Does anyone know which G4 CPU from Freescale Apple is using in this new PB revision. Checking out Freescales website the 7447A seems to max out at ~1.5Ghz. no mention of 1.67Ghz. Is there any chance this is the 7448?
THT commented on it but it was a question I had from the start....
why is Apple only using a 50-watt an hour battery? Why not use a 70+watt battery like OWC sells for Powerbooks? Retail both are similar in price. I'm sure the 50 is cheaper by a good bit but with the 70 I'm sure they could claim extraordinary battery life figures.
Can I get all this in a 17" laptop that is 1" thick and weighs under 7 lbs? What about battery life?
Yes, very soon(this link uses the older generation motherboard, soon to be updated to a sonoma based mobo). With better battery life than the PowerBook.
THT commented on it but it was a question I had from the start....
why is Apple only using a 50-watt an hour battery? Why not use a 70+watt battery like OWC sells for Powerbooks? Retail both are similar in price. I'm sure the 50 is cheaper by a good bit but with the 70 I'm sure they could claim extraordinary battery life figures.
Apple is more environmentally friendly than most computer companies - what are the implications on a laptop running 20W more power? I know in desktops low wattage is good.
Does anyone know which G4 CPU from Freescale Apple is using in this new PB revision. Checking out Freescales website the 7447A seems to max out at ~1.5Ghz. no mention of 1.67Ghz. Is there any chance this is the 7448?
Did you miss the link I posted previously? Anyway, it is a 7447B.
At best, the Pentium M performs about the same per clock as the G4. It (P-M) has 2 integer units and 1 FPU unit. The G4 has 4 integer units and 1 FPU unit. On the whole, the G4 should be a little better clock for clock than the Pentium-M per clock. Where the G4 loses is in not-as-mature compiler optimizations.
You have not been looking at benchmarks. Dothan's big cache and fast FSB does translate into 1.4-2x the performance of the G4 per clock. I'd agree with you if the G4 had the same size cache and a similar FSB. But they don't.
For example, a (133MHz FSB) 1.467GHz G4 7455 at Cinebench rendering gets about 130. A cheap 1.3 GHz Dothan-Celeron with 512KB cache on a 400 MHz FSB gets 170. Even at photoshop, the G4 fails to keep up clock-to-clock parity with 2MB cache Dothans.
Since Apple doesn't support GPU upgrades in their laptops, PCIe is fairly irrelevant. The current graphics chip selection won't stress the AGP architecture.
You forget perhaps Core Image/Video and Quartz 2D Extreme coming with Tiger in a matter of months. It is apparent that Apple will soon try to "discover" the GPU as a co-processor for graphics manipulation and push its capabilities as much as it takes. The presence of a PCIe interface will be very beneficial in this context. I don't think for this reason alone that Apple can afford to remain AGP only for more than one update from now in the professional lines.
Does anyone know which G4 CPU from Freescale Apple is using in this new PB revision. Checking out Freescales website the 7447A seems to max out at ~1.5Ghz. no mention of 1.67Ghz. Is there any chance this is the 7448?
No. If it did I'd be on it like hair on a gorilla.
Apple is more environmentally friendly than most computer companies - what are the implications on a laptop running 20W more power? I know in desktops low wattage is good.
that is not true. apple has no sort of return program like Dell and others have for old computers/electronics.
Also, I'm not an electrical engineer but the Powerbook wouldn't be using 20W more power, the battery would have that much in excess per hour. Correct?
This pretty much bangs the nail in my dad's conversion...
For anyone concerned, we priced up a 17" Sunday night, and it came to £1800 on my edu price. The new 17" is £1700 with the same, but mostly better specs. I'll be getting him together with a 30" display too.
I bought a 12" in September, it's now £200 - 300 cheaper than then, again same or better specs. I am stupidly tempted by a 15" for some reason now, I know I'll never afford a 30" display as a student though...
that is not true. apple has no sort of return program like Dell and others have for old computers/electronics.
Also, I'm not an electrical engineer but the Powerbook wouldn't be using 20W more power, the battery would have that much in excess per hour. Correct?
Oh I was mistaken! The iMac was very low wattage though - the G4. Yeah and you're right about the battery - the battery would have 20W more, but are they less environmentally friendly to make - or is it not a factor!!
