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

[aussie_geek]

Does the computer do what you want?

People,

Just remember,

You buy a computer to do the work that you want to do on it. Any person that buys a computer just so they can brag that they have the fastest and most powerful computer has rocks in their heads!!

Cmon people just get a computer and use it!!

aussie_geek

 

[aussie_geek]

good one!!

3. My computer has been up for 12 days (the power went out before then).

Nice call AdamR01,

My dual tower has not crashed since I got it over two years ago and has been up all the time since. The only time it gets restarted is when there is a software update or a power failure. Try and match that you PC punks

aussie_geek

 

[dopefiend]

Try and match that you PC punks

aussie_geek

<insert random linux box being up for 100+ days ----

 

[blue&whiteman]

I think this uptime war stuff is silly. a reboot once a week or so is a good thing in my mind. my system is always on but I do reboot every 5-7 days because its just a pattern I have always used with macs and it works. its a personal user habit.

 

[wide]

You buy a computer to do the work that you want to do on it. Any person that buys a computer just so they can brag that they have the fastest and most powerful computer has rocks in their heads!!

That is true, but you also buy a computer to last. People buy the fastest computer not only for bragging rights but so they don't have to buy a new computer for a long, long time.

 

[stockscalper]

Actually there is a clear winner in performance in all facets when comparing processors. Though the dual G5 vs dual Xeon/or single P4 vs dual AMD/single AMD debate is debatable for who's on top, the Pentium M vs the G4 is not. The Pentium M, since its debut, has been the clear winner; all facets, all the time.
.

Dude get off the crack you've been smoking.

 

[chv400]

Found this at OWC a while ago

http://eshop.macsales.com/Tech/index.cfm?load=MHz_Myth.html

 

[dopefiend]

Found this at OWC a while ago

http://eshop.macsales.com/Tech/index.cfm?load=MHz_Myth.html

Any particular reason why you posted this?

 

[chv400]

To me it seemed to apply to the situation.
Wow you replied before i could close the window

 

[Mav451]

To me it seemed to apply to the situation.
Wow you replied before i could close the window

dopefiend questioned its relevance b/c the Pentium M is an entirely different architecture from the P4 (P4 = Long pipelines...while Pentium M is much closer to a P3 in efficiency in operations per cycle).

The last P3's, Tualatins, in fact, could run with Athlons in terms of IPC and overall performance, but not many people know that (b/c the P4's were released in the same time period, and completely overshadowed them).

 

[dopefiend]

dopefiend questioned its relevance b/c the Pentium M is an entirely different architecture from the P4 (P4 = Long pipelines...while Pentium M is much closer to a P3 in efficiency in operations per cycle).

Bingo

 

[Sun Baked]

Bingo

Darn it...

I hate it when that happens.

You get one number away from the winning the $500 Jackpot, and somebody else beats you to it.

 

[timberfish]

Soc7777777, I'd have to say you're so wrong about so many things here. Your main complaint seems to be that Apple should focus on making a mobile chip similar to the new Pentium-M chips that Intel makes. My question is why? My 15" G4 1.5Ghz laptop has a battery life of 3 to 3.5 hours with Airport on and using it actively. That's roughly the same as the Pentium-M laptops because a co-worker has one and he only outlasts my Mac by about 20 minutes in meetings. Also, the speed of a G4 is amazing compared to most of the P4 line and I'm talking about Desktop machines here. My G4 laptop outpaces my 2.8 Ghz P4 w/HT desktop here at work in most cases. Also, I own a Sager laptop with a P4 2.4Ghz chip in it and my Mac blows it away in speed. Oh, and the Sager has a desktop speed P4 in it, so that's not dumbed down for mobile computing. Besides this whole speed argument which I don't want to get into, you're talking about the need for a mobile chip?

