Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Macbook pro 1.83Ghz faster than Dual 1.25Ghz G4?
- Thread starter Wano
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If you're that worried, I would say wait for benchmarks. But with the information we've been provided (cracked OSX running faster on PCs, Pentium M being faster per clock than G4, etc), I would say the MacBook will be much faster at most things.
Well Steve Jobs said during the Keynote that a single core in the Intel Duo 2.0 in the new iMacs was faster then 2.1 Ghz G5. My guess would be that it should be much faster as long as the software you're using is running at full speed. If it's as fast as Apple is making it out (especially the test comparing it to the old G4 Powerbooks), then I would imagine it should run as well or better under Rosetta too. But you may want to wait to see some of these under benchmarks to make sure.
well, it depends. Mac seems like they don't release important info on these new intels processors.
so, if these "Duos" are the same as the Pentium Ds, they are basicaly a joke. Intel messed up with the netburst architecture. The Pentium EE was beat by the X2 3800+ in most benchmarks, and the X2 3800+ is 1/4 the price. However, if the Duo uses the new Yonah core, it is almost equal to the X2 3800+, but again, more expensive. With the Yonah core, Intel shortened the pipeline and lowered the clock, resulting in a more efficiant processor. Because the clocks on the Duo are significantly lower than the Pentium D, I am guessing the Duo is a Yonah core. This means that while it's a big increase from the older G4s, I wouldn't say it is worth the high price that is being charged.
Since PPC is out the window, the only contenders are AMD and Intel. Until Intel can get their act together and make a comparable processor to the ones AMD has out, i see no reason to spend $2000 on a new computer.
so, if these "Duos" are the same as the Pentium Ds, they are basicaly a joke. Intel messed up with the netburst architecture. The Pentium EE was beat by the X2 3800+ in most benchmarks, and the X2 3800+ is 1/4 the price. However, if the Duo uses the new Yonah core, it is almost equal to the X2 3800+, but again, more expensive. With the Yonah core, Intel shortened the pipeline and lowered the clock, resulting in a more efficiant processor. Because the clocks on the Duo are significantly lower than the Pentium D, I am guessing the Duo is a Yonah core. This means that while it's a big increase from the older G4s, I wouldn't say it is worth the high price that is being charged.
Since PPC is out the window, the only contenders are AMD and Intel. Until Intel can get their act together and make a comparable processor to the ones AMD has out, i see no reason to spend $2000 on a new computer.
It has already be established on many pc hardware sites (Anandtech even did benchmarks of the Core Duos) that the new macbook processor is the yonah.iWho? said:
that's what i said, it's a yonah core.
http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2648&p=14
that's a good benchmark of it, but that duo is 200Mhz faster than the Mac booke pro, and with a shortened pipeline, 200Mhz is a substantial difference.
http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2648&p=14
that's a good benchmark of it, but that duo is 200Mhz faster than the Mac booke pro, and with a shortened pipeline, 200Mhz is a substantial difference.
What about my Machine?
I have a powermac Dual 1.42 Last generation G4. Beautiful and faithful machine. Should I ever get rid of it for the new intel Macs?
Thanks.
I have a powermac Dual 1.42 Last generation G4. Beautiful and faithful machine. Should I ever get rid of it for the new intel Macs?
Thanks.
gusanitoverde said:I have a powermac Dual 1.42 Last generation G4. Beautiful and faithful machine. Should I ever get rid of it for the new intel Macs?
Thanks.
Get rid of it when you need more power, and all software you use is fully supported/transitioned. If that means you can wait for a generation or two, better for you
gusanitoverde said:I have a powermac Dual 1.42 Last generation G4. Beautiful and faithful machine. Should I ever get rid of it for the new intel Macs?
Thanks.
Keep it, unless someone has a gun pointed at your head. 1.42 is a pretty powerful machine, cuz it has 2 Mb L3 cache. Wait a couple generations of Mac Pro (PowerMac), then buy.
Just remember, your machine doesn't get any slower when new generation of computers come out.
No-one is going to be able to tell us how fast these machines truly are for day to day tasks until universal binary updates to all our software is released.
However I'd be as shocked as hell if the new mac's weren't faster than the existing PowerPC range (excluding the dual-core G5's, which I think they'll probably have similar performance - 1.83 duo core to 2Gh dual core G5, 2ghz Duo core - 2.3 Dual Core G5)...
I don't mind risking it and being a test bed, afterall that's what Apple Care is for, and my previous hardware wasn't exactly perfect...
My Dual 1.8Ghz G5 had one of the processors die a month after purchase...
My Hi-Res 15" PB 1.67 had the poor (line ridden) screen and battery life faults..
How much of a risk is it going to be???
However I'd be as shocked as hell if the new mac's weren't faster than the existing PowerPC range (excluding the dual-core G5's, which I think they'll probably have similar performance - 1.83 duo core to 2Gh dual core G5, 2ghz Duo core - 2.3 Dual Core G5)...
I don't mind risking it and being a test bed, afterall that's what Apple Care is for, and my previous hardware wasn't exactly perfect...
My Dual 1.8Ghz G5 had one of the processors die a month after purchase...
My Hi-Res 15" PB 1.67 had the poor (line ridden) screen and battery life faults..
How much of a risk is it going to be???
If both the MacBook and PowerBook are fitted with 7200RPM HDs, and you haven't got a monster graphics card in the PowerMac**, then I would guess yes.Wano said:
Faster CPU + (much) faster bus + new GPU** = Faster!