Oh I was mistaken! The iMac was very low wattage though - the G4. Yeah and you're right about the battery - the battery would have 20W more, but are they less environmentally friendly to make - or is it not a factor!!
well, i would think it would be more environmentally friendly since you would require less charges for more usage. batteries only last a certain amount of charge cycles. if it were 90 mins more per charge, over a 1000 charge cycles that adds up.
Any word on whether or not the screen's were updated? Thats the one major sticking point outside of the 167mhz bus, that is stopping me from buying a PB. I've compared the Rev C's with other laptops, and its horrible, IMO.
For me, this, by far, is one of the worst parts of Apple laptops. Look at laptops made by other companies when browsing your local computer store, and you'll find a whole host of PC laptops with screens that are better in contrast, brightness, sharpness, and color. Especially Sony's laptops, which have their what, XBRITE are they called, screens that just ridicule anything Apple has in the way of LCD screens. It amazes me that Apple is supposed to be one of the "high quality hardware" companies, and they have such terrible LCD screens.
Of course, I'm also bothered a bit that Apple things adding things like a lighted keyboard and the new trackpad to their laptops really makes up for the lack of power in a number of areas inside. Don't get me wrong, I love those features, but they shouldn't be what is used to convince me to get a PowerBook versus the actual guts of the machine.
Of course, I'm also bothered a bit that Apple things adding things like a lighted keyboard and the new trackpad to their laptops really makes up for the lack of power in a number of areas inside. Don't get me wrong, I love those features, but they shouldn't be what is used to convince me to get a PowerBook versus the actual guts of the machine.
If the 1.67GHz 7447B is the best CPU they can put in the machine, what do you want them to do? It's not like they're holding back on you.
If the G5 doesn't work out anytime soon, Apple can move to the 7448, which eliminates the bus bottleneck and doubles the cache size. That should do nicely. But they can't ship it before Freescale produces it in quantity.
For me, this, by far, is one of the worst parts of Apple laptops. Look at laptops made by other companies when browsing your local computer store, and you'll find a whole host of PC laptops with screens that are better in contrast, brightness, sharpness, and color. Especially Sony's laptops, which have their what, XBRITE are they called, screens that just ridicule anything Apple has in the way of LCD screens. It amazes me that Apple is supposed to be one of the "high quality hardware" companies, and they have such terrible LCD screens.
Have you seen the glare and reflection in those new Sony displays? Sure they look bloody marvelous in the correct lighting, but I wouldn't want to use it in mixed lighting conditions. So far my PowerBook's display has been really good, although I have yet to test it in the summer.
Simple put, there is no other processor available to put in the powerbook. I really can't believe how a lot of otherwise intellegent people are act like they are suprised by the speeds of the new processors. Guess what, we all knew that the other alternates were not ready. They did what they could, and quit frankly they took what could have been a crappy update and turned it into a good one. New features, better HD, slightly faster, all for less money. If I was in the market I would by one.
Simple put, there is no other processor available to put in the powerbook. I really can't believe how a lot of otherwise intellegent people are act like they are suprised by the speeds of the new processors. Guess what, we all knew that the other alternates were not ready. They did what they could, and quit frankly they took what could have been a crappy update and turned it into a good one. New features, better HD, slightly faster, all for less money. If I was in the market I would by one.
Brilliantly put - I have ordered one - it's a brilliant computer a good light, powerful laptop that doesn't compromise too much.
Simple put, there is no other processor available to put in the powerbook. I really can't believe how a lot of otherwise intellegent people are act like they are suprised by the speeds of the new processors. Guess what, we all knew that the other alternates were not ready. They did what they could, and quit frankly they took what could have been a crappy update and turned it into a good one. New features, better HD, slightly faster, all for less money. If I was in the market I would by one.
exactly. very tempting upgrade from my tibook 500...
Since the G5 powerbook is a year away (at least) anyway, this is an excellent update.
I second that. I was looking at my friend's laptop in class the other day. The bottom plastic on the base is a different color than the top part and I asked him, "Why do you have it hooked up to a dock?" He said, what dock? The laptop is as thick as a brick.
Getting my first mac tomorrow. PB 17" (I'll be the only one in my class with a mac ;-(
I'll third this hehe. I see lots of people with laptops on campus these days (I'm a business undergrad), and two things tend to stick out. First, they almost always have their laptops plugged into a power outlet while sitting in class (hmmm, crappy battery life?). Second, some of those PC laptops are behemoths, definately pushing the definition of portability.
