Patchouli: No need to be so defensive. I think that alcimedes was simply asking his question with regard to the following part of your statement that he quoted:
Quote:
runs at 1.6GHz (which is faster than 2.4GHz chip
In other words: Obviously the 1.6Ghz refers to the clock speed of the Pentium-M in the T40. What chip does the 2.4Ghz refer to? The 1.6Ghz Banias/Centrino/Pentium-M (whatever the marketing people call it) runs faster than what 2.4Ghz chip?
I read most of the reviews of the T40 linked above. I have to admit that once you get over the aesthetics of this IBM laptop (I've never been able to get over those sharp edges; today's IBM laptops look pretty much the same they did 10 years ago), its features and performance are impressive. I really hope that Apple will see the threat from Pentium M and Centrino as an added incentive to improve the performance of its PowerBooks and iBooks further.
E.g. I have no doubt that Apple's Design Group could come up with a more pleasing high-capacity battery solution than IBM and Sony. If only I could replace the CD-ROM in my iBook with a second battery, like I could on my old 5xx and Wallstreet PowerBooks! That would easily boost battery life past that of the T40.
Patchouli, before you and reply with the dripping sarcasm, it's a good idea to make sure you actually read what you're replying to.
which chips were you talking about when you are making your "speed" comparison. since Apple doesn't even offer a 1.6Ghz or 2.4Ghz chip in any model, it had nothing to do with Apple.
alcimedes, the was not meant towards you, but towards the people in this thread who blindly dismissed the new Centrino technology. That is pretty much what my post was bitching about and I don't see the sarcasm you speak of.
Anyway, it has been said that the latest Centrino is just as fast (sometimes faster) than the latest Mobile Pentium 4 chip - so that's where that comparison was. My point was that you are not losing power while gaining battery life.
---
Escher, I agree that IBM makes some of the ugliest notebooks out there. I never understood why so many people think that they are nicely designed. They are made very well and IBM doesn't cut corners (a la Dell) with cheaper parts, but pretty they aint!
The battery life in the Centrino notebooks are measured with the standard notebook batteries (with the exception of the T40), not extended capacities (the add-ons). I am sure Apple can make a great looking understated extended life battery, but thats not really fixing the issue. They need to make their own Centrino delivering efficient power and battery (beyond the 'it's good enough for me' standards).
Hmmm... Centrino looks pretty good on battery perfromance.
I never thought to take the battery off my former profs Ti400, anyone with a Ti care to take a look? When I installed my PB12's battery, I noticed that there actually isn't a whole lot of battery under that Aluminium plate. Lotsa empty space. While Apple probably couldn't squeeze double the battery in there, I'd say a battery with 50-60% more volume is an easy fit under the PB12. It's currently using a 47Watt-hour battery. This is actually pretty small, certainly they could up that to 60-70watt-hours and provide a considerable boost to battery life. I wonder it there isn't a similar amount of empty space in the Ti and PB17 battery compartments? If so, it seems to me that Apple could do a higher capacity battery option simply by putting bigger cells in the current battery bays -- there is room for it, at least on the 12 (and I imagine that there's plenty in the 17!)
Bigger batteries, and the .13u G4's that moto has ready now should bring battery life up to competitive levels -- (7447 and 7457, not RM, which may or may not be cancelled.)
And a note about Pentium M. I believe Intel is saying that at 1.6Ghz the Pentium M is about as fast as the P4-M at 2.4Ghz, NOT the [b]P4[b]. There's still a significant difference between Mobile X86 and X86 (desktop). It is X86 desktop that soundly thrashes the PPC, not Mobile X86. If Centrino is about as fast as 2.4 (check the tests, it isn't 'faster') then it still isn't close to desktop performance. A linux mag recently tested a G3 800 iBook and found it to be about as fast as a 1.7Ghz P4-M. While centrino is about 50% faster than that, the G4 is still a more than reasonable performer as far as **mobile** comparisons go.
The new PRICE competitionis the most disconcerting thing about this, not the battery performance. Centrino based IBM and Toshiba machines, which must be looked at as Professional machines, start at 2079 (14" screens). The 15" powerbook is just too expensive given that it has no real performance advantage, worse battery life, and similar weight. It needs to drop UNDER 2500 with the Superdrive. Without, it needs to fall at least to 2200.
18 months ago, Apple could get away with inflated laptop prices on the basis of clearly superior mobile performance. Not any more, they even have a autonomy deficit to overcome now.
Apple can continue to charge whatever it wants for the 17, still no competitors for that. But the 15 and 12 have to get cheaper.
I'd say 17" 2999-3299
15.4" 2199-2499
12" 1699-1899
iBooks
See Pscates 14" widescreen mockup*** 2 such models.
