utilizer said:
After the "updates" to the G5s last week, I had every intention of waiting for the 3 Ghz G5s, but I don't know now. 2.5 Ghz at such a high premium?
What premium is that? You get a 25% boost in processor clock at the same cost, with a far better stock graphics card and the option on one that's far better than the previous BTO. Overall, the line refresh was a bit disappointing and lackluster, but it was still a solid update that brings performance gains.
Name me a PC chipmaker that's climbed 25% in a year, other than the Pentium M (which got its boost from a die shrink).
I would have liked to buy a new PowerBook, but I absolutely refuse to buy any Apple product with a Motorola/Freescale processor in it.
Then you're as blind as people typically accuse mac users of being, because Freescale is already delivering on their promises. The e300 and e500 are shipping to customers as we speak, both of them new designs, and one of them an entirely new core. IBM's given us something after almost a year, and that's both good to see and higher than any Motorola clock jump I can remember.
However, Freescale is not the same company as Motorola's semiconducter segment. They're under different management and operating independently, so you can't really make any claims about them that don't start with the reorganization.
That division has made me very angry over the past couple of years and I was almost ready to (gulp) switch last year to the dark side.
Uh... Then why do you say that you're "waiting until MWSF for the 3 Ghz G5s and buying a Toshiba M205 Tablet PC with a 1.7 Ghz Centrino?"
So, what to expect from WWDC???
Apple knows that laptop sales, for the first time last month, have surpassed that of desktop sales. I've been meaning to put together a 3D/DVD project together for the past three years; in light of the recent events, I'm going to post-pone that. Why?
...
A bunch of benchmarks that show that dekstops kill laptops in professional apps
Were you trying to make a point with this? The PowerBook doesn't perform as well as the desktop machines in professional tasks that are SMP-aware. Why is that a surprise? It's a matter of raw power, which a portable basically has to sacrifice in order to conserve battery power.
The Final Cut bench shows that dual-processor machines of both generations beat a portable single-processor at rendering. Well... Duh. Similarly, After Effects (which is poorly written and maintained on the mac), hands the speed crown to dual processor machines - G4 duals beat the single G5s. Duh. I'm not at all certain what a UT2003 botmatch has to do with a professional machine, but the comparison is between mobile processors, and the ones that are powerhogging desktop replacement chips win. Uh... Duh, again. Finally, in the Cinebench render, you don't even have the most current revision of the PowerBook. Extrapolate the difference between the two G4s, though, and you'd come up with a final score of a 1.5ghz G4 generating the render in 186 seconds with no change in the support system. However, this doesn't reflect the new 5400 RPM drives and better GPU, which both could impact render times. So, once more... Duh.
)
