Any *reasonable* person can admit this. Deep breaths, deep breaths. Say it with me: "Bandwidth choked g4s can't keep pace with current p4s" There, that wasn't so bad, was it? Lets see how the g5s look when they hit the streets. Looking good now, so we can have hope, properly tempered by realism.

Its better for the platform in the long run it *we* (yes, I'm a mac fan) proponents are honest with others and, perhaps more importantly, ourselves.

Cheers,
prat
 
Here's my experience since April:

April - Take delivery of Dell Latitude D800 (1.6GHz Pentium-M, 768MB, 40GB, 802.11b+g). Gorgeous 1920x1200 pixel display, not one dead or stuck pixel. Very fast, could give my P4 2.6 desktop a run for it's money. Battery life was ~4 hours with active use, decent screen brightness, etc. The problem was, it was built like a piece of **** (specifically the keyboard was *very* flimsy). RMA'd to Dell after 3 weeks. :mad:

May - Take delivery of IBM Thinkpad T40p (1.6GHz Pentium-M, 1GB, 40GB, 802.11a+b). Display was OK, but nowhere close to the Dell's display in terms of viewing angle and contrast. Speed-wise, at least as good as the Dell, if not better. Built-in TCPA subsystem... hmmm. Battery life was an astounding 7 hours+ with active use (the T40p comes with the high-capacity battery). Built like a brick ****house. RMA'd to IBM after 2 weeks, only 'cause it would NOT run my VPN software - bummer. :( I really wanted to keep it.

June - Get Virtual PC 6 + Win2K, install on my good 'ole 667 PB, get my VPN client up and running. Of course, it runs more slowly than it did on the Dell, but at least it runs. :p The PB is also built like a brick ****house, and looks better than the IBM. Also, no trusted computing initiative bullsh1t. :D

Moral - I had what I needed all the time: my trusty Powerbook. Sure, the P-M's are faster - but that doesn't make up for all the aggravations, large and small, that accompany the use of a Windows computer (I even tried Red Hat 9 on the IBM, won't do THAT again). There is no substitute for the Mac experience.
 
the 1.3 pentium-m roughly equals a 2.3GHz P4, if they made one, and the 1.7 roughly equals a 3.1GHz, if they made one. This is comming from Voodoo computer, and they're very good at benchmarking, and they like AMD products, so I don't think they'd be biased.

Plus i work for Gateway, and that's what they tell us too... yea, i sell gateway's and i use a mac. What's that tell you about windows and pc;s?
 
Originally posted by mgargan1
the 1.3 pentium-m roughly equals a 2.3GHz P4, if they made one, and the 1.7 roughly equals a 3.1GHz, if they made one. This is comming from Voodoo computer, and they're very good at benchmarking, and they like AMD products, so I don't think they'd be biased.

Plus i work for Gateway, and that's what they tell us too... yea, i sell gateway's and i use a mac. What's that tell you about windows and pc;s?
Click to expand...


Exactly nothing. I sell satellite dishes and have cable in my house.
I guess, i'll have to go with Centrino, unless ofcourse the upgrade Pbooks at the end of july. Thanx for your responses people. I appreciate it.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is 1.6Ghz Centrino Faster or slower than 1GHz G4 Pbook?

Originally posted by praetorian_x
OMFG! Gopher has been frozen in ice for two years!

Really, man, you need to relax. Apple/Moto fell behind. Any *reasonable* person can admit this. Deep breaths, deep breaths. Say it with me: "Bandwidth choked g4s can't keep pace with current p4s" There, that wasn't so bad, was it? Lets see how the g5s look when they hit the streets. Looking good now, so we can have hope, properly tempered by realism.

Its better for the platform in the long run it *we* (yes, I'm a mac fan) proponents are honest with others and, perhaps more importantly, ourselves.

Cheers,
prat
Click to expand...

Frozen in ice for 2 years? Let's put it this way, you show me any software on the PC you think is faster, I'll find you a Mac program that will do it quicker.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is 1.6Ghz Centrino Faster or slower than 1GHz G4 Pbook?

Originally posted by gopher
Frozen in ice for 2 years? Let's put it this way, you show me any software on the PC you think is faster, I'll find you a Mac program that will do it quicker.
Click to expand...
folding, maya, lightwave, photoshop, actually probably every adobe app. windows.

iJon
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is 1.6Ghz Centrino Faster or slower than 1GHz G4 Pbook?

