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

[iJon]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is 1.6Ghz Centrino Faster or slower t

Originally posted by Rasmuskl
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.

get a life, i do have a life. thanks though. i sell these machines everyday so I know enough that the lack of games is a serious issue after apple. it may not be the target market for apple, but it does break alot of sales when they learn their favorite game isnt on the mac. where did you get 6-9000 dollars from. i built my pc for 1000, and its still more powerful than my powermac, although i dont like it as much. and about the consoles, i do own them. i have a gamecube, xbox, and a ps2. and i own those for the same reason i own my pc, the games i play on my console arent on pc. my pc and game consoles are strictly for games. and my mac is for final cut, photoshop, music, golive, yada yada yada and every other thing that makes my mac and my life productive.

iJon

 

[jayscheuerle]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is 1.6Ghz Centrino Faster or slower t

Originally posted by Rasmuskl
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.

PC heads rip Mac zealots because the choice of a Mac is often a subjective choice, one that cannot be explained in terms of MHz or $$, objective specs that they can relate to and compare.

It's as though they're choosing a wife based on her measurements while a Mac user is more interested in personality (ignoring the fact that Macs look better anyways).

As my wife has often said to me in terms of her Grateful Dead fascination, I just don't "get it". And the same can be said about PC users and the Mac platform.

Applications are like destinations- they're pretty much the same when you get there, but it's the ride to the destination that the OS provides, and chances are you'll be spending a lot of time behind the wheel.

What's your vehicle, baby?

 

[XnavxeMiyyep]

Ok, so the G4 loses most benchmarks. That means that for running individual applications, Pentium 4's are faster. However, have you ever tried running 12 applications on Pentium 4's? That's where the G4 is faster, in multitasking, mainly because they are all Dual Processors.

 

[jayscheuerle]

Originally posted by XnavxeMiyyep
Ok, so the G4 loses most benchmarks. That means that for running individual applications, Pentium 4's are faster. However, have you ever tried running 12 applications on Pentium 4's? That's where the G4 is faster, in multitasking, mainly because they are all Dual Processors.

Have you ever heard of a P4 machine needing 500 megs of RAM to be usable?

That's probably the biggest factor in how many apps you can have open and running at the same time.

 

[Rasmuskl]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is 1.6Ghz Centrino Faster or

Originally posted by iJon
get a life, i do have a life. thanks though. i sell these machines everyday so I know enough that the lack of games is a serious issue after apple. it may not be the target market for apple, but it does break alot of sales when they learn their favorite game isnt on the mac. where did you get 6-9000 dollars from. i built my pc for 1000, and its still more powerful than my powermac, although i dont like it as much. and about the consoles, i do own them. i have a gamecube, xbox, and a ps2. and i own those for the same reason i own my pc, the games i play on my console arent on pc. my pc and game consoles are strictly for games. and my mac is for final cut, photoshop, music, golive, yada yada yada and every other thing that makes my mac and my life productive.

iJon

Ijon

I am not that much of a PC head so don't flame me if i get it wrong, but there are several companies out there that makes and sell game computers and almost solely game computers (Falcom something or the other, something north west and some more).

Also I am not trying to judge you but when you have three game consoles and a PCs solely for gaming, you come across as person without a life.
But if you say you have one, i believe you, who am i to argue, I don't know you. And have been acused myself of needing a life because of my hobbies.

So to get back on the thread. I believe that PCs are faster than Macs to this extent. A 3.2 ghz pc is going to be faster than a 1 ghz mac. But i think that when you talk about the G5 you can equivelate a 1.6 G5 to atleast a 2ghz P4 and a dual G5 i believe is faster (at most actions) than any PC processor out there. They are different chips and most knowledgable Tech heads will state that Intel especially makes worse and worse chips. Although the clock speed is increased the overall speed of the chip decreases. It was seen in the PII to the PIII and again in the PIII to the P4 and I think that is why Intel are know selling "low" clock speeds in the Centrino and Itanium.

 

[XnavxeMiyyep]

Originally posted by jayscheuerle
Have you ever heard of a P4 machine needing 500 megs of RAM to be usable?

That's probably the biggest factor in how many apps you can have open and running at the same time.

Yes, but once you get above 512 MB of RAM, OS X takes advantage of the RAM and uses it for multitasking better than Windows. (I don't know much about Linux, but it can't run Adobe apps anyway, so I don't know how it could really be compared.)

 

[jayscheuerle]

Originally posted by XnavxeMiyyep
Yes, but once you get above 512 MB of RAM, OS X takes advantage of the RAM and uses it for multitasking better than Windows. (I don't know much about Linux, but it can't run Adobe apps anyway, so I don't know how it could really be compared.)

