PowerBook Performance

Posted:
in Current Mac Hardware edited January 2014
Does anybody have an idea what the performance on the new Powerbooks will be in comparision to the Titanium? The new one lacks the 3rd level cache and only spots an 4.200 rpm HD. What cpu is in the powerbook? MC 7457?
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 49
    It's sad...actually



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



    The 1.25 15" gets is ass handed to it by a Centrino...this sucks...
  • Reply 2 of 49
    telomartelomar Posts: 1,804member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by filmmaker2002

    It's sad...actually



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



    The 1.25 15" gets is ass handed to it by a Centrino...this sucks...




    To be expected until the processor gets a decent FSB. What surprises me is the improvement over the old models given the L3 cache is gone. Basically scaled linearly with clock speed.
  • Reply 3 of 49
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    I don't know about the cross-platform comparison to the centrino, but if that barefeats graph is to be believed, it's pretty good news, because the new 1.25 really kicks the old 1Ghz's butt.
  • Reply 4 of 49
    pscatespscates Posts: 5,847member
    Well, furthermore...why should I - or anyone else here not afflicted with specwhoreitis or PC envy - give two flying damns how it compares to a Centrino? Or any other Windows-based machine, for that matter.







    So $#@%ing what. I'm interested in how it compares to, say, the previous 15" or the current 17" or the iMac. Or any other APPLE computer. But worrying about how it stacks up to a computer I care NOTHING whatsoever about and will never use anyway?



    That's a waste of energy and worrying muscles.







    Kinda like being a Harley guy and constantly torqued up over what Audis or Range Rovers are up to and sporting. It's a whole different beast and a whole different experience from the ground up.



    I don't ride anything but a Mac, so...



  • Reply 5 of 49
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,449member
    Is there anyone here who actually uses that program that the benchmark is based on?



    Apple did claim that the new laptops get over 100+ fps in Quake III, that's not bad.



    Nick
  • Reply 6 of 49
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    Is there anyone here who actually uses that program that the benchmark is based on?



    of course. There are quite a few of us. Some of us actually use our powerbooks to create things.



    Just to add, I'd like to see a range of benchmarks. I've read things here and there about cinema 4d's optimizations that make this benchmark less than indicative of overall performance.
  • Reply 7 of 49
    Quote:

    Originally posted by giant

    Just to add, I'd like to see a range of benchmarks. I've read things here and there about cinema 4d's optimizations that make this benchmark less than indicative of overall performance.



    Precisely. Cinema4D screams on dual-processor Athlons. Anything less gets its ass handed to it. Hopefully Maxon can optimize it for the G5 - they're working on it at the moment.



    Far better to *model* on a G4, and farm off *rendering* to a dual-proc Athlon.



    Of course, for small scenes, on a notebook, who gives a...
  • Reply 8 of 49
    Quote:

    Originally posted by michaelb

    Precisely. Cinema4D screams on dual-processor Athlons. Anything less gets its ass handed to it. Hopefully Maxon can optimize it for the G5 - they're working on it at the moment.



    Far better to *model* on a G4, and farm off *rendering* to a dual-proc Athlon.



    Of course, for small scenes, on a notebook, who gives a...




    Isn't this the rub? Create on the mac. Queue production to a machine that can crunch the numbers better. If that's a dual athalon, so be it. If it's a centrino, OK. Just don't try and work on those guys while they are crunching away.



    Scientists have done this for years. We farm out are large-scale simulations to a parallel machine we have (Solaris). Graphics on a linux(ppc) box or another (distributed) Solaris machine (SunRay). Everyday work/creation/writing and now rendering? G4. Hopefully soon, G5.



    Scientists have always been totally pragmatic about processing power, and so have had a number of OSes in house. You need the right tool for the job.
  • Reply 9 of 49
    jbjb Posts: 9member
    <Apple did claim that the new laptops get over 100+ fps in Quake III, that's not bad.>



    According to this review of THIS new Dell Inspiron 8600 (WITH a 15.4" screen may I add...)