Originally posted by iJon
folding, maya, lightwave, photoshop, actually probably every adobe app. windows.

iJon
Click to expand...
any 3d game with comparable video card, logic 5.5 cubase sx, unreal 2003, cinema xl, native instruments
 
So what about the marketing bumf spouted about processing speed quotes? As a normal human being, any modern computer should be able tohandle one´s modest needs.

Probably not quite on topic, but I just had a couple of die-hard PC heads gawping in amazement at my "slow" 867 Mhz Powerbook. I was burning a disk while listening to the tracks through surround sound, surfing Google super fast and downloading two software programmes. I dont know how it did it, but when needed, the beachball stayed away. And they were amazed even though I was only burning at 8x and my Mac performance is soon to become outdated.

After a few months of Maccing, I couldnt give a monkeys how zippy a new PC opens, the speed it processes integers or whatever else the benchmark brigade want to quote. My PB with OSX is really fast with long haul multi tasking, a baby could operate it, its an inch thick weighs nothing, plays any DVD beautifully, all the way through with battery life to spare, and overall it looks a timeless million dollars. Oh yeah, and the AAPL shares I bought to show willing rose and are are holding even after the hype of WWDC.

Roll on September, or the time when there is nothing between the scientific and theoretical processor speed scores in either camp. Then people can get back to reality and judge computers by what they do for the average Joe in th e real world.

Meanwhile I am pretty sure one PC bod friend of mine is going to be taking a furtive, long slow walk around Apple stores and might even dare admit to being blown away by the next generation of goods on show. Can you believe he was going to buy a new PC and not connect to the internet just to make sure his office had at least one secure computer. And PCs are supposed to be a cheap option compared to Macintosh!
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is 1.6Ghz Centrino Faster or slower than 1GHz G4 Pbook?

Originally posted by iJon
folding, maya, lightwave, photoshop, actually probably every adobe app. windows.

iJon
Click to expand...

Sorry all those apps except Premier are faster on a G4.

And what do I need Premier for if I've got Final Cut Pro or Final Cut Express. Neither application is available on the PC.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is 1.6Ghz Centrino Faster or slower than 1GHz G4 Pbook?

Originally posted by gopher
Sorry all those apps except Premier are faster on a G4.

And what do I need Premier for if I've got Final Cut Pro or Final Cut Express. Neither application is available on the PC.
Click to expand...
i still dont believe it, apple fell behind long time ago. although i dont do folding anymore(may start back up soon) any one can tell you its faster on the pc. almost every game runs better on a pc. but i especially dont believe you on 3d rendering, with apple's lack of speed and quadro and fire cards. hopefully someone who does this for a living can tell us who is right, and i will gladly take back my words, i just dont feel the g4 can compete.

iJon
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is 1.6Ghz Centrino Faster or slower than 1GHz G4 Pbook?

Originally posted by daveg5
any 3d game with comparable video card, logic 5.5 cubase sx, unreal 2003, cinema xl, native instruments
Click to expand...

3d games, granted some appear on the PC first, but by the time the good ones get to the Mac they have been optimized for the Mac. With all these games who needs more?

<http://www.apple.com/games/>
<http://www.macgamer.com/features/futurereleases/index.php>
<http://www.macgamer.com/>
<http://www.macgamefiles.com/>
<http://www.aspyr.com/>
<http://www.gamedb.com/ssps/0/0>
<http://www.idevgames.com/>
<http://www.insidemacgames.com/news/>
<http://www.versiontracker.com/macosx/games>
<http://www.versiontracker.com/macos/games>
<http://www.macupdate.com/games.php>
<http://hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/HyperArchive/Abstracts/game/HyperArchive.html>

By the way, I just got Simcity 4, and wow, what a nice job they did with that.

And if you really want games, get a game machine, they are faster than desktop or laptop machines out there. The true processing speed on a Playstation, Sega, or Xbox is much higher than a home computer. The reason is for some reason gamers never seem to be satisfied with speeds, and that's where the market gets speed first.