The only reason Intel made the Pentium-M is because the Pentium 4M chips sucked and were exactly what you claim the G4's are - dumbed down desktop chips. Well, guess what? That's what most mobile chips are. The Pentium M was developed with power consumption and efficiency in mind. Yes, it was built separately from the P4, but a lot of the architecture is shared. They did make huge improvements in the architecture to be able to handle processes better and more efficiently while requiring less power, but let me also point out that Pentium M chips are not good for powerful apps like video editing, cutting edge gaming and encoding and so on. They aren't meant as desktop replacements. For those, Intel still makes Pentium 4M laptops and sometimes just puts a desktop CPU right in. Terrible battery life of course and always between 8 and 10 pounds - trust me, I know.

So maybe the G4 in the laptops wasn't built just for laptops, but so what? My Mac laptop is faster than most P4 desktops (except the high end ones of course) and handles battery amazingly well. What more do you want from a mobile machine? Also, AMD already has an Athlon 64M chip in certain laptops. Check out Voodoo and eMachines for starters. They perform well, but are heavy and expensive (in the Voodoo case they're around $3 to $4K and up). Eventually G5's will be in laptops and when that happens great! But Intel and AMD won't be ahead, they'll just be doing things differently. Right now, any comparable mobile machine on the Windows side is roughly the same price and performs the same as Macs. If you go for less-mobile desktop replacement laptops then yes, the Intels win, but at the same time they weigh 8 to 12 pounds, run hot, and suck battery like nothing you've ever seen. That's my take. Oh, and while this isn't scientific, check out this link to see some of my own benchmarking results in Photoshop between 3 machines on Mac and Windows. http://www.grassapple.com/archives/2004/06/apple_vs_window.html

 

[Mav451]

You may want to look at the results of an overclocked Dothan (2nd generation Pentium-M chip).

http://translate.google.com/transla...air=fr|en&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&prev=/language_tools

As you can tell, you do not need a "heavy" desktop replacement to get high-end performance. This is a MOBILE chip competing readily with high-end procs, such as the P4's (EE series) and the Athlon 64 3400+ (highest 754 pin, even though 939, has since been released).

Of course, rite now, the Dothans (735, 745, 755; clocked at 1.7, 1.8, 2.0Ghz respectively) are quite a bit away from 2.4Ghz. The FSB, also, defaults at 400Mhz, while when OCed, it was running at 480Mhz. Obviously, without more testing we have no idea what the chipset limitations are--are there any? Still, this overclock requires some extreme measures, so this clock frequency of 2.4Ghz (and its respective performance) may not be seen for quite some time. While it may not be a feasible frequency now, but in the near future (6-8months), I don't see why not.

Now, in terms of thermal requirements, the Dothan defaults @ 21W...but I'm not sure what 2.4Ghz would mean (probably ~30W maybe)? Even then, the low-power Mobile Athlon 64's are running that, and that is still far from DTR (Desktop Replacement) thermal reqs.

 

[Mav451]

....That's my take. Oh, and while this isn't scientific, check out this link to see some of my own benchmarking results in Photoshop between 3 machines on Mac and Windows. http://www.grassapple.com/archives/2004/06/apple_vs_window.html

Your results are nothing new. Apple, knows that Photoshop is consistently a good performer for the Mac >> Why do you think that it has been used repeatedly, over and over--so much that it just goes over most people's heads now. I'd say it now garners only a "so what?" reaction now, all b/c of the way that Apple emphasized this fact, ad nasueum since the G3, G4, and now the G5 to prove that the Mac is "superior" to the PC.

Today, it remains just as unconvincing as it was back then. Far too many Mac heads automatically claim platform superiority based on this single benchmark--thinking that its the Holy Grail. In the PC world, more than a single benchmark is used to prove a CPU's competence against the competition in the PC realm.

Tell me, how many hardware sites, for the PC world, use a single benchmark to say the "xxxx processor is superior to the yyyy processor"? The answer is none. Now, even then, entire SUITES of benchmakrs can be skewed (i.e. Tom's Hardware), but that is for another day. The bottom line is that sticking only to a single benchmark is just very short-sighted these days, when the basic requirements necessary for processor (and consequently platform) comparisons already DEMANDS multiple benchmarks.

