I've decided I Don't want Apple to release a G5 PB
Looking at the benchmarks for 1.5Ghz G4 PowerBooks vs. the G5 iMacs, I must say, for people who must Get Shit Done, the PB is a better choice. In fact, in one test suite (barefeats) for photoshop actions, the PB came out ahead (statisticaly equal). Motion is also faster on the PowerBook, by a fair margin (GPU related).
SO. I say screw the G5 PB with a big rusty lead pipe. Give me a 8641(D) G4 PowerBook. Dual Core? yeah sure if you can swing it, but one'd do as well.
I betcha (nay, hope) Apple will come/already came to the same conclusion. Can the G5 spell Run?
SO. I say screw the G5 PB with a big rusty lead pipe. Give me a 8641(D) G4 PowerBook. Dual Core? yeah sure if you can swing it, but one'd do as well.
I betcha (nay, hope) Apple will come/already came to the same conclusion. Can the G5 spell Run?
Comments
Originally posted by ChevalierMalFet
Looking at the benchmarks for 1.5Ghz G4 PowerBooks vs. the G5 iMacs, I must say, for people who must Get Shit Done, the PB is a better choice. In fact, in one test suite (barefeats) for photoshop actions, the PB came out ahead (statisticaly equal). Motion is also faster on the PowerBook, by a fair margin (GPU related).
SO. I say screw the G5 PB with a big rusty lead pipe. Give me a 8641(D) G4 PowerBook. Dual Core? yeah sure if you can swing it, but one'd do as well.
I betcha (nay, hope) Apple will come/already came to the same conclusion. Can the G5 spell Run?
For now, because of all the F4 revisions, it performs more admirably in some tests than the G5. However, Tiger, which is built around the G5, should change all that. Also, I'd expect another revision of the G5 before the end of summer to hit. While the G4 is holding its own now, in another 5-6 months you'll understand what the G5 is capable of.
I suspect when applications are tuned for the G5 that will change (of which the OS is only one), but until then, I'm putting danger money on the G4. Keep in mind that one workhorse, Photoshop, is not even tuned for MacOS X yet, much less G5s (that stupid G5 extension is such a sorry excuse for an effort).
The state of Photoshop code is a rant for another day though.
Originally posted by Placebo
The iMac G5 is a nerfed version of the G5, and besides, many of the Barefeats tests, particularly the Motion test, rely on a good video card, which the iMac G5 doesn't have, and the Powerbook G4 does. G5s are faster than G4s, it's that simple.
Yeah, I know what you mean. I might pick up a iMac G5, or an eMac G5 (if they ever release one) at the end of august. I'd say expect the G5's to be totally outclassing the G4 by christmas, if not sooner, simply because of faster processor speed, and tiger optimizations. The G4 is in the process of being phased out as it is, and the G5's are just going to get faster and more refined, and the software more geared towards the 64 bit capabilities of the G5 and Tiger.
If by nerfed you mean slower memory bus and less maximum memory capacity, then yeah you are right. If you expect the PowerBooks to be any different, you are confused.
Expect them to nerf the G5 for the PowerBook in the same way unless they wait for on die memory buses.
And Alcibiades, you place too much faith in Tiger's G5 optimization. Since the OS is already pretty snappy on a G4 (hell at most it hits my PB CPU for 12% in normal use) I'm not expecting Tiger Optimization to do much for me other than possibly faster searches with spotlight, and maybe faster PCMCIA/FAT performance (anyone know why Cardbus and 16 bit CF readers tank the CPU? baffles the hell out of me.).
Where Tiger WILL make a difference is the new APIs (Core Audio, Core Video, etc.) which will allow developers an easier path for optimizing their apps. Chances are, however, that those optimizations will not hit shipping apps/upgrades for 6?18 months AFTER Tiger ships. Which will probably be about the time IBM has dual dore G5s that consume little enough power to go into PowerBooks (12?18 months, not 6).
Works for me.
Oh, and I'm sure many smaller shareware/small development houses will optimize their apps much faster than the larger Adobe/MS/Macromedia/Lightwave etc. development houses, but let's face it, those are the apps that count.
