which is faster

[the4fingered]

im currently running a dual 2g PowerPC G5 and im planing on selling it and purchasing the 2.33GHz Intel Core 2 Duo MBP and for some reason im confused as to which possessor is faster. I know that the MBP is better or equal in every other way. thanks for your incite

 

[Kash]

When it comes to PPC applications, the performance is almost on par. However, when it comes to Universal applications, the Core2Duo is by and far the superior chip in terms of performance.

 

[the4fingered]

sorry i don't quite understand what you mean. so if im running an app that was made for the ppc it would run about the same as it would on the ppc but if im running a universal app like say final cut it would run much faster?

whats an example of a PPC app?

 

[Kash]

Looks like after doing a bit of research, I need to modify my last statement.

The latest batch of Core2Duo processors actually out-perform the G5 processors when running PPC-specific applications, despite having to run them on the emulation layer Rosetta. So even though the latest processors are emulating older programs, they are still faster. This is quite an achievement as emulation generally saps a good deal of performance out of an application.

Some examples of PPC specific apps are Office 2004 and Photoshop CS2. While the performance within these apps is equal to or greater than that of the PPC processors they were designed for, the loading time is where you notice the hit as it takes a bit longer to startup an emulated program. Though once you're in, you won't be able to tell the difference.

Fortunately, Microsoft will be releasing a Universal version of Office later this year and I believe Adobe has already released its Universal Photoshop CS3. In fact, most of the apps I use are Universal and those that aren't, the author/publisher has a Universal version planned.

 

[the4fingered]

sweet thanks for the info Kash. cant wait to get my MBP!

 

[kgeier82]

ive got a question thatll fit perfect in here...

would my c2d MBP 2.16 be faster than a desktop conroe c2d e6400 or e6600?

i know the clock on the 6400 is lower, but its a desktop chip and the fsb is much higher...

???

 

[Kash]

You're right, despite having a lower clockspeed, the desktop chip should be faster because of the higher FSB. Though to be honest, you wouldn't really be able to tell the difference in day-to-day use.

 

[bobtomay]

Haven't seen any speed comparisons between them. I would venture to guess that as pure processor power goes the MBP's 2.16 will be on par with the E6400 due to double the cache. Think there is a bigger bottleneck with the hard drive at 5400 vs a desktop running an SATA II at 7200.

The E6600 probably is a good 10% faster over all.

However, with either one of the desktop chips, the right motherboard, and a little overclocking expertise, both of them can blow the MBP out of the water. The E6400 is a fine chip and at a good price point for overclocking and can pretty easily be pushed beyond all but the E6800 on air.