As for audio applications, I wonder why so many sound studios use Macs?

http://www.apple.com/pro/index/index.html#promusic

Same with video:

http://www.apple.com/pro/index/index.html#provideo

Hrmm...it isn't as if the Mac doesn't have the tools. I have not seen a case where there is something you can't do on a Mac what you can do on a PC. And the Mac makes it easier and faster. Even with a G4.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is 1.6Ghz Centrino Faster or slower than 1GHz G4 Pbook?

Originally posted by gopher
3d games, granted some appear on the PC first, but by the time the good ones get to the Mac they have been optimized for the Mac. With all these games who needs more?

<http://www.apple.com/games/>
<http://www.macgamer.com/features/futurereleases/index.php>
<http://www.macgamer.com/>
<http://www.macgamefiles.com/>
<http://www.aspyr.com/>
<http://www.gamedb.com/ssps/0/0>
<http://www.idevgames.com/>
<http://www.insidemacgames.com/news/>
<http://www.versiontracker.com/macosx/games>
<http://www.versiontracker.com/macos/games>
<http://www.macupdate.com/games.php>
<http://hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/HyperArchive/Abstracts/game/HyperArchive.html>

By the way, I just got Simcity 4, and wow, what a nice job they did with that.

And if you really want games, get a game machine, they are faster than desktop or laptop machines out there. The true processing speed on a Playstation, Sega, or Xbox is much higher than a home computer. The reason is for some reason gamers never seem to be satisfied with speeds, and that's where the market gets speed first.
Click to expand...
sorry to break it to you, but thats probably less than half of all the great games the pc has. anybody cant deny it. apple's arent great gaming machines, but thats beyond the point. describe gaming machine, i have a desktop gaming machine that cost half of my powermac, and it plays the hell out of my games.

iJon
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is 1.6Ghz Centrino Faster or slower than 1GHz

Originally posted by iJon
sorry to break it to you, but thats probably less than half of all the great games the pc has. anybody cant deny it. apple's arent great gaming machines, but thats beyond the point. describe gaming machine, i have a desktop gaming machine that cost half of my powermac, and it plays the hell out of my games.

iJon
Click to expand...

Sorry to break it to you, but your grammar is lousy. "Anybody can't deny it?" If your argument is that my statement is deniable you negated your own argument. Secondly, half those PC games are buggy and worthless. The vast majority of the quality games get on the Mac.

I suggest you look through those links I gave you and find games that let you play what you want to play. They are out there and available for the Mac in one fashion or another. Some may have different titles, but the strategy is the same and the fun is the same.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is 1.6Ghz Centrino Faster or slower than 1GHz

Originally posted by gopher
Sorry to break it to you, but your grammar is lousy. "Anybody can't deny it?" If your argument is that my statement is deniable you negated your own argument. Secondly, half those PC games are buggy and worthless. The vast majority of the quality games get on the Mac.

I suggest you look through those links I gave you and find games that let you play what you want to play. They are out there and available for the Mac in one fashion or another. Some may have different titles, but the strategy is the same and the fun is the same.
Click to expand...
sorry english teacher. well you go through your links and find me battlefield 1942, planetside, splinter cell. raven shield, enter the matrix, postal 2, star wars galaxies, star wars republic, grand theft auto, freelancer, vice city, metal gear 2, command and conquer, delta force, and ah yes, half life 2. everyone knows the mac isnt a gaming machine. also can you get me eax sound technology as well as some high end video cards i can buy. metal of honor, enigmo, and sims just cant cut it anymore.

iJon
 
English teacher you can't justified medal of honor and games like that man they don't make good games for the macs cuz macs are more graphics and on that games are worthless well i guess the Billions they make on games and the millions of people who play them every day are stupid, i think your opinion counts for anything but get out of the stone age and get updated on whats cracing in the gaming indistry.

Avkash
 
more graphics as like if you are a design engineer or whatever. pluse 80 percent of the world has windows pc's im not saying windows is better just stating the fact that they could make more money on windows based games then on mac. i could be wronge but it makes sense
 
basically before this gets out of hand ill have my final statment because i hate getting flame wars goign on here, it just leads the threads being closed. i dont look at the macintosh as a gaming platform, all for the same reasons i dont look at at windows machine as a video or sound editing platform. we do get many games, many of them are the top games. but with a lack of some of the very high end and top games that are shown at e3 (the games i wrote above). apple is getting better and but there not close yet to make an impact. apple really needs to get in connections with these people. i know aspyr is doing a wonderful job of dual porting games like elite force and a lof of the tony hawk and those types of pro games. i really do macs had more games because i would like to have just one machine and i lose many potential computer sales just on the fact we dont have the games. these are my opinions and i like to think that many gamers out there agree with me. and by the way, dont play grammer teacher online, nobody appreciates it, it just gets annoying. nobody watches their grammer online.

iJon
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is 1.6Ghz Centrino Faster or slower than 1GHz G4 Pbook?

