To PB or not to PB

tristan

Okay guys. I have been with apple for about six months now...i think...and so far I have a 600 iBook combo and an 800 iMac Superdrive. I love the iMac speed and appreciate the iBook's size (but the speed just sucks!!!) Now that I see that I can function completely with Apple (and love doing so), I realize that I need/want more speed for my laptop. So, my question is how does the powerbook compare to the iMac 800? I love the snappiness of the iMac but I know laptops are usually slower that equal processor speed desktops (please no mhz myth bashing ). So does the L3 cache help on benchmarks compared with the iMac????

agent302

Based on the benchmarks at <a href="http://www.barefeats.com"; target="_blank">Barefeats</a>, it appears that the new 667 Powerbook is actually faster than an iMac 800, due to it's bigger cache, faster system bus, and better graphics card. And, from personal usage, it's a great machine.



[ 06-11-2002: Message edited by: agent302 ]</p>

tristan

[quote]Originally posted by agent302:

<strong>Based on the benchmarks at <a href="http://www.barefeats.com"; target="_blank">Barefeats</a>, it appears that the new 667 Powerbook is actually faster than an iMac 800, due to it's bigger cache, faster system bus, and better graphics card. And, from personal usage, it's a great machine.



[ 06-11-2002: Message edited by: agent302 ]</strong><hr></blockquote>



THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU..........Thats just what I needed to convince myself that I need a new powerbook. From the looks of the benchmarks that thing is pretty awesome! YIPPEE

crusader

I am currently leaning towards a Ti for editing movies and I will use my iMac to make them into DVDs.

luca

I believe in some tests, the TiBook 800MHz actually beat the Power Mac G4/800. That's quite an accomplishment. I think it has to do with the cache.

eman

If you get the PB, send me your iBook. The 600MHz ones are faster than my 500MHz.