    124 frames per second in an Unreal Tournament 2003 flyby at 1,024 by 768 (even a respectable 56 fps at 1,600 by 1,200); 230 fps in the classic Quake III Arena 1,024 by 768 High Quality benchmark



    I want a new PB, as my 667 15" TiBook is getting a little long in the tooth, but until I can play Quake III at native resolution with 4x AA + 8X AS at "100+ FPS" and everything all the way up, I won't get one... Oh well... Guess it's time to wait for PB G5's...



    -JB
  • Reply 10 of 49
    telomartelomar Posts: 1,804member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by machem

    Isn't this the rub? Create on the mac. Queue production to a machine that can crunch the numbers better. If that's a dual athalon, so be it. If it's a centrino, OK. Just don't try and work on those guys while they are crunching away.



    Scientists have done this for years. We farm out are large-scale simulations to a parallel machine we have (Solaris). Graphics on a linux(ppc) box or another (distributed) Solaris machine (SunRay). Everyday work/creation/writing and now rendering? G4. Hopefully soon, G5.



    Scientists have always been totally pragmatic about processing power, and so have had a number of OSes in house. You need the right tool for the job.




    Ironically it's the argument that engineers or scientists can reduce this reliance that Apple is using to try and lure engineers and scientists across.
  • Reply 11 of 49
    Quote:

    Originally posted by pscates

    Kinda like being a Harley guy and constantly torqued up over what Audis or Range Rovers are up to and sporting. It's a whole different beast and a whole different experience from the ground up.



    I don't ride anything but a Mac, so...







    would you ride this?
  • Reply 12 of 49
    I wonder what the comparison between a centrino system and a G4 1.25 system is once you factor in the effect of the OS ... crash, bang, wallop - there goes the Windows speed advantage!
  • Reply 13 of 49
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by AlPanther

    would you ride this?



    Yuck! It reminds me of the Bugatti Veyron...DOUBLE YUCK!!
  • Reply 14 of 49
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,449member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by giant

    of course. There are quite a few of us. Some of us actually use our powerbooks to create things.



    Just to add, I'd like to see a range of benchmarks. I've read things here and there about cinema 4d's optimizations that make this benchmark less than indicative of overall performance.




    You know giant you're rude even when not talking politics.



    I just wondered what percentage of Mac users use Cinema4D. It can't be a large number as any 3d program has a much smaller userbase than say, oh Photoshop.



    As for whether I "create" things, the numerous videos I have edited including a short movie screened at the Los Angeles Final Cut Pro User Group, are for what use my Powerbook is intended.



    Nick
  • Reply 15 of 49
    666666 Posts: 134member
    so whats the dilly, how does the new 1ghz compare to the old 1ghz? Is there an upgrade? My nerd skillz arent as powerful as some.. :o



    i mean as in processor speed, not the firewire 800 action etc
  • Reply 16 of 49
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,449member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by JB

    <Apple did claim that the new laptops get over 100+ fps in Quake III, that's not bad.>



    According to this review of THIS new Dell Inspiron 8600 (WITH a 15.4" screen may I add...)



    124 frames per second in an Unreal Tournament 2003 flyby at 1,024 by 768 (even a respectable 56 fps at 1,600 by 1,200); 230 fps in the classic Quake III Arena 1,024 by 768 High Quality benchmark



    I want a new PB, as my 667 15" TiBook is getting a little long in the tooth, but until I can play Quake III at native resolution with 4x AA + 8X AS at "100+ FPS" and everything all the way up, I won't get one... Oh well... Guess it's time to wait for PB G5's...



    -JB




    Sure and if Apple has to make their laptops weigh 7.3 pounds (without the cord) to accomplish that then what is the point of being portable? That 15 inch laptop weighs more than the 17 inch Powerbook!



    It is also so power hungry that even with the Centrino processor it can't hit 3 hours of running time.



