Processor Speeds

The fastest intel mac you can buy is the 2.16ghz mbp right now. My old laptop was 3.0ghz intel processor and it was not fast enough for me. How is apple charging so much for a paltry 2.16ghz processor computer? Does OSX use the speed differently or something i just cant understand spending 3 grand for a computer much slower than a much cheaper one.

The 2.16 ghz intel mac is a dual core processor. Your 3.0 ghz is not.

out of curiosity, what were you doing that 3ghz wasn't fast enough for you?

gaming and photoshop.

dual core processors only run programs faster if the program is dual threaded. photoshop is i beleive, but most arent at this time.

All Apple Apps that come on the Mac Intel boxes are designed to take advantage of the dual threading, including the OS. Many 3rd part Apps are moving there as more things go Universal Binary compliant. PS still runs under Emulation on the Intel boxes (Rosetta) so it may not take advantage of dual threading.

Also, keep in mind that speed is not the only or even the biggest factor in chip performance. Intel quit their "Ghz is everything" ad campaign when they started making slower Ghz chips that actually outperformed their higher Ghz chips.

What kind of chip was your 3.0Ghz, a P4?

Photoshop won't run dual treaded via Rosetta as it only emulates a single G4 class PowerPC processor.

As Baggs says—there is much, much, much more to a computer's speed than just the central processor unit's clock rate.

And a Pentium 4m isn't exactly the world's greatest mobile chip.

It seems apparent to me at last that maybe the reason I don't find my G4s slow is because I'm patient, that or a lunatic *tongue firmly in cheek*

Vicky

lil said:

It seems apparent to me at last that maybe the reason I don't find my G4s slow is because I'm patient, that or a lunatic *tongue firmly in cheek*

Vicky

Click to expand...

I wouldn't say 'patient' as much as I would call it just being realistic.
I have no idea why people complain about older G4's and G3's being "slow" when it comes to running Photoshop. I have never had a problem using it, or any app for that matter and I have never found it "slow".
Just because something doesn't happen instantaneously doesn't mean it is slow. I would really like to know what some of these folks are doing that they have to have Photoshop (or whatever app they are using) respond in .00002938778 seconds and render their results in half that time.
*shrug*

gh11 said:

The fastest intel mac you can buy is the 2.16ghz mbp right now. My old laptop was 3.0ghz intel processor and it was not fast enough for me. How is apple charging so much for a paltry 2.16ghz processor computer? Does OSX use the speed differently or something i just cant understand spending 3 grand for a computer much slower than a much cheaper one.

Click to expand...

Please tell me you're not serious...

D3v1L80Y said:

I wouldn't say 'patient' as much as I would call it just being realistic.
I have no idea why people complain about older G4's and G3's being "slow" when it comes to running Photoshop. I have never had a problem using it, or any app for that matter and I have never found it "slow".
Just because something doesn't happen instantaneously doesn't mean it is slow. I would really like to know what some of these folks are doing that they have to have Photoshop (or whatever app they are using) respond in .00002938778 seconds and render their results in half that time.
*shrug*

Click to expand...

This is all completely subjective and depends on what the user is used to. That being said, try rendering a graphic on a Quad G5 and then on a single G3, you will see a substantial difference and understand what they mean by "slow". Each user is different, you and lil may be satisfied with what your machines do for you, others would/might not be and desire more. Either way, there is no right or wrong answer or attitude here, it is all simply based on the desire of the user.

People expect results for their money, especially when it comes to computers, but the former Intel Ad campaign convinced millions of people (like the OP apparently) that speed in Mhz or Ghz was the most important thing in the world when buying a computer. Understanding why that isn't true is something that millions of folks can't, don't or won't understand, perhaps ever.

Discerptor said:

Please tell me you're not serious...

Click to expand...

Why whats the big deal? I didnt know if osx's architecture used the power much more efficiently or something so I asked. My old laptop was an hp pavillion zd800 with a P4HT 3ghz processor. I recently sold it and built a beast of a desktop super tower. When I go to college I am concidering buying a laptop to take to college instead because this thing is the biggest computer ive ever seen and weighs 65lbs thanks to its all steel case. I was looking at the macbook, but for the hardware you get it seems overpriced. A macbook costs more than this computer I just built and it would outperform the **** out of a macbook. yes i do realize comparing a notebook with a tower is not a fair comparison but even so, the gap in power is quite large. For 1300 bucks I built a computer with 100gighdd, 2gig ram, AMD athlonX2 +3800 processor, and the most powerful ATI card available right now.

baggss said:

This is all completely subjective and depends on what the user is used to. That being said, try rendering a graphic on a Quad G5 and then on a single G3, you will see a substantial difference and understand what they mean by "slow". Each user is different, you and lil may be satisfied with what your machines do for you, others would/might not be and desire more. Either way, there is no right or wrong answer or attitude here, it is all simply based on the desire of the user.

People expect results for their money, especially when it comes to computers, but the former Intel Ad campaign convinced millions of people (like the OP apparently) that speed in Mhz or Ghz was the most important thing in the world when buying a computer. Understanding why that isn't true is something that millions of folks can't, don't or won't understand, perhaps ever.