Well, maybe not MS.
Originally posted by ChevalierMalFet
SO. I say screw the G5 PB with a big rusty lead pipe. Give me a 8641(D) G4 P
I agree. I'd rather want this than a god damn G5 in a PowerBook. Not only would it be faster, it'd be easier to cool as well.
You must be bored? I'm bored too.
My yet to be born child knows that::
? The Power Book is a higher price point/target market highend machine. The imac is a niche product and is not meant to show-off the graphics/ visual hardware might of apple.
? You cannot fairly contrast an actual product against a not yet made future machine.
? You cannot compare a 32 vs. 64 bit processor if the OS and applications are not written to take full advantage of it. There will be a time when a G4 cannot use an operating system even if it is faster than the original G5s.
? ETC.
There are new hardware standards that are sure to make it into new computers soon enough. They might be used in the first PB G5s, or maybe the very last? We can only talk about todays products and HOPE for the future ones. So, saying no to tomorrows PB G5 will just be closing the door on better processors, ram, gpu, hdrives, etc...
You can only be pessimistic about the future if you are either psychic, or your contracts up with no ability to extend it (if it was beneficial).
Originally posted by __MaGnUsSoN__
Everyone could tell this is a flawed thread just by reading the title.
You must be bored? I'm bored too.
My yet to be born child knows that::
? The Power Book is a higher price point/target market highend machine. The imac is a niche product and is not meant to show-off the graphics/ visual hardware might of apple.
and that has to do with what? The limiting factor here is form, not price.
Quote:
? You cannot fairly contrast an actual product against a not yet made future machine.
reasonable assumptions may be made if one educates oneself.
Quote:
? You cannot compare a 32 vs. 64 bit processor if the OS and applications are not written to take full advantage of it. There will be a time when a G4 cannot use an operating system even if it is faster than the original G5s.
64bitness means f*ck?all except when you need more than 4GB of RAM in one application instance, and the rare thermo-dynamics type high precision calcs.
(what I mean here folks, through a thick veil of frustration, is that 64 bit apps will mean nothing to 99% of the population, from a performance standpoint. Although 99% is probably too low, probably closer to 99.9ish).
Quote:
? ETC.
There are new hardware standards that are sure to make it into new computers soon enough. They might be used in the first PB G5s, or maybe the very last? We can only talk about todays products and HOPE for the future ones. So, saying no to tomorrows PB G5 will just be closing the door on better processors, ram, gpu, hdrives, etc...
You can only be pessimistic about the future if you are either psychic, or your contracts up with no ability to extend it (if it was beneficial).
I think you missed the point. All other things being equal, G4 prospects at this point are better than G5 prospects, in the 12-18 month timeframe, for PowerBook reasonable solutions.
And no I did not tell you Jesus Christ was not Lord.
But the 8641D is really the interesting wildcard here. Not only should it be a kick-ass processor for the PowerBook, but it seems likely to be at least as good (maybe better) than just about any single-CPU 970 design. Which potentially makes it the best CPU for the iMac, though how Apple would have to call the 8641 a G5 in order to even consider such a thing.
Of course, Freescale has to actually deliver the thing in a reasonable timeframe. I'm hoping to see *something* from IBM sometime soon, they really haven't delivered all that much since the original 970 introduction. It'd be awfully weird if Freescale delivered a part that just about caught it back up to IBM.
I've thought for some time that the G5 PowerBook was basically dead, at least with current IBM chips. For now, we can hope for either some new G5 chip that is more power-friendly for notebooks, or for Freescale to really deliver on their roadmap.
It's really a pity how there always seems to be at least one or two parts of Apple's line-up that are in trouble, CPU-wise. This should be an interesting year...
Originally posted by ChevalierMalFet
[B]and that has to do with what? The limiting factor here is form, not price.
Huh? You pay for factor.
reasonable assumptions may be made if one educates oneself.
I can only learn from what I can actually retrieve reference for... [/QUOTE]
64bitness me f*ck?all except when you need more than 4GB of RAM in one application instance, and the rare thermo-dynamics type high precision calcs.
You're talking today.