I've wanted a laptop for some time now, when I do get one, it's going to be a Mac, only question is iBook vs. Powerbook.
Comments
Originally posted by nagromme
I can't wait to try it out
PLEASE - DON'T DROP IT!!
why is Apple only using a 50-watt an hour battery? Why not use a 70+watt battery like OWC sells for Powerbooks? Retail both are similar in price. I'm sure the 50 is cheaper by a good bit but with the 70 I'm sure they could claim extraordinary battery life figures.
Originally posted by 1984
Can I get all this in a 17" laptop that is 1" thick and weighs under 7 lbs? What about battery life?
Yes, very soon(this link uses the older generation motherboard, soon to be updated to a sonoma based mobo). With better battery life than the PowerBook.
Originally posted by applenut
THT commented on it but it was a question I had from the start....
why is Apple only using a 50-watt an hour battery? Why not use a 70+watt battery like OWC sells for Powerbooks? Retail both are similar in price. I'm sure the 50 is cheaper by a good bit but with the 70 I'm sure they could claim extraordinary battery life figures.
Apple is more environmentally friendly than most computer companies - what are the implications on a laptop running 20W more power? I know in desktops low wattage is good.
Originally posted by kento
Does anyone know which G4 CPU from Freescale Apple is using in this new PB revision. Checking out Freescales website the 7447A seems to max out at ~1.5Ghz. no mention of 1.67Ghz. Is there any chance this is the 7448?
Did you miss the link I posted previously? Anyway, it is a 7447B.
Originally posted by THT
At best, the Pentium M performs about the same per clock as the G4. It (P-M) has 2 integer units and 1 FPU unit. The G4 has 4 integer units and 1 FPU unit. On the whole, the G4 should be a little better clock for clock than the Pentium-M per clock. Where the G4 loses is in not-as-mature compiler optimizations.
You have not been looking at benchmarks. Dothan's big cache and fast FSB does translate into 1.4-2x the performance of the G4 per clock. I'd agree with you if the G4 had the same size cache and a similar FSB. But they don't.
For example, a (133MHz FSB) 1.467GHz G4 7455 at Cinebench rendering gets about 130. A cheap 1.3 GHz Dothan-Celeron with 512KB cache on a 400 MHz FSB gets 170. Even at photoshop, the G4 fails to keep up clock-to-clock parity with 2MB cache Dothans.
Originally posted by THT
Since Apple doesn't support GPU upgrades in their laptops, PCIe is fairly irrelevant. The current graphics chip selection won't stress the AGP architecture.
You forget perhaps Core Image/Video and Quartz 2D Extreme coming with Tiger in a matter of months. It is apparent that Apple will soon try to "discover" the GPU as a co-processor for graphics manipulation and push its capabilities as much as it takes. The presence of a PCIe interface will be very beneficial in this context. I don't think for this reason alone that Apple can afford to remain AGP only for more than one update from now in the professional lines.
Originally posted by kento
Does anyone know which G4 CPU from Freescale Apple is using in this new PB revision. Checking out Freescales website the 7447A seems to max out at ~1.5Ghz. no mention of 1.67Ghz. Is there any chance this is the 7448?
No. If it did I'd be on it like hair on a gorilla.
Originally posted by MacCrazy
Apple is more environmentally friendly than most computer companies - what are the implications on a laptop running 20W more power? I know in desktops low wattage is good.
that is not true. apple has no sort of return program like Dell and others have for old computers/electronics.
Also, I'm not an electrical engineer but the Powerbook wouldn't be using 20W more power, the battery would have that much in excess per hour. Correct?
For anyone concerned, we priced up a 17" Sunday night, and it came to £1800 on my edu price. The new 17" is £1700 with the same, but mostly better specs.
I bought a 12" in September, it's now £200 - 300 cheaper than then, again same or better specs. I am stupidly tempted by a 15" for some reason now, I know I'll never afford a 30" display as a student though...
Originally posted by applenut
that is not true. apple has no sort of return program like Dell and others have for old computers/electronics.
Also, I'm not an electrical engineer but the Powerbook wouldn't be using 20W more power, the battery would have that much in excess per hour. Correct?
Oh I was mistaken! The iMac was very low wattage though - the G4. Yeah and you're right about the battery - the battery would have 20W more, but are they less environmentally friendly to make - or is it not a factor!!