It is common knowledge to enthusiasts that Intel remains the encoding/media content creation champ, while AMD has excelled as the performance/dollar champ and (overall) in the gaming arena. If either Intel or AMD came out and attempted to CLAIM CPU/platform superiority in the PC world, based ONLY on a single benchmark, it would be pretty naive--b/c both AMD and Intel know better.

You want to be convincing? Stop the Pshop benchmarking, for one. We already know that, now show us something else! It is like saying the WRX is good for rally--well of course it is -_-.

Employ a PLETHORA of OTHER benchmarks to prove your point. That, however, carries quite a few problems in itself, b/c cross-platform applications are rather rare Except in the form of games...and PC's have typically dominated in performance in this arena (AMD and Intel trade places as frequently as a sine curve hits 1 and -1). That fact, again, further complicates the Mac vs. PC debate.

 

[ddtlm]

Mav451:

Far too many Mac heads automatically claim platform superiority based on this single benchmark--thinking that its the Holy Grail. In the PC world, more than a single benchmark is used to prove a CPU's competence against the competition in the PC realm.

Whew, damn straight. For the benefit of anyone still confused, "more than a single benchmark" does not mean going to Apple's PR pages looking for a couple more.

 

[timberfish]

You want to be convincing? Stop the Pshop benchmarking, for one. We already know that, now show us something else! It is like saying the WRX is good for rally--well of course it is

First of all, I wasn't trying to further the Mac vs PC debate, which I tried to make clear. However, I find it interesting that out of all that I wrote you focused on the last "sidenote" I sent which was a benchmark that I myself claimed was no where near scientific, but interesting. It's interesting because of this... I have a friend who's an Engineer at Adobe and we talked about Photoshop and how it works on Mac vs PC and so on. He claims that they completely rebuild the code (not rewrite) for each platform. Each time this is done they use the optimizers for the platform they're building on whether it be the G4 or P4. So while this is an age-old benchmark used, it's also one of the few fair ones out there for cross-platform comparison. It’s not as if Adobe is making their product to work better on Mac than Windows, it’s quite the opposite. They do their best to make sure it will take advantage of every optimization available on each side. Since the filters run are almost 100% CPU and Memory crunching they are a good indicator of performance. Also, I point them out because I work in Photoshop often and this speed difference is important to me. Okay, so we can put the Pshop bmark aside since that was really a last minute though on my part anyhow, not the basis of my claims.

So here’s the thing.. you cite overclocked CPU benchmarks for a processor and bus speed that don’t exist unless you overclock which shortens the life of your hardware and can damage a computer permanently. Sorry, but I can’t take that as empirical evidence. However, if you look here:
http://www.anandtech.com/mobile/showdoc.html?i=1801&p=16

You’ll see that the Pentium-M (Banias) compares somewhat the same to a P4 2.4 Ghz desktop CPU. However, if you go to the gaming test area you’ll see that the Pentium-M is way behind the P4. This is one of the things I mentioned. The Pentium-M cannot compare in gaming, 3D, or most content creation arenas. Now, if you look at another test here: http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,1590062,00.asp

You’ll see that the new Pentium-M (Dothan) gets an 18% gain over its predecessor in these tests and that’s a direct correlation to it’s increased clock speed. Dothan is running at 2.0 Ghz and is a much better chip than the P4, so yes the new Dothan certainly outpaces the G4 from what I can see. It’s well designed and is 25% faster than the G4 laptop chip. So I grant that Intel is slightly ahead, but when the G5 has a version made for laptops we’ll see 64-bit computing, higher clocks and handling faster DDR memory which will bring Apple right back if not past Intel. However, you can’t look at clock speeds for results because the G5 is a totally different architecture than the P4 or Pentium-M. It’s not X86 so it handles memory and chunks of data differently. So my ultimate point made clear is that Apple doesn’t need a mobile chip built from scratch and Apple laptops compare very well with their PC equivalents in performance and mobility. I am not claiming that Apple is trying to make workstation powerhouse laptops because it’s not. I hope that clears up what I was saying, rather than making you think I’m relying on a Photoshop benchmark. I’m talking about real-world performance and so far, what I see in my office shows that my G4 is faster than all the Centrino systems that I’ve compared it to.