And a note about Pentium M. I believe Intel is saying that at 1.6Ghz the Pentium M is about as fast as the P4-M at 2.4Ghz, NOT the [b]P4. There's still a significant difference between Mobile X86 and X86 (desktop). It is X86 desktop that soundly thrashes the PPC, not Mobile X86. If Centrino is about as fast as 2.4 (check the tests, it isn't 'faster') then it still isn't close to desktop performance.
You just lost your credibility. There is no difference between the Mobile P4 and the desktop P4 other than a few power saving features that can be disabled. And yes, a Centrino at 1.6GHz has been shown to beat 2.4GHz "desktop" P4's. The Pentium-M at 1.6GHz is literally at least twice as fast any given PowerBook. Also, Toshiba's Pentium-M laptops also get 7 hours with a 50W*hr battery.
What credibility? I just repeat what I read in articles around the net. If Intel resolved issues to make later P4-M's as fast as P4, cool, but the chip, from everything I had read started life a far cry from that. The first ones were even slower than P3's. In any event, I seriously doubt the P4M @2.4Ghz is as fast as a 3.06-3.2Ghz HT P4. So no, Mobile X86 is still a far cry from desktop X86.
What credibility? I just repeat what I read in articles around the net. If Intel resolved issues to make later P4-M's as fast as P4, cool, but the chip, from everything I had read started life a far cry from that. The first ones were even slower than P3's. In any event, I seriously doubt the P4M @2.4Ghz is as fast as a 3.06-3.2Ghz HT P4. So no, Mobile X86 is still a far cry from desktop X86.
The fastest mobile P4-M you can get is 2.8GHz, and no mobile P4-M's were slower than P3's except perhaps the very low-end and shortlived 1.5GHz P4-M. A mobile P4 and a desktop P4 at 2.4GHz using PC2100 RAMwill have identical performance baring graphics. You're thinking of the first generation desktop P4's from 2001 that only had 256KB L2 cache (like today's G4) and ran as slowly at 1.3GHz. The only significant difference between desktop and mobile P4's is that desktop P4's have available to them higher bandwidth motherboards and memory, and of course, faster video cards. The fastest SODIMM one can buy today is PC2100 based.
Centrino is better if you want battery life. The IBM Thinkpad with 7 hour batteru life can go through at least two DVDs at maximum brightness. For performance, the mobile P4 is the way to go. If you still want higher performance, you can get full desktop P4's in laptops such as alienware's Area 51-M.
The mobile P4 will be phased out by the end of this year and Donathan, Banias's sucessor on 90 nm tech will be here by year's end. It features 2MB of on-die L2 cache and even higher clockspeeds and lower power consumption.
I'm going to wait and see how the PPC970 does against Donathan as both should be arriving at about the same time. Looking at benchmarks IBM has released, however, I don't have much hope in the PPC970.
Well no, not exactly. I did a quick google and some old articles are still archived. The issue of P3 vs P4 performance was true of both the desktop and mobile variants, but as you say, only for the early P4's from 1.4-1.7Ghz. The 1.4 in both instances not going much better than a 1-1.13Ghz P3, and the 1.7 not going anywhere near 70% faster. Then, at one point the benches improved, there was talk of Intel tweaking the benches to reflect better on the P4. I've no doubt that it's real fast now compared to a P3. Intel has also improved the core through subsequent revisions that we've watched with increasing angst from the mac side o the fence.
On battery power the mobile P4 is still well behind the desktop, it seems that the trick of Centrino is to be able to "step" with far greater speed and control in response to system demands so that it can drop way way down when not under load, and give just enough and no more when when it is. Very cool stuff, very cool indeed.
Now if IBM/mot won't/can't build such agressive stepping into the PPC, I wonder if Apple could design it into the motherboard to help get back some of that battery life?
You just lost your credibility. There is no difference between the Mobile P4 and the desktop P4 other than a few power saving features that can be disabled. And yes, a Centrino at 1.6GHz has been shown to beat 2.4GHz "desktop" P4's. The Pentium-M at 1.6GHz is literally at least twice as fast any given PowerBook.
you sure about that? they didn't test out as well from the benchmarks i'd seen.
You just lost your credibility. There is no difference between the Mobile P4 and the desktop P4 other than a few power saving features that can be disabled. And yes, a Centrino at 1.6GHz has been shown to beat 2.4GHz "desktop" P4's. The Pentium-M at 1.6GHz is literally at least twice as fast any given PowerBook. Also, Toshiba's Pentium-M laptops also get 7 hours with a 50W*hr battery.
The BANIAS seems kind of cool, but the factors that Intel likes to test it with aren't any better than those Apple uses for the G4. All Banias is is a 130nm P3 with some power saving features and a 1MB cache. It runs pretty well on battery power, but when connected to steady power, the data I've seen matches 1.6Ghz Banias with 2.0Ghz P4M.