Originally posted by MacCrazy
Oh I was mistaken! The iMac was very low wattage though - the G4. Yeah and you're right about the battery - the battery would have 20W more, but are they less environmentally friendly to make - or is it not a factor!!
well, i would think it would be more environmentally friendly since you would require less charges for more usage. batteries only last a certain amount of charge cycles. if it were 90 mins more per charge, over a 1000 charge cycles that adds up.
Originally posted by scavanger
Any word on whether or not the screen's were updated? Thats the one major sticking point outside of the 167mhz bus, that is stopping me from buying a PB. I've compared the Rev C's with other laptops, and its horrible, IMO.
For me, this, by far, is one of the worst parts of Apple laptops. Look at laptops made by other companies when browsing your local computer store, and you'll find a whole host of PC laptops with screens that are better in contrast, brightness, sharpness, and color. Especially Sony's laptops, which have their what, XBRITE are they called, screens that just ridicule anything Apple has in the way of LCD screens. It amazes me that Apple is supposed to be one of the "high quality hardware" companies, and they have such terrible LCD screens.
Of course, I'm also bothered a bit that Apple things adding things like a lighted keyboard and the new trackpad to their laptops really makes up for the lack of power in a number of areas inside. Don't get me wrong, I love those features, but they shouldn't be what is used to convince me to get a PowerBook versus the actual guts of the machine.
Originally posted by shidoshi
Of course, I'm also bothered a bit that Apple things adding things like a lighted keyboard and the new trackpad to their laptops really makes up for the lack of power in a number of areas inside. Don't get me wrong, I love those features, but they shouldn't be what is used to convince me to get a PowerBook versus the actual guts of the machine.
If the 1.67GHz 7447B is the best CPU they can put in the machine, what do you want them to do? It's not like they're holding back on you.
If the G5 doesn't work out anytime soon, Apple can move to the 7448, which eliminates the bus bottleneck and doubles the cache size. That should do nicely. But they can't ship it before Freescale produces it in quantity.
Originally posted by shidoshi
For me, this, by far, is one of the worst parts of Apple laptops. Look at laptops made by other companies when browsing your local computer store, and you'll find a whole host of PC laptops with screens that are better in contrast, brightness, sharpness, and color. Especially Sony's laptops, which have their what, XBRITE are they called, screens that just ridicule anything Apple has in the way of LCD screens. It amazes me that Apple is supposed to be one of the "high quality hardware" companies, and they have such terrible LCD screens.
Have you seen the glare and reflection in those new Sony displays? Sure they look bloody marvelous in the correct lighting, but I wouldn't want to use it in mixed lighting conditions. So far my PowerBook's display has been really good, although I have yet to test it in the summer.
Originally posted by timmy o'tool
Simple put, there is no other processor available to put in the powerbook. I really can't believe how a lot of otherwise intellegent people are act like they are suprised by the speeds of the new processors. Guess what, we all knew that the other alternates were not ready. They did what they could, and quit frankly they took what could have been a crappy update and turned it into a good one. New features, better HD, slightly faster, all for less money. If I was in the market I would by one.
Brilliantly put - I have ordered one - it's a brilliant computer a good light, powerful laptop that doesn't compromise too much.
Originally posted by timmy o'tool
Simple put, there is no other processor available to put in the powerbook. I really can't believe how a lot of otherwise intellegent people are act like they are suprised by the speeds of the new processors. Guess what, we all knew that the other alternates were not ready. They did what they could, and quit frankly they took what could have been a crappy update and turned it into a good one. New features, better HD, slightly faster, all for less money. If I was in the market I would by one.
exactly. very tempting upgrade from my tibook 500...
Since the G5 powerbook is a year away (at least) anyway, this is an excellent update.
Originally posted by Neruda
I second that. I was looking at my friend's laptop in class the other day. The bottom plastic on the base is a different color than the top part and I asked him, "Why do you have it hooked up to a dock?" He said, what dock? The laptop is as thick as a brick.
Getting my first mac tomorrow. PB 17" (I'll be the only one in my class with a mac ;-(
I'll third this hehe. I see lots of people with laptops on campus these days (I'm a business undergrad), and two things tend to stick out. First, they almost always have their laptops plugged into a power outlet while sitting in class (hmmm, crappy battery life?). Second, some of those PC laptops are behemoths, definately pushing the definition of portability.
I've wanted a laptop for some time now, when I do get one, it's going to be a Mac, only question is iBook vs. Powerbook.