1 ghz Ti vs. the best of the PC mobiles
Man I would love to see a test of the new Powerbooks against this machine <a href="http://www.techtv.com/freshgear/products/story/0,23008,3406071,00.html"; target="_blank">Area 51m</a> in a gaming setup.
They cost the same but the ti comes with DVD burner and gig of RAM and only weighs 5 pounds, the Area 51 is a lardass like 10 pounds, so it is hardly a portable, but it does 2.8ghz chip and DDR. I wonder how the Ti stacks up. By the way I know the Area 51 runs the crappy Windows, and runs a lot more games etc.
Just how do you think the Ti stacks up in pure gaming, especially ingames that are on both like Quake 3, Warcraft, Jedi, etc...
They cost the same but the ti comes with DVD burner and gig of RAM and only weighs 5 pounds, the Area 51 is a lardass like 10 pounds, so it is hardly a portable, but it does 2.8ghz chip and DDR. I wonder how the Ti stacks up. By the way I know the Area 51 runs the crappy Windows, and runs a lot more games etc.
Just how do you think the Ti stacks up in pure gaming, especially ingames that are on both like Quake 3, Warcraft, Jedi, etc...
Comments
You don't want to know how much faster a 2.8GHz P4 is compared to a single 1GHz G4.
According to Apple:
Quake 3 Arena- 1024x768 resolution, the 1GHz PowerBook G4 pumps out 76 frames per second.
According to Barefeats: Quake 3 at 1024x768
800mhz with 7500 Radeon 59 FPS
667mhz with 7500 Radeon 55 FPS
1.25Ghz dual with nvidia TI4600 189 FPS
2.0ghz P4 with nvidia TI4600 205 FPS
Furthermore, there are so many high ended PC laptops i.e. some are gaming machines, some are desktop replacements, some are uber-portable, etc that just picking one definitevely high end one is not wasy.
Apple Really needs that .13u G4 soon. 7457 will have 200Mhz FSB and support for 4MB L3, not to mention the .13u fab letting it go to 1.8Ghz. 7457rm will sport similar .13u goodness but incorporate RapidIO to finally resolve the FSB issue.
Apple shoulda weant with 2MB L3 and mebbe even a 167FSB, though RAM might have been an issue in that case. I dunno if they have a controller than can run memory and FSB asynchronouosly. I don't think 333Mhz DDR so-dimms are out there yet.
How will FCP performance on the new PB 1ghz be compared to a comparable Videoediting solution on a PC portable? Doesn't FCP have an outstanding performance? anyone know?
? It's friggin' ugly
? It's large
? It's heavy
? It uses a standard Pentium 4 Processor, not a P4-M (since they don't exist at that clockspeed), draws huge amounts of power
? Annoying heat problems, even the keyboard gets too hot as they say at TechTV, what about the heat at it's bottom?
? Redicolously high optimal screen-resolution (somewhat subjective, but who plays at 1600x1200 with that graphics-card?)
? It's a peecee.
There is nothing about this "laptop" that make me want it.
Apple wins!!
[ 11-07-2002: Message edited by: trailmaster308 ]</p>
Unfortunately Apple is is staying away from the desktop replacement category of portable. I think that they are doing it for marketing reasons: they want people to buy both a tower and a laptop.
Might I add, this is for any PC notebook that has been made and will be made in the future!
<strong>For now, if your main concern in your portable is computing power, the area 51 or the Dell heavy weights are the clear winers. </strong><hr></blockquote>
In what way? Power consumption? Portability? Weight? You know, I don't believe it's nearly as "clear" as you seem to think it is. Most people buy a laptop because it's portable and usable that way, not because they can move it from place to place and plug it in. I mean those gigantic "laptops" get what, an hour of battery life at most if you're actually using them?
The Powerbook is the clear winner if you're talking about full functioned laptops that are actually good for doing heavy duty work without needing to plug them in every hour, and won't hurt your back when you pick them up.
[quote]<strong>Unfortunately Apple is staying away from the desktop replacement category of portable. I think that they are doing it for marketing reasons: they want people to buy both a tower and a laptop.
I fail to see how the Powerbook is not a desktop replacement. Do you think it needs to be gigantic, heavy, unattractive and a battery hog in order to be a desktop replacement? There is nothing like the Powerbook in the PC world. Either the PC laptops are light and small but don't have nearly the computing power nor most of the features of the Powerbook, or they're gigantic, heavy and can't run on their own power for more than an hour. I might also add that the full power PC laptops are also more expensive than the Powerbook, and none of them come with a DVD burner.
<strong>The Ti Book will be pummeled at low resolutions. High resolutions not so much.
You don't want to know how much faster a 2.8GHz P4 is compared to a single 1GHz G4.</strong><hr></blockquote>
but look at the size of that thing. it probably weighs more than an imac. also...a Powerbook isnt intended as a gaming machine. Although Apple should have one dedicated for gaming....
<strong>For now, if your main concern in your portable is computing power, the area 51 or the Dell heavy weights are the clear winers.
Unfortunately Apple is is staying away from the desktop replacement category of portable. I think that they are doing it for marketing reasons: they want people to buy both a tower and a laptop.
eMacs and iMacs are desktop computers, and the Powerbook could easily replace both of those. It would not replace a Powermac Dual 1ghz or Dual 1.25, but what do you need out of a desktop that the Powerbook cannot do?
<strong>
In what way? Power consumption? Portability? Weight? You know, I don't believe it's nearly as "clear" as you seem to think it is. Most people buy a laptop because it's portable and usable that way, not because they can move it from place to place and plug it in. I mean those gigantic "laptops" get what, an hour of battery life at most if you're actually using them?
The Powerbook is the clear winner if you're talking about full functioned laptops that are actually good for doing heavy duty work without needing to plug them in every hour, and won't hurt your back when you pick them up.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Uh, I said that if your main concern was computing power that the area 51 and dells were the clear winner -- which is fact (they are over twice as fast as the powerbooks).
I never said that they were better, or recommended that anyone buy one. Your response doesn't make any sense.
[quote]Originally posted by Xaqtly:
<strong>
I fail to see how the Powerbook is not a desktop replacement. Do you think it needs to be gigantic, heavy, unattractive and a battery hog in order to be a desktop replacement? There is nothing like the Powerbook in the PC world. Either the PC laptops are light and small but don't have nearly the computing power nor most of the features of the Powerbook, or they're gigantic, heavy and can't run on their own power for more than an hour. I might also add that the full power PC laptops are also more expensive than the Powerbook, and none of them come with a DVD burner.</strong><hr></blockquote>
On order for a portable to fit into the desktop replacement category it has to have around 80% of the performance of the desktop. Apple used to make powerbooks that were near that mark, now they don't.
Why are you rambling on about ugly PCs and battery life? It has nothing to do with the post you quoted.
I would like Apple to make a more powerful laptop -- one that is powerful enough to replace the dual 1.25 MHz tower. Yes, it would be somewhat thicker and heavier,(and the battery life would probably suck) but I would buy one.
I travel all the time, but I almost always use my 800Mhz Ti Powerbook plugged in and sitting at a table or desk. I would gladly add on a few pounds for extra power, and so would a lot of other customers.
So just be patient and the gpul powerbooks will come (eventually....)