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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
<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...
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.
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 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!
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.
<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.
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?
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.
Comments
http://www.barefeats.com/quick.html
The 1.25 15" gets is ass handed to it by a Centrino...this sucks...
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.
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...
Apple did claim that the new laptops get over 100+ fps in Quake III, that's not bad.
Nick
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.
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...
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.
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
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.
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?
Originally posted by AlPanther
would you ride this?
Yuck! It reminds me of the Bugatti Veyron...DOUBLE YUCK!!
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
i mean as in processor speed, not the firewire 800 action etc
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
T bring this back on topic, the xbench from macnn looks really good
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.
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?
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.