And yet Apple continues to sell their machines with 64 MB RAM standard.

Heck, 256 is a joke! Any system running OSX should ship with a single 512 MB chip installed...

Truthfully, my knowledge of Windoze is blissfully limited. Ignorance is bliss in this case...

 

[iJon]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is 1.6Ghz Centrino Faster or

Originally posted by Rasmuskl
Ijon

I am not that much of a PC head so don't flame me if i get it wrong, but there are several companies out there that makes and sell game computers and almost solely game computers (Falcom something or the other, something north west and some more).

Also I am not trying to judge you but when you have three game consoles and a PCs solely for gaming, you come across as person without a life.
But if you say you have one, i believe you, who am i to argue, I don't know you. And have been acused myself of needing a life because of my hobbies.

So to get back on the thread. I believe that PCs are faster than Macs to this extent. A 3.2 ghz pc is going to be faster than a 1 ghz mac. But i think that when you talk about the G5 you can equivelate a 1.6 G5 to atleast a 2ghz P4 and a dual G5 i believe is faster (at most actions) than any PC processor out there. They are different chips and most knowledgable Tech heads will state that Intel especially makes worse and worse chips. Although the clock speed is increased the overall speed of the chip decreases. It was seen in the PII to the PIII and again in the PIII to the P4 and I think that is why Intel are know selling "low" clock speeds in the Centrino and Itanium.

what can i say, im a teenager with a job and money to buy what i want. although i dont play my game systems as much as i used to, i have theme because they are cheap and they are fun when the time comes. dont get me wrong, games is not all i do. but sometimes i just like to kick back and play some madden or zelda of some sort. most of my time is spent with my job and doing actual benificial things for my life. personally i like to think of myself doing better than most my friends my age i know who are working at the mall or flipping burgers.

iJon

 

[Rasmuskl]

Well Done

Originally posted by iJon
what can i say, im a teenager with a job and money to buy what i want. although i dont play my game systems as much as i used to, i have theme because they are cheap and they are fun when the time comes. dont get me wrong, games is not all i do. but sometimes i just like to kick back and play some madden or zelda of some sort. most of my time is spent with my job and doing actual benificial things for my life. personally i like to think of myself doing better than most my friends my age i know who are working at the mall or flipping burgers.

iJon

I guess all i can say to you is "Well Done".
Can't argue with success.

Anyways nevermind me. I spent much of my teenage years with my C64 and tapedrive (Wow the amazing speed i got when i got my floppy drive).

 

[XnavxeMiyyep]

Originally posted by jayscheuerle
And yet Apple continues to sell their machines with 64 MB RAM standard.

Heck, 256 is a joke! Any system running OSX should ship with a single 512 MB chip installed...

Truthfully, my knowledge of Windoze is blissfully limited. Ignorance is bliss in this case...

You're definitely right about all machines needing 512 MB of RAM. I'm just pointing out that G4's are better at multitasking than the Pentium 4, not sure about the Dual Xeons.

 

[iJon]

Re: Well Done

Originally posted by Rasmuskl
I guess all i can say to you is "Well Done".
Can't argue with success.

Anyways nevermind me. I spent much of my teenage years with my C64 and tapedrive (Wow the amazing speed i got when i got my floppy drive).

lol, i know what you mean. nothing productive comes from having a pc and 3 consoles. its just my way of passing time and having fun. im not big into sports or anything like that, just my leisure time. but i do spend more time on my mac and at work taking that knowledge and selling macs.

iJon

 

[dannyp]

if you want to see how bad the G4 is at rendering a Maya scene check out

http://highend3d.com/tests/maya/testcenter/

this is a web site dedicated to many 3d apps.
you can download a test scene, run it on your system and then enter the results into the database (requires a license of maya)

i have a dual amd 2000 that renders the scene in ~1:13
i just got a 1.3 centrino laptop that renders the scene in ~2:15

the fastest entry in the database for a mac is a dual 1.25 at 2:26, but is also well below the rest of the dual 1.25s that were over 3:00 minutes so i wouldnt take that entry too seriously.

look thru the database at some of the speeds and you will see most newer dual xeons will render in under 1 minute, and single p4s between 1 and 2 minutes.

so as far as MAYA goes you can see the speed differences

i am also a heavy after effects user, and have switched to using PCs ( i am a mac lover and use them for "other" tasks) because they are much faster than macs for the apps that i use.

im crossing my fingers to see how well the g5s will stacj up in real life use, and maybe get to switch back to the mac

dp

 

[dannyp]

huh....

real numbers posted and no one cares?

i guess some people just like to argue