AluBook faster Graphics than TiBook?

ransomedransomed
Posted:
in Current Mac Hardware edited January 2014
Hi, all...



I was looking at MacWorld's review on our beloved 17" PB, and came across this chart. It says that the 17" gets 79.7 in Quake III, while the 15" gets 76.8. I'm not sure if it's really all that significant, nor if Quake III is that good a benchmark. What do you guys think???



This is where I saw it...

http://www.macworld.com/2003/04/revi...inchpowerbook/



Comments

  • Reply 1 of 11
    chychchych Posts: 860member
    Erm, they have different graphics cards. Only a few frames difference. Um, is this ground breaking?
  • Reply 2 of 11
    ransomedransomed Posts: 169member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by chych

    Erm, they have different graphics cards. Only a few frames difference. Um, is this ground breaking?



    Maybe not, but I remember a few threads ago many people were complaining about how Apple should have put the ATI 9500 in the 17" instead of nVidia like they did with the 15"...



    My apologies, perhaps I should have been a little more specific on my initial post...
  • Reply 3 of 11
    aquaticaquatic Posts: 5,602member
    RANSOMED trust me, Apple should NEVER have put NVIDIA in laptops. ATi uses less energy, performs better in most 3d and of course 2d, and has less bugs. And is it cheaper?
  • Reply 4 of 11
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,123member
    The 17 inch Alu powerbook is better in all the benchmarks than the 15 inch i book. The 17 inch powerbook has performance very similar of those of a 933 mhz tower.
  • Reply 5 of 11
    mrmistermrmister Posts: 1,095member
    Except battery life...and for many, that's one of the most important benchmarks.
  • Reply 6 of 11
    aquaticaquatic Posts: 5,602member
    Exactly. And the new highend Radeon Mobile would blow that away. In every benchmark. So why isn't that the card in the PB17? Politics I'm guessing.
  • Reply 7 of 11
    ransomedransomed Posts: 169member
    So... If the 15" Al where to have an ATi card, would you scratch the possibility of buying a 17"er???



    I mean, if money weren't an issue, would you be willing to give up the extra portable screen real estate for a more juice-efficient, video card?...



    Anyone?
  • Reply 8 of 11
    splinemodelsplinemodel Posts: 7,311member
    Hmm. Chalk it up to the slightly faster bus. The results I've seen tend to place the ATi 9000 Mobility ahead of the GeForce 440Go.
  • Reply 9 of 11
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    iDunno, all the mac tests I've seen tend to put the ALL the PB's from 12 to 17 within 10-15% of each other on frame rates, though the 15 and 17 are pushing more pixels at their native rez. I think overall performance doesn't make too much difference in the mac world, directX performance might be different, but that doesn't matter on a mac. R7500 and GF4mx 420go are about even, and the R9000 and Gf4mx 440go are about even it seems.



    Was the 9600 mobility even out when the 17" was announced? I guess it would have had to have been finalized some weeks before, so 9600 wasn't possible?



    On a plus, I read in a couple of places now, that the new books use a mini socket of some sort for the GPU -- NOT user accesible -- but it might mean that Apple can offer more options for the GPU at some point down the line???
  • Reply 10 of 11
    curiousuburbcuriousuburb Posts: 3,325member
    ATI earns points for retroactively improving the performance of most ATI-equpped macs with (free) GPU driver updates (some now in Jaguar)



    *scratches head trying to remember the last beneficial nVidia driver update*
  • Reply 11 of 11
    jcjc Posts: 342member
    the june issue of mac addict says that the 17 is 30% faster than the ti in there review and speed test. primarilly because of the system bus
Sign In or Register to comment.