The 7455 isn't much, but it's also quite old. I'll bet that the 7457 is quite a bit beefier than the Banias. The 970 should be quite bit beefier than the 7457 in matters Altivec aside. We'll see soon enough.
By the way, it's DOTHAN. and as far as I know it's not much different than a Banias.
Comments
runs at 1.6GHz (which is faster than 2.4GHz chip
In other words: Obviously the 1.6Ghz refers to the clock speed of the Pentium-M in the T40. What chip does the 2.4Ghz refer to? The 1.6Ghz Banias/Centrino/Pentium-M (whatever the marketing people call it) runs faster than what 2.4Ghz chip?
I read most of the reviews of the T40 linked above. I have to admit that once you get over the aesthetics of this IBM laptop (I've never been able to get over those sharp edges; today's IBM laptops look pretty much the same they did 10 years ago), its features and performance are impressive. I really hope that Apple will see the threat from Pentium M and Centrino as an added incentive to improve the performance of its PowerBooks and iBooks further.
E.g. I have no doubt that Apple's Design Group could come up with a more pleasing high-capacity battery solution than IBM and Sony. If only I could replace the CD-ROM in my iBook with a second battery, like I could on my old 5xx and Wallstreet PowerBooks! That would easily boost battery life past that of the T40.
Escher
which chips were you talking about when you are making your "speed" comparison. since Apple doesn't even offer a 1.6Ghz or 2.4Ghz chip in any model, it had nothing to do with Apple.
Anyway, it has been said that the latest Centrino is just as fast (sometimes faster) than the latest Mobile Pentium 4 chip - so that's where that comparison was. My point was that you are not losing power while gaining battery life.
---
Escher, I agree that IBM makes some of the ugliest notebooks out there. I never understood why so many people think that they are nicely designed. They are made very well and IBM doesn't cut corners (a la Dell) with cheaper parts, but pretty they aint!
The battery life in the Centrino notebooks are measured with the standard notebook batteries (with the exception of the T40), not extended capacities (the add-ons). I am sure Apple can make a great looking understated extended life battery, but thats not really fixing the issue. They need to make their own Centrino delivering efficient power and battery (beyond the 'it's good enough for me' standards).
I never thought to take the battery off my former profs Ti400, anyone with a Ti care to take a look? When I installed my PB12's battery, I noticed that there actually isn't a whole lot of battery under that Aluminium plate. Lotsa empty space. While Apple probably couldn't squeeze double the battery in there, I'd say a battery with 50-60% more volume is an easy fit under the PB12. It's currently using a 47Watt-hour battery. This is actually pretty small, certainly they could up that to 60-70watt-hours and provide a considerable boost to battery life. I wonder it there isn't a similar amount of empty space in the Ti and PB17 battery compartments? If so, it seems to me that Apple could do a higher capacity battery option simply by putting bigger cells in the current battery bays -- there is room for it, at least on the 12 (and I imagine that there's plenty in the 17!)
Bigger batteries, and the .13u G4's that moto has ready now should bring battery life up to competitive levels -- (7447 and 7457, not RM, which may or may not be cancelled.)
And a note about Pentium M. I believe Intel is saying that at 1.6Ghz the Pentium M is about as fast as the P4-M at 2.4Ghz, NOT the [b]P4[b]. There's still a significant difference between Mobile X86 and X86 (desktop). It is X86 desktop that soundly thrashes the PPC, not Mobile X86. If Centrino is about as fast as 2.4 (check the tests, it isn't 'faster') then it still isn't close to desktop performance. A linux mag recently tested a G3 800 iBook and found it to be about as fast as a 1.7Ghz P4-M. While centrino is about 50% faster than that, the G4 is still a more than reasonable performer as far as **mobile** comparisons go.
The new PRICE competitionis the most disconcerting thing about this, not the battery performance. Centrino based IBM and Toshiba machines, which must be looked at as Professional machines, start at 2079 (14" screens). The 15" powerbook is just too expensive given that it has no real performance advantage, worse battery life, and similar weight. It needs to drop UNDER 2500 with the Superdrive. Without, it needs to fall at least to 2200.
18 months ago, Apple could get away with inflated laptop prices on the basis of clearly superior mobile performance. Not any more, they even have a autonomy deficit to overcome now.
Apple can continue to charge whatever it wants for the 17, still no competitors for that. But the 15 and 12 have to get cheaper.
I'd say 17" 2999-3299
15.4" 2199-2499
12" 1699-1899
iBooks
See Pscates 14" widescreen mockup*** 2 such models.