But if all that will be wasted on Rosetta until whatever apps you normally use goes Universal, that's anybody's guess...
I recently just upgraded a G4 533 (Sawtooth) to a PowerLogix 1.4, even at 533 using Tiger it was "snappy," it's now "snappier" and like another poster said, with the big cache the G4s had, quite adequate machine. I own a G5 2.0 DP and the G4 for many tasks isn't far behind at all, if not almost even (just eyeballing it) in some tasks. For day to day stuff (Mail, Firefox, etc.) the speed differences just wouldn't be enough to matter. Depends on what you're doing with it.
A computer is a tool for a job, the G4 1.25 DP is a mighty fine tool.
That being said, the 1.83 is a dual core chip, it has potential do be a monster but realize, until much software is coded to take advantage of this we won't know how big a monster. The the 667 MHz busses and RAM in the Macbook, any native Intel apps will, in fact, be faster than your current G4. OS X, iLife, and anything else, will run appreciably faster. As someone noted upthread, non-native apps are the big thinker. Adobe Apps gamble will be how well Rosetta really does work, as would others. Hints have it that processor intensive apps suffer the most, so video and audio take the biggest hit in Rosetta. To wit, a developer I'm well acquainted with did a test on his Apple leased Intel machine six months ago, Photoshop bogged terribly on a filter test but Dreamweaver (which is so much more text/line based) had very little hit performance-wise through Rosetta.
I too will be buying a Macbook, this year, but only when Apple stops being cheap and maximizing their profits by putting slower chips in there (the 2.0, and 2.13 Yonah chips are out, Acer is using them, Apple bought the cheaper slower ones so they could screw new adopters for maximum profits). I'm waiting for 2.0 just for geeky aesthetic, bragging rights, and my own stupid "I own a 2 GHz machine now and don't go backwards" even though the "GHz myth" is, in fact, in part, truly that... a myth. Processors, busses, the software and OS that's running on them and hundreds of other factors actually equal speed, NOT the MHz. An analogy: a four cylinder Porsche can dust an eight cylinder (cheesy) Camaro handily despite the (cheesy) Camaro having twice the cylinders and more technical displacement.
A computer is a tool for a job, the G4 1.25 DP is a mighty fine tool.
That being said, the 1.83 is a dual core chip, it has potential do be a monster but realize, until much software is coded to take advantage of this we won't know how big a monster. The the 667 MHz busses and RAM in the Macbook, any native Intel apps will, in fact, be faster than your current G4. OS X, iLife, and anything else, will run appreciably faster. As someone noted upthread, non-native apps are the big thinker. Adobe Apps gamble will be how well Rosetta really does work, as would others. Hints have it that processor intensive apps suffer the most, so video and audio take the biggest hit in Rosetta. To wit, a developer I'm well acquainted with did a test on his Apple leased Intel machine six months ago, Photoshop bogged terribly on a filter test but Dreamweaver (which is so much more text/line based) had very little hit performance-wise through Rosetta.
I too will be buying a Macbook, this year, but only when Apple stops being cheap and maximizing their profits by putting slower chips in there (the 2.0, and 2.13 Yonah chips are out, Acer is using them, Apple bought the cheaper slower ones so they could screw new adopters for maximum profits). I'm waiting for 2.0 just for geeky aesthetic, bragging rights, and my own stupid "I own a 2 GHz machine now and don't go backwards" even though the "GHz myth" is, in fact, in part, truly that... a myth. Processors, busses, the software and OS that's running on them and hundreds of other factors actually equal speed, NOT the MHz. An analogy: a four cylinder Porsche can dust an eight cylinder (cheesy) Camaro handily despite the (cheesy) Camaro having twice the cylinders and more technical displacement.
That's nowhere near what he or she asked...jadekitty24 said:
>Macbook pro 1.83Ghz faster than Dual 1.25Ghz G4?
You'll have to wait a bit for a real answer...I'll guess a little faster with Rosetta, a lot with native apps.
There is nothing in this world more useless than an Apple performance benchmark. Every company will bias tests to suit themselves, but Apple seems to take this to a whole new level.
From completely ambiguous (what were the units on the "Performance per Watt" chart? How did they measure them?) to downright disingenuous (Infoworld have already debunked Apple's SPEC ratings for the Intel machines - Apple used the SPEC tests intended to compare multi-processor machines, thus putting the old iMacs & PowerBooks at an immediate and unfair disadvantage to make the new machines look good).
Wait until the first sites start doing hands-on reviews, then decide.
From completely ambiguous (what were the units on the "Performance per Watt" chart? How did they measure them?) to downright disingenuous (Infoworld have already debunked Apple's SPEC ratings for the Intel machines - Apple used the SPEC tests intended to compare multi-processor machines, thus putting the old iMacs & PowerBooks at an immediate and unfair disadvantage to make the new machines look good).
Wait until the first sites start doing hands-on reviews, then decide.
if the macbook isn't significantly faster than a 3 year old desktop, then wth are we all getting so excited over?
maybe it won't be a *huge* gap until the apps are all native, but it should be a lot faster, yes.
maybe it won't be a *huge* gap until the apps are all native, but it should be a lot faster, yes.
eXan said:
The big break point for buying a new computer in this current evolution is the point at which the "universal binaries" begin to weigh too heavily on the system. Thats when you know when to upgrade.
As for me, I usually upgrade when games start coming out with recommended specs that exceed whatever is on my desk... usually seems to work out about right.