    It is also repeatedly referred to as bulky but less so than others.



    I'll take the slower Quake III and save my back at the same time.



    Nick
  • Reply 17 of 49
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    edit: completely offtopic posting. this isn't AO. keep it that way. -alcimedes



    T bring this back on topic, the xbench from macnn looks really good



    Quote:

    Results 105.00

    System Info

    Xbench Version 1.1.1

    System Version 10.2.7 (6R55)

    Physical RAM 512 MB

    Model PowerBook5,2

    Processor PowerPC G4 @ 1.25 GHz

    L1 Cache 32K (instruction), 32K (data)

    L2 Cache 512K @ 1.25 GHz

    Bus Frequency 167 MHz

    Video Card ATY,RV350M10

    Drive Type FUJITSU MHT2080AT

    CPU Test 149.23

    GCD Loop 144.78 5.65 Mops/sec

    Floating Point Basic 149.42 540.36 Mflop/sec

    AltiVec Basic 149.73 4.35 Gflop/sec

    vecLib FFT 152.38 2.37 Gflop/sec

    Floating Point Library 150.06 6.01 Mops/sec

    Thread Test 79.90

    Computation 78.30 626.88 Kops/sec, 4 threads

    Lock Contention 81.56 1.02 Mlocks/sec, 4 threads

    Memory Test 124.22

    System 117.19

    Allocate 149.50 100.81 Kalloc/sec

    Fill 143.53 1142.54 MB/sec

    Copy 83.73 418.63 MB/sec

    Stream 132.15

    Copy 137.27 1003.41 MB/sec [altivec]

    Scale 139.41 1028.84 MB/sec [altivec]

    Add 130.64 836.09 MB/sec [altivec]

    Triad 122.62 749.18 MB/sec [altivec]

    Quartz Graphics Test 137.88

    Line 134.99 3.44 Klines/sec [50% alpha]

    Rectangle 125.56 8.83 Krects/sec [50% alpha]

    Circle 149.17 3.44 Kcircles/sec [50% alpha]

    Bezier 138.73 1.51 Kbeziers/sec [50% alpha]

    Text 143.29 2.34 Kchars/sec

    OpenGL Graphics Test 99.92

    Spinning Squares 99.92 69.93 frames/sec

    User Interface Test 126.42

    Elements 126.42 40.66 refresh/sec

    Disk Test 70.28

    Sequential 77.77

    Uncached Write 74.58 29.69 MB/sec [4K blocks]

    Uncached Write 68.96 26.92 MB/sec [256K blocks]

    Uncached Read 111.08 17.58 MB/sec [4K blocks]

    Uncached Read 68.88 27.83 MB/sec [256K blocks]

    Random 64.11

    Uncached Write 79.11 1.13 MB/sec [4K blocks]

    Uncached Write 57.32 12.93 MB/sec [256K blocks]

    Uncached Read 59.07 0.39 MB/sec [4K blocks]

    Uncached Read 65.02 13.38 MB/sec [256K blocks]



    compare that to ~120 for CPU on a Ghz powerbook.
  • Reply 18 of 49
    pbpb Posts: 4,228member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by giant



    T bring this back on topic, the xbench from macnn looks really good





    Can anyone explain why the 12" 867 MHz and the new 15" 1.25 GHz powerbooks have about the same OpenGL score in xbench? Is there something wrong with the OpenGL implementation in 10.2 or just xbench results are not that useful?
  • Reply 19 of 49
    pscatespscates Posts: 5,847member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by AlPanther

    would you ride this?



    Yeah, I'd ride it. Sure. BUT I wouldn't stay up nights worrying about what it had under the hood compared to my Saturn or whatever, and freaking out and bitching about it...like a lot of you here do with regards to the whole "PC vs. Mac" thing.







    That's the difference.



  • Reply 20 of 49
    murbotmurbot Posts: 5,261member
    Cool it, giant. Keep the bickering to AO please.
Sign In or Register to comment.