I think you missed the point. All other things being equal, G4 prospects at this point are better than G5 prospects, in the 12-18 month timeframe, for PowerBook reasonable solutions.
This is why I think you're completely wrong. There's no room for future discoveries, new standard adoptions, new OSs and/or tweaks to it, added value parts/packages. I'm saying you are being unfairly pessimistic about the unknown future.
I wouldn't buy the first of any new cpu, but I "hope and expect" the 2nd gen. and third (12-18 months) to flip my wig inside-out.
Originally posted by grammar police
[B]Huh? You pay for factor.
I can only learn from what I can actually retrieve reference for...
Form is the limiter because if Wattage per clock is too high then you end up with a lackluster CPU in a decent laptop or a decent CPU in a toaster oven. With IBM's current G5's, those are your choices. And at this point, Apple would have to put a 1.8?2.0Ghz G5 in the Powerbooks for a decent upgrade to what we have now... and that not even a gee whiz upgrade. They could go faster than that even even the thin form/elegant form weren't a large priority for Apple.
Thus, Form is limiting. Apple (and let's be honest, its customers) let form be the limitation.
You're talking today.
Of course I am. Reasonable timeframe future. I wouldn't be thinking in the immediate about late 2006 models, that'd be a useless expenditure. It'll be great, it'll be stupendous, but really what's going on now is what's directly relevent.
In the mean time, screw the G5. That's all I'm saying. Stick with the G4 until IBM can get their act together. I can't accept "Hey let's put crap in the PowerBooks, because 12 months from now a completely different but related chip will totally rock."
Sounds like defeatism to me.
(Oh and translate the random me in the previous post to mean, for those context challenged).
Anywho, my iBook got 4+ hrs on battery with Airport active the whole time.
I'm lucky to get 3 hrs on this PB. And that is with the display turned nearly all the way down and processor on reduced.
I use a G5 iMac at work all day which is HORRIBLY loud and very hot,
I cannot imagine that in a PB. Those clammoring for a G5 PB have never used a G5 PM or iMac....
Bottom line: long live the G4 PB!
Originally posted by Yevgeny
Well, I guess that I am hoping for a G5 powerbook, but at the same time I am hoping for a low power G4 equivalent for an iBook. My gf's G4 iBook routinely gets 4+ hours of battery life which I must admit is pretty cool.
Originally posted by Placebo
Even if the CPU and bus speeds and memory speeds and EVERYTHING is the same, a G5 will outperform a G4 in the same situation.
Prove it.
I'm not sure if this is the case. G4 has a better Altivec implementation and a shorter pipeline. The G5 has much higher memory throughput. I think that you'd see different results from different tasks. Ultimately, a CPU is a machine that transforms data. You can push more or less data faster or slower. If everything is equal, then they are both PPCs -- so they're doing the same thing the same way -- except that the G5 has a few 2 cycle register movement instructions (that are incidentally insignificant), and a slightly slower altivec. That is, a 64bit G4 with a higher memory bandwidth would indeed be faster than a G5. The G5, however, can operate at higher clock speeds, so it's impossible to really consider "all else equal" situations.
Originally posted by Placebo
Even if the CPU and bus speeds and memory speeds and EVERYTHING is the same, a G5 will outperform a G4 in the same situation.
Patently false. The G4's Altivec unit will outperform the G5's, everything else the same.
Period.
Originally posted by __MaGnUsSoN__
? You cannot fairly contrast an actual product against a not yet made future machine.
Let the guy speculate. We are in Future Hardware. If you only want to talk about products that are available today, go to Current Hardware.
Let the guy speculate. We are in Future Hardware. If you only want to talk about products that are available today, go to Current Hardware.
I'm optomistically speculating/debating about the future.
Again, the current topic is pessimistically (and unfairly) contrasting past imacs, current PB G4s, and future PBG5s.
I think it's retalin (RX) time! You obviously have a reading comprehension problem and didn't do well with vocabulary.
I'll need to send you outside this website for addtional help.
http://www.hop.com/index.jhtml?cid=1577
http://www.drug-saver.com/buy-online...in-online.html
http://dictionary.reference.com/
THen let it go.