Combodrive 1299
superdrive 1599
and
one holdover 12/14" 4:3 model, 899-999
Originally posted by Matsu
[B]
And a note about Pentium M. I believe Intel is saying that at 1.6Ghz the Pentium M is about as fast as the P4-M at 2.4Ghz, NOT the [b]P4. There's still a significant difference between Mobile X86 and X86 (desktop). It is X86 desktop that soundly thrashes the PPC, not Mobile X86. If Centrino is about as fast as 2.4 (check the tests, it isn't 'faster') then it still isn't close to desktop performance.
You just lost your credibility. There is no difference between the Mobile P4 and the desktop P4 other than a few power saving features that can be disabled. And yes, a Centrino at 1.6GHz has been shown to beat 2.4GHz "desktop" P4's. The Pentium-M at 1.6GHz is literally at least twice as fast any given PowerBook. Also, Toshiba's Pentium-M laptops also get 7 hours with a 50W*hr battery.
http://www.anandtech.com/mobile/showdoc.html?i=1800
http://www.anandtech.com/mobile/showdoc.html?i=1801
Originally posted by Matsu
What credibility? I just repeat what I read in articles around the net. If Intel resolved issues to make later P4-M's as fast as P4, cool, but the chip, from everything I had read started life a far cry from that. The first ones were even slower than P3's. In any event, I seriously doubt the P4M @2.4Ghz is as fast as a 3.06-3.2Ghz HT P4. So no, Mobile X86 is still a far cry from desktop X86.
The fastest mobile P4-M you can get is 2.8GHz, and no mobile P4-M's were slower than P3's except perhaps the very low-end and shortlived 1.5GHz P4-M. A mobile P4 and a desktop P4 at 2.4GHz using PC2100 RAMwill have identical performance baring graphics. You're thinking of the first generation desktop P4's from 2001 that only had 256KB L2 cache (like today's G4) and ran as slowly at 1.3GHz. The only significant difference between desktop and mobile P4's is that desktop P4's have available to them higher bandwidth motherboards and memory, and of course, faster video cards. The fastest SODIMM one can buy today is PC2100 based.
Centrino is better if you want battery life. The IBM Thinkpad with 7 hour batteru life can go through at least two DVDs at maximum brightness. For performance, the mobile P4 is the way to go. If you still want higher performance, you can get full desktop P4's in laptops such as alienware's Area 51-M.
The mobile P4 will be phased out by the end of this year and Donathan, Banias's sucessor on 90 nm tech will be here by year's end. It features 2MB of on-die L2 cache and even higher clockspeeds and lower power consumption.
I'm going to wait and see how the PPC970 does against Donathan as both should be arriving at about the same time. Looking at benchmarks IBM has released, however, I don't have much hope in the PPC970.
On battery power the mobile P4 is still well behind the desktop, it seems that the trick of Centrino is to be able to "step" with far greater speed and control in response to system demands so that it can drop way way down when not under load, and give just enough and no more when when it is. Very cool stuff, very cool indeed.
Now if IBM/mot won't/can't build such agressive stepping into the PPC, I wonder if Apple could design it into the motherboard to help get back some of that battery life?
You just lost your credibility. There is no difference between the Mobile P4 and the desktop P4 other than a few power saving features that can be disabled. And yes, a Centrino at 1.6GHz has been shown to beat 2.4GHz "desktop" P4's. The Pentium-M at 1.6GHz is literally at least twice as fast any given PowerBook.
you sure about that? they didn't test out as well from the benchmarks i'd seen.
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/2003...charts-27.html (desktop)
http://www.tomshardware.com/mobile/2...ntrino-12.html (mobile)
at least when comparing PC Mark 2002 scores, the Centrino consistantly score lower than a 2.4Ghz P4.
haven't seen any comparisons between them and G4 chips though. if you have a resource, i'd love to read it.
Originally posted by Existence
You just lost your credibility. There is no difference between the Mobile P4 and the desktop P4 other than a few power saving features that can be disabled. And yes, a Centrino at 1.6GHz has been shown to beat 2.4GHz "desktop" P4's. The Pentium-M at 1.6GHz is literally at least twice as fast any given PowerBook. Also, Toshiba's Pentium-M laptops also get 7 hours with a 50W*hr battery.
The BANIAS seems kind of cool, but the factors that Intel likes to test it with aren't any better than those Apple uses for the G4. All Banias is is a 130nm P3 with some power saving features and a 1MB cache. It runs pretty well on battery power, but when connected to steady power, the data I've seen matches 1.6Ghz Banias with 2.0Ghz P4M.
The 7455 isn't much, but it's also quite old. I'll bet that the 7457 is quite a bit beefier than the Banias. The 970 should be quite bit beefier than the 7457 in matters Altivec aside. We'll see soon enough.
By the way, it's DOTHAN. and as far as I know it's not much different than a Banias.