IMAC VS PowerBook

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
I like the the ATI 9700 graphics and portability of the PB 15" and I like the new screens on the G5 IMAC. Does anyone know what speed differences I will see between a G4 PB and a G5 IMAC? As a note, my local retailer told me that the G5 in the IMAC was not the same (ie. throttled down) version as was in the PowerMac G5.



Thanks in advance,

Dante

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 11
    The imac will wipe the ass off the pbook. The G4 in my opinion sucks. The thing that make it suck is that it only has 167 Mhz fsb.(from 100 Mhz of the original G4) The only thing that was throttled down was the fsb due to heat most likely. If you were going to buy, I would get the imac.
  • Reply 2 of 11
    First off, quagmire doesn't know what he's talking about. The comment about the bus speed and heat was priceless.



    I'm not sure how fast the G5 actually is when compared to the ne G4's, but the new iMac seems like a much better deal if you aren't looking for a notebook per se. There are a lot of people these days who are buying notebooks for the house since they are small and sleek (sometimes) and make less clutter. The new iMac seems to address these concerns chiefly.



    Although, it is pretty nice to watch TV and do stuff on the powerbook at the same time, no wires at all. The e600's and e700's may well be faster than the 970's. If you can wait, it might get interesting.
  • Reply 3 of 11
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Splinemodel

    The e600's and e700's may well be faster than the 970's. If you can wait, it might get interesting.



    Forgive me, but I don't know what the e600 and e700 is. Also, I am a little disappointed with the video in the new IMAC. I believe the video in the G4 PB is better. Any comments?



    Thanks,

    Dante.
  • Reply 4 of 11
    Hey Dante, as you seem like a new user, here's a bit of naming advise: it's iMac, not IMAC. Petty, sure, but much easier on the eyes.



    As for your question, if you are not going to be mobile, then why not just get the iMac? Until people can get their hands on one and benchmark it, no one really knows for such how it compares to a PB.
  • Reply 5 of 11
    Quote:

    Originally posted by k squared

    Hey Dante, as you seem like a new user, here's a bit of naming advise: it's iMac, not IMAC. Petty, sure, but much easier on the eyes.



    As for your question, if you are not going to be mobile, then why not just get the iMac? Until people can get their hands on one and benchmark it, no one really knows for such how it compares to a PB.




    Thank you for the lesson and well informed suggestion.



    I'm from the PC world, looking to switch. The PC is all about power. Need the fastest CPU, GPU, etc or you will be crushed by the OS and your Apps. I haven't had a mAc since 1987. I think it was a cLAssiC. I also had a liSa. Even had an aPPle iI before that. Since then I have not touched a maC so I'm not sure if the concerns from the MS world apply with a MaC. I don't want to buy another computer for at least 4 years so I want the the best bang for the buck. For those of you who know the MAc world, looking at the new specs, will the new iMac (whew) stand the test of time?



    Thank you,

    Dante.
  • Reply 6 of 11
    Refer to Apple's website on the details of the different machines. Do a search on these forums for details on the upcoming processors from Freescale.



    The iMac does not try to compare itself with a notebook. Just because it is slim doesn't mean it has anything to do with a notebook. You need to decide if you want a notebook computer or a desktop.



    The iMac will be faster than the Powerbook in any task you throw at it. Notebook computers are designed for battery life, light weight, etc. They are not designed for performance. The iMac is a desktop; it is designed for performance that fits into the unique form factor.



    If you want the best performance and if form factor and budget are not constraints, you should buy the top-end PowerMac and an Apple display.



    To summarize: Don't insult the iMac by comparing it with a portable computer.
  • Reply 7 of 11
    Quote:

    First off, quagmire doesn't know what he's talking about. The comment about the bus speed and heat was priceless



    Splinemodel, he meant the bus of the G4 is 167mhz, which is pathetic by today's standards, and the bus of the iMac G5 was throttled down from 2:1 to 3:1 in the iMac due to heat reasons. At 600mhz, it's still more than 3x faster than the PBG4, and the 400mhz DDR in the imac is actually the bottleneck now.



    My money would be on the new iMac, as it doesn't reak of "legacy-ness" the way the PBG4 does.
  • Reply 8 of 11
    Any concerns about the video on the iMac? Manufacturers are releasing hot new VPUs all the time and the FX5200 seems a little light compared to the current crop of Video cards. The PB G4 has an ATI 9700 for example. Even my local retailer has suggested they are disappointed with the video.



    Thank you,

    Dante.
  • Reply 9 of 11
    a_greera_greer Posts: 4,594member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Dante

    Any concerns about the video on the iMac? Manufacturers are releasing hot new VPUs all the time and the FX5200 seems a little light compared to the current crop of Video cards. The PB G4 has an ATI 9700 for example. Even my local retailer has suggested they are disappointed with the video.



    Thank you,

    Dante.




    Agreed, but is joe mac user going to care? most mac users in my experiance (this excludes pros who use macs to make a liveing and at home) trnd to be the "can it handle email, and web surfing and johnnies homework?...it does?!?...I WiLL TAKE 2!!!yay!!!" types these are the people the imac is aimed at, the "i dont give a crap about the specs BUT it damn well better to look pretty" croud.
  • Reply 10 of 11
    Quote:

    Agreed, but is joe mac user going to care? most mac users in my experiance (this excludes pros who use macs to make a liveing and at home) trnd to be the "can it handle email, and web surfing and johnnies homework?...it does?!?...I WiLL TAKE 2!!!yay!!!" types these are the people the imac is aimed at, the "i dont give a crap about the specs BUT it damn well better to look pretty" croud.



    So it's your contention that no "serious" computer user would select the current iMac. I guess you think it's just another pretty face. I disagree. I think it is an excellent design and has respectable specs. The AIO concept coupled with a sleek lcd seems a viable form factor as evidenced by how many machines from other manufactures are currently being introduced. Apple has brought their excellent design prowess to the table and delivered considerable value in the process.



    buzz
  • Reply 11 of 11
    I really don't understand why people have gotten their skirts in a knot over the video card in the iMacs. It's a better card than what's in my two work machines (16mb PCI ATI Rage Pro & 32mb Mobility Radeon 7500), and better than what's in my PC game machine (64mb GeForce4 MX) that I play UT2004 on daily. The only thing I haven't been able to do is play Theif 3, and I can live without that.



    For the average consumer, and even moderate gamer like myself, I see no reason why the new iMac wouldn't be perfect, especially considering you get a nice big Apple-quality LCD with it for $1200 or 1300 (I forget which). Certainly better than a KDS display
Sign In or Register to comment.