Click to expand...

People compare in GHZ because its the closest thing we have to a standard that we can compare different CPU's with.

gh11 said:

People compare in GHZ because its the closest thing we have to a standard that we can compare different CPU's with.

Click to expand...

The problem with that is it's not a valid measure of actual power or performance and both Intel AND AMD recognize that. Right now the 2.16Ghz Core Duo is wiping the floor with your old P4 and Intels upcoming chips are only going to be better and are likely to give AMD a run for their money again.

As far as building your own, you will always be able to do so cheaper than buying one, no question about it. The power gap you're worried about is more or less only a perceived gap vice an actual one. Again, Intels Ad campaign brainwashed (the CPU makes the internet faster, right?) million and now they can't figure out what's going on.

baggss said:

The problem with that is it's not a valid measure of actual power or performance and both Intel AND AMD recognize that. Right now the 2.16Ghz Core Duo is wiping the floor with your old P4 and Intels upcoming chips are only going to be better and are likely to give AMD a run for their money again.

As far as building your own, you will always be able to do so cheaper than buying one, no question about it. The power gap you're worried about is more or less only a perceived gap vice an actual one. Again, Intel Ad campaign brainwashed million and now they can't figure out what's going on.

Click to expand...

*puts on flame retardant suit*

And before the AMD guys get all riled up.... within a few years it will be the other way around again... It's a cycle.

sarahsboy18 said:

*puts on flame retardant suite*

And before the AMD guys get all riled up.... within a few years it will be the other way around again... It's a cycle.

Click to expand...

Agreed, not trying to ping on AMD here so please don't take it that way.

All I can say is that I create enough large pieces of art work from scratch ever day that I can either in Painter, Photoshop or Illustrator (up to 48x30" at 300dpi in Photoshop) and didn't find it lagged one bit on my G4.

This is more than likely because I do not process existing pieces (not as much anyway!) but rather work from scratch.

Currently working on a smaller piece, an 8x8 at 200dpi in Painter of Mancunian Way (the A57(M)), Manchester, with no lag at all, however this does not surprise me and it's why I have stuck with the G4, as on a G5 the power is wasted on what I do.

Not playing games, or 'doing' video or audio—I find G4s nice quick machines

In fact I can confidently say it is me that is the bottleneck when painting on my Mac—because I get sidetracked!.. :flower:

Vicky

sarahsboy18 said:

*puts on flame retardant suit*

And before the AMD guys get all riled up.... within a few years it will be the other way around again... It's a cycle.

Click to expand...

Thanks for clearing that up! :spook:

I am one of those AMD people!!! :spook:

Yes, the latest Intels are starting to beat out AMD, but like you said, AMD will come out with something new again and probably turn the tables. I like it as it keeps people on their toes and competition is a very good thing.

People should note that you can't compare the GHz of the Core Duo chips and the current crop of Pentiums. The technology is different, right down to the silicon dimensions. The Core Duos are the first of the 65 nm technology, which is why they use so much less power. Did you know that the Core Duo chip in the Mac Mini only emits a paltry 5 watts??? Wow!

Intel says that the new Core 2 Duos (code named Conroe) will be 1.4x to 1.6x the speed of the equivalently clocked Pentium. I suspect a similar multiplier may be applied to the Core Duo chips. I have read numerous subjective reports that they are faster than many of the todays Pentiums - of course the dual core may account for lots of that...

Anyway, to Baggs point, a GHz isn't a GHz anymore. You have to look at objective measures of actual work throughput using the same task on two different machines in order to determine relative placement. And after all, it is the work throughput that we all care about anyway!

mac57 said:

Anyway, to Baggs point, a GHz isn't a GHz anymore. You have to look at objective measures of actual work throughput using the same task on two different machines in order to determine relative placement. And after all, it is the work throughput that we all care about anyway!

Click to expand...

Funny thing is, the OPs comments show just how effective Intels "Faster is better" Mhz/Ghz ad campaign really was. People like to ping on Apple as being the masters of somewhat deceptive advertising, but think about Intel for a moment. They convinced nearly the entire computer buying public, businesses and individuals, that faster must always necessarily be better even when the performance difference from one chip to the next was minimal at best. As long as the Mhz/Ghz rating was higher it was better and the public bought it hook, line and sinker. I think Apple can learn a lot from Intel in the advertising department.

The only thing that brought that to an end was the engineers couldn't keep up with the ad campaign. When new chips started coming in at slower clock speeds but actually proved to be faster than their higher speed siblings, Intels Advertising department collectively gasped and and nearly committed mass suicide. What amazes me is that the general public has not stormed the building and lynched the entire company to a person.

Now that Apple has teamed with Intel, all of this 4x faster and 5x faster talk gives me pause to wonder what is real and what is a product of Intel and Apples advertising departments. After all, Apple went from showing us the "Mhz Myth" to jumping on the Intel bandwagon and telling us how great their chips are.

The Intel mobile processors do more work per megahertz, so it is faster.

For example, a Pentium M 1.6GHz performs similarly to a Pentium 4 2.6GHz.

So a Core Duo, which is basically 2 Pentium M processirs stuck together with a larger bus is very fast.