 

[timberfish]

By the way, just to prove that Photoshop is not some magical program that is built for Apple, here's a great benchmark comparison between the G5 and the top end Intel/AMD chips and it shows Photoshop doing better on the PC side. The rest shows the G5 doing quite well, and just to be clear I'm not bringing the G5 into this, I just wanted to make the Photoshop point. It's not always a Mac thing.

http://www.barefeats.com/pentium4.html

 

[Mav451]

....
You’ll see that the Pentium-M (Banias) compares somewhat the same to a P4 2.4 Ghz desktop CPU. However, if you go to the gaming test area you’ll see that the Pentium-M is way behind the P4. This is one of the things I mentioned. The Pentium-M cannot compare in gaming, 3D, or most content creation arenas. Now, if you look at another test here: http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,1590062,00.asp

You’ll see that the new Pentium-M (Dothan) gets an 18% gain over its predecessor in these tests and that’s a direct correlation to it’s increased clock speed. Dothan is running at 2.0 Ghz and is a much better chip than the P4, so yes the new Dothan certainly outpaces the G4 from what I can see. It’s well designed and is 25% faster than the G4 laptop chip. So I grant that Intel is slightly ahead, but when the G5 has a version made for laptops we’ll see 64-bit computing, higher clocks and handling faster DDR memory which will bring Apple right back if not past Intel. However, you can’t look at clock speeds for results because the G5 is a totally different architecture than the P4 or Pentium-M. It’s not X86 so it handles memory and chunks of data differently. So my ultimate point made clear is that Apple doesn’t need a mobile chip built from scratch and Apple laptops compare very well with their PC equivalents in performance and mobility. I am not claiming that Apple is trying to make workstation powerhouse laptops because it’s not. I hope that clears up what I was saying, rather than making you think I’m relying on a Photoshop benchmark. I’m talking about real-world performance and so far, what I see in my office shows that my G4 is faster than all the Centrino systems that I’ve compared it to.

I find it odd that you completely disregarded what I said after my statement concerning the overclock. I say "but what are the chipset limitations?" I made it clear that while it is indeed empirical, there is evidence certainly that WHILE it has a small 480Mhz bus (compared to the P4 desktop 800Mhz one), it certainly does not seem to limit its computational abilities in both the Cinema4D benchmark or the mathematical Pi benchmark.

The Dothan is not using much heat at all at this point--and I believe that further refinements in the processor line, that 533 FSB is certainly not out of the realm of possibility. That a DTR version of the Dothan would have the possibility of hitting these kind of performance levels (while I do agree that the DTR version of the Dothan would equate to a brick-like notebook).

Also, nowhere in my statements do I mention the Pentium-M in reference to Banias. I am NOT talking about the Banias. I'm only talking about the 2nd generation Pentium-M (Dothan). I thought I made that very clear in my post, but apparently you felt you had to make an assumption nonetheless. I am confused as to why you would put words in my mouth that I did NOT say.

You also seem to doubt the merits of overclocking--it sounds as if you haven't done it before. If you have, please, then give me an example of your experience with it. If you have NOT, then please, don't question the credibility of a websites information regarding overclocking--if you PERSONALLY have not successfully overclocked yourself.

The one red flag in one of the overclocking myths you brought up got my attention immediately:

1) "Shortens" life of components
Nope, only if you apply too much vCore. Look at my OWN overclock. I applied only 1.65V (from the standard 1.60V) to get a near 500Mhz overclock over my default clock speed. And since 1.65V is a standard vCore for other AIHUB CPUS, such as the 2400+ and 2600+, I am in no way shortening the life of my CPU.

