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

[Soc7777777]

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'

 

[Soc7777777]

oh yeah...

i think ibooks are a good deal and offer good performance for the price...

 

[wide]

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).

 

[musicpyrite]

You are aware that clock cycles have nothing to do with the speed of the computer right?

 

[QCassidy352]

PC laptops are faster, no question. I agree - apple should use a processor designed for laptops from the ground up.

 

[Mav451]

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.

 

[mkrishnan]

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?

 

[wrldwzrd89]

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?

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.

 

[johnnyjibbs]

You are aware that clock cycles have nothing to do with the speed of the computer right?

Thanks for that link, it was an interesting read.

I can feel happier about my 1GHz G4 now!

 

[LethalWolfe]

apple needs to get their act together and start some reaserching on mobile processors....

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

 

[Jonathan Amend]

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'

I'm guessing you didn't know this, but the Pentium M is just the continuation of the good old Pentium 3.

 

[dopefiend]

I'm guessing you didn't know this, but the Pentium M is just the continuation of the good old Pentium 3.

Nope

Intel® Pentium® M Processor
Introducing Intel® Pentium® M processor, a new microprocessor designed from the ground up for mobility, with a mobile-optimized chipset, and an integrated Wireless LAN solution. Intel® mobile processor innovative design techniques allow faster execution of instructions at lower power

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.

 

[Jonathan Amend]

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.

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.

 

[wide]

I'm guessing you didn't know this, but the Pentium M is just the continuation of the good old Pentium 3.

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...

 

[wide]

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.

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!

 

[Jonathan Amend]

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!

I'm not saying that it wasn't designed for mobile applications, but it was based on the Pentium 3.

 

[Jonathan Amend]

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=8386

 

[Mord]

Once PowerPC G5s appear with maximum power consumption in the 20-30W range, we'll see them in PowerBooks.

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

 

[wide]

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

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 (http://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).

 

[Mord]

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 (http://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).

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)

 

[wide]

so there a skanky small company?

there are small in comparison to IBM, AMD and Intel

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. http://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!

A hallmark of the G4 core is its optimal balance of high performance and low power dissipation, delivering gigahertz-class performance at less than 10W--making it an optimal solution for power-sensitive embedded applications [10.4 Tiger, anyone?].

Another hallmark of the G4 core, as well as the e600 core, is the AltiVecTM technology, a 128-bit vector processing engine designed to accelerate a wide range of computationally intensive applications......

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

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

 

[LethalWolfe]

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 (http://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).

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


Lethal

 

[Fukui]

You don't buy Apple for pure speed -_-.

We used too!!!

 

[Koodauw]

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

 

[Bigheadache]

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.