Originally posted by gopher
Sorry all those apps except Premier are faster on a G4.

And what do I need Premier for if I've got Final Cut Pro or Final Cut Express. Neither application is available on the PC.
Click to expand...

Look at the powermac review done by Ace's Hardware, Lightwave is clearly significantly faster on a Pentium 4 than a Dual G4 even though Lightwave is well threaded and Altivec optimized (as well as having SSE2 optimizations). Look at Photoshop scores done by Digital Video Editing and Barefeats, apparently the Pentium 4 is also faster in Photoshop, and I know for a fact that it's faster in Maya 4, Seti@home, and Folding. It's faster for pretty much every game, which I believe is one of the best measures of core performance under conditions. It's faster in real world benchmarks, synthetic benchmarks, standard benchmarks and pretty much anything else I've left out.

Come on, the G4 itself is a entire micron process generation behind the current P4s, Athlons, and G5s. It's using a antique system bus thats actually seriously outpaced by the memory, it's FPU and multiple ALUs are nothing compared with the superscalar FPUs seen in the Athlons and G5s or the dual double pumped ALUs seen in the Pentium 4. The advantages it has over the Pentium 4 in pipeline are largely blunted by the Pentium 4's superior branch prediction and optimizations that lessen it's mispredict penalty and we're not even beginning to talk about clock rates. What does that leave us with? Altivec, thats basically all it has left over the Pentium 4 or Athlon.

As most of you have probably figured from my previous paragraph, the G5 changes much of this, the extremely fast FSB takes away the memory bottleneck and will improve performance significantly in nearly every application. Dual Double Precision FPUs takes away any disadvantage from a relatively weak FPU that can only issue one FP instruction every clock cycle, performance on integer code has obviously substantially improved looking at the SPECmarks, and apparently it can also scale alot higher personally, I think we're back in the game although we'll have to wait to see if it's the "fastest desktop computer in the world".
 
The G4 is behind the G5s, but I will stand by my statement it is not behind the Pentium IVs that currently are out there or the AMDs that currently are out there. RISC, Altivec, L3 cache, fewer stages all play an important roll in making the G4 a better processor than what the PC world has. The chip is more efficiently designed than either Pentium or AMD and thus you'll find a G4 in notebooks of a reasonable weight (between 4.6 and 7 lbs) and it still is the full G4. The question that started this thread is if the G4 Powerbook is faster or slower than the Centrino, it definitely is faster than the Centrino at most tasks, except those few tasks that have perfect code that are strictly tied to processor tasks per clock cycle. You aren't going to find perfect code, except those few benchmarks that just throw at it strict calculator functions like those Spec benchmarks Pentium users are so proud of. The stages of the Pentium are way too many to diagnose imperfect code and get the processing off the chip soon enough to beat the G4. Where the G4 lacks in bus speed, it has better in its cache, RISC, and a smaller more efficient dye. The G4 may at times exceed a machine 3 times its Mhz speed on the PC side thanks to all the advantages it enjoys. The only reason some programs don't appear to be faster on the G4 is that the programmers who wrote the code didn't take sufficient care to optimize their code for the processor. You should contact the developers of those packages and tell them you'll buy a comptetitor's software unless they start making more efficient software for the Mac.

I'm through with arguing. Go back and read my prior posts on this board where I have repeatedly given you the same statements, and obviously you just believe that PCs are faster for whatever your trollish (a made up word with obvious meaning) reasons are.
 