If you don't understand this concept, what does this say on your credibility on understanding (and perhaps even interpreting) overclocking in the FIRST PLACE?

 

[ddtlm]

timberfish:

The thing about any one benchmark is that, no matter how well optimized for each platform it is, it still only tells you about that one aspect of the machines' performance. Its probably the case that G5s are genuinely better at most Pshop operations than any x86 chips, but thats not useful for people not running Pshop or something a lot like it (code and data wise).

Not that anyone wanted to dwell on this Pshop stuff any longer.

 

[Mav451]

http://www20.tomshardware.com/mobile/20040510/dothan-01.html

This table should interest you (if you understand overclocking anyway). If we look at the same CPU (Dothan 2.0Ghz), but have 2 versions that run at different voltages, I can guarantee you that one at the lower voltage, if its voltage were raised to the higher voltage (1.276 >> 1.340V), it could easily hit 2.15-2.20Ghz. Easily. And it wouldn't run any hotter, b/c it is running at the same vCore! (if you are comparing 1.340V to 1.340V, voltage is voltage, whether or not the clockspeed is "overclocked" or not, the resulting thermal wattage being the one and the SAME).

 

[Mav451]

timberfish:

The thing about any one benchmark is that, no matter how well optimized for each platform it is, it still only tells you about that one aspect of the machines' performance. Its probably the case that G5s are genuinely better at most Pshop operations than any x86 chips, but thats not useful for people not running Pshop or something a lot like it (code and data wise).

Not that anyone wanted to dwell on this Pshop stuff any longer.

Lol, ddtlm pretty much summed up my rant in 5 lines.

 

[timberfish]

I didn't disregard your statement. I read it, but you still refer to overclocked CPUs nonetheless. These are "possible" speeds, not speeds that come with any major manufacturer's system, so I'd rather not go down that road or it really involves a lot of speculation and what ifs.

I'm only talking about the 2nd generation Pentium-M (Dothan). I thought I made that very clear in my post, but apparently you felt you had to make an assumption nonetheless. I am confused as to why you would put words in my mouth that I did NOT say.

I didn't put any words in your mouth nor did I assume you meant the older Pentium-M. Instead I brought it up because I didn't see any benchmarks comparing the new Dothans with any P4 chips. I'm sure they're out there, but I didn't find them right away. So what I did was compared the Banias to the P4 since it's more in comparison with the G4 laptop chip anyhow and then showed that the Dothan really only shows speed improvements due mostly to clock speed increases. I then also conceded that Dothan was further along and faster than the G4 chip as well. I guess I muddied the point a little.

You also seem to doubt the merits of overclocking--it sounds as if you haven't done it before. If you have, please, then give me an example of your experience with it. If you have NOT, then please, don't question the credibility of a websites information regarding overclocking--if you PERSONALLY have not successfully overclocked yourself.

I don't recall doubting the merits of it, I simply pointed out that this is not how the chips are sent out and I don't to convolute the discussion by comparing non-standard chip configurations. It's easier to stick with what you get when you buy, not with what you have tweaked to make the hardware faster. And yes, I have overclocked. I don't feel the need to venture off on the tangent where I describe my experience, but I will say that in doing so I found dozens of articles with disclaimers saying that overclocking could damage or destroy my hardware and they were not responsible. And I'm talking about basic BIOS setting overclocking. There are dangers to overclocking my friend... read Electromigration: http://www.pcguide.com/opt/oc/risksRisksCPU-c.html

and: http://www.boostnews.com/overclocking-dangers.php

So deny it all you want, but you can't run a processor at a higher speed and not expect it to do more work and get hotter. One more (http://www.hwupgrade.com/overclock/cpu/index2.html) So what does it say about "your" credibility that you don't even seem to be aware of ElectroMigration and that it happens much sooner when you overclock? Hmm.

So back to the topic at hand. G4 laptops perform better than P4 mobile chips for sure, and better than a lot of P4 desktop chips as well as some of the Pentium-M chips and often times they don't run at nearly as high of a clock. Good stuff! Again, I'm saying this from experience in the real world for the most part.

 

[Mord]

timberfish, overclocking is fine as long as you have sufficient cooling to deal with that extra heat the warnings you are posting apply to spotty teenage ****s who think there all that because they changed there bios setting without even looking at there temperatures.

I run my B&W at 500MHz from a 400MHz g3 and this is because i got a giant copper socket A heatsink and modified it to fit on my zif socket (had to reshape the clip PM me if you want pics or anything) all that stressing and chips that fail are caused by overheating and that can be controlled by checking the temperature and cooling it down enough my g3 runs no hotter than it did at 400MHz with the old aluminum heatsink. look into the subject from both sides. (I am sure that mav451 uses ether a really good heatsink or a watercooling set or something of the sort and keeps his temperatures not to far from 30 degrees)

I do agree with you on speed and it is also unfair to use benchmarks using overclocked CPU's (and mav451 by the time that 2.4GHz dorithans are available there will be 4GHz pIII's and pb g5's so there's not much point in those benchmarks.

I would like to see some 3d rendering benchmarks on this http://www.e-onsoftware.com/Products/VueIndex.php it's altivec enhanced so should take advantage of a g4 and should be a good comparison it's has very cpu intensive rendering.

 

[Mav451]

timberfish, overclocking is fine as long as you have sufficient cooling to deal with that extra heat the warnings you are posting apply to spotty teenage ****s who think there all that because they changed there bios setting without even looking at there temperatures.

I run my B&W at 500MHz from a 400MHz g3 and this is because i got a giant copper socket A heatsink and modified it to fit on my zif socket (had to reshape the clip PM me if you want pics or anything) all that stressing and chips that fail are caused by overheating and that can be controlled by checking the temperature and cooling it down enough my g3 runs no hotter than it did at 400MHz with the old aluminum heatsink. look into the subject from both sides. (I am sure that mav451 uses ether a really good heatsink or a watercooling set or something of the sort and keeps his temperatures not to far from 30 degrees)

I do agree with you on speed and it is also unfair to use benchmarks using overclocked CPU's (and mav451 by the time that 2.4GHz dorithans are available there will be 4GHz pIII's and pb g5's so there's not much point in those benchmarks.

I would like to see some 3d rendering benchmarks on this http://www.e-onsoftware.com/Products/VueIndex.php it's altivec enhanced so should take advantage of a g4 and should be a good comparison it's has very cpu intensive rendering.

Actually I'm using a "consumer" heatsink (that means it is affordable for everyone, but you do need to know what to buy)--the Thermalright SLK800. I'm doing it all on air, but it is not loud b/c I have a Panaflo H1A on it (40CFM, for around 32dbA of sound).

How many benchmarks of the 2100+ do you see at 2210Mhz? In fact, my overclock is probably on the lower spectrum of possibilities (because I am using Crucial DDR333 RAM)--there are MANY people who run it much higher (2300-2400Mhz, higher FSB as well). But, they are running it at a much higher vCore. You also fail to realize that the 2800+ runs at 2250Mhz, so in effect, there remains a higher "marked" AIHUB chip that runs STABLEY (enough to be sold as such) at this same speed. I think you are confusing careless overclocking with selective overclocking + speed binning, b/c "overclocking" speed-binned processors practically guarantees a high-end chip overclock.

My 2100+ probably WAS a 2800+, but it was remarked as a 2100+. Change multiplier, increase vCore (in my case, to the default vCore of MANY other processors, so it is a proven/stable vCore), increase FSB. Are you going to tell me that the other people who bought the 2800+ RETAIL (running @ 2250Mhz) are going to have a "shorter CPU life"?