Originally posted by gopher
The G4 is behind the G5s, but I will stand by my statement it is not behind the Pentium IVs that currently are out there or the AMDs that currently are out there. RISC, Altivec, L3 cache, fewer stages all play an important roll in making the G4 a better processor than what the PC world has. The chip is more efficiently designed than either Pentium or AMD and thus you'll find a G4 in notebooks of a reasonable weight (between 4.6 and 7 lbs) and it still is the full G4. The question that started this thread is if the G4 Powerbook is faster or slower than the Centrino, it definitely is faster than the Centrino at most tasks, except those few tasks that have perfect code that are strictly tied to processor tasks per clock cycle. You aren't going to find perfect code, except those few benchmarks that just throw at it strict calculator functions like those Spec benchmarks Pentium users are so proud of. The stages of the Pentium are way too many to diagnose imperfect code and get the processing off the chip soon enough to beat the G4. Where the G4 lacks in bus speed, it has better in its cache, RISC, and a smaller more efficient dye. The G4 may at times exceed a machine 3 times its Mhz speed on the PC side thanks to all the advantages it enjoys. The only reason some programs don't appear to be faster on the G4 is that the programmers who wrote the code didn't take sufficient care to optimize their code for the processor. You should contact the developers of those packages and tell them you'll buy a comptetitor's software unless they start making more efficient software for the Mac.

I'm through with arguing. Go back and read my prior posts on this board where I have repeatedly given you the same statements, and obviously you just believe that PCs are faster for whatever your trollish (a made up word with obvious meaning) reasons are.
Click to expand...


Gopher, shut it already. You are fighting a losing war. Like 30 people told you G4s are slower than P4s. You obviously are a fanboy in a serious denial.
And don't tell me that best games are made for mac, bacause this just cracks me up.
Macs are good machines and have own advantages, but dont cross the line of truth and facts and move to false assumptions based on personal bias.
 
Originally posted by Rezet
Gopher, shut it already. You are fighting a losing war. Like 30 people told you G4s are slower than P4s. You obviously are a fanboy in a serious denial.
And don't tell me that best games are made for mac, bacause this just cracks me up.
Macs are good machines and have own advantages, but dont cross the line of truth and facts and move to false assumptions based on personal bias.
Click to expand...

Well said.
 
Gopher facts, not fiction.... :D

Seriously, I think the quickest dual G4 is maybe competitive with a 2.2 GHz P4 at this point. Plenty fast for anything I have to do (heck, I'm still running a beige G3 at home) and I plan on hooking up with at least a 600 MHz G4 once Panther comes out as my G3 will no longer be supported.
 
Originally posted by gopher
The G4 is behind the G5s, but I will stand by my statement it is not behind the Pentium IVs that currently are out there or the AMDs that currently are out there. RISC, Altivec, L3 cache, fewer stages all play an important roll in making the G4 a better processor than what the PC world has (etc etc)
Click to expand...

It's quite amusing you should mention those things considering the G5's 16 stage pipeline is nearly as long as the Pentium 4's and considerably longer than the G4's, and it also has no L3 cache. According to your logic, the G4 should royally trounce the G5 as well. Come now Gopher, your contradicting yourself.

Also the current P4's and Athlons are largely RISC chips with only one external CISC layer and their respective cores are formed from RISC designs.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is 1.6Ghz Centrino Faster or slower t

Originally posted by iJon
sorry english teacher. well you go through your links and find me battlefield 1942, planetside, splinter cell. raven shield, enter the matrix, postal 2, star wars galaxies, star wars republic, grand theft auto, freelancer, vice city, metal gear 2, command and conquer, delta force, and ah yes, half life 2. everyone knows the mac isnt a gaming machine. also can you get me eax sound technology as well as some high end video cards i can buy. metal of honor, enigmo, and sims just cant cut it anymore.

iJon
Click to expand...

Well i guess with all the bad grammar and so on flying around, i guess i will try my broken english.

So the Mac is not a gaming machine and you have a gaming machine on your desktop that is half the price of a powermac. Good for you. Good for Mac. Although I play a few games on my mac, i have no problem with it, run atleast as smooth as PCs of 2.5 the speed etc, but I don't have a mac to play games. And I am glad mac isn't known as gaming platform, we would end up with all the cheap PC based hardware and software crap. Granted I would like to see a few more games on the Mac, and I am sure they will come. but it is not something that is going to make me run out and buy a PC. Worst come to worst i will go buy a console which is 1/20th of the price of high end PC gaming machines.
Why is it that PC heads rip mac heads over the willingness to spend 20% more cash on our machines, and yet there are pc heads that spend $6-9000 (yes that is thousands) to buy custom PCs solely for gaming. go buy a console and a few hundred games instead.
Or get a life.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back