Forums | MacLife

Manga_Magic · 2003-08-12 10:14 pm

I checked out the August issue and saw the review for the eMac and the speedtests that were ran to compare the iMac to the eMac. Looking back a few issues, I checked out the 17" Powerbooks review and it's speed test and to my suprise, according to your tests, both the iMac AND the eMac blow any Powerbook out the water! Is this due to resent OS X updates, or actual facts. Forgive me if I don't understand, I'm not a full-time Mac user (I own PCs, but use Macs on campus and have turned into a Mac expert of sorts for my PC using friends), but for my next computer, I'd like to get a new Powerbook, that is if they'll get updated SOMEDAY. nope

mojonixon · 2003-08-12 10:24 pm

Portable computers are almost always slower than desktop systems. They have issues with heat and space, no matter what brand it is. To option for portability means to sacrafice speed (CPU/GPU) , expandability and capacity for memory (HD/RAM). If you've ever noticed high end portables usually compare performance wise to mid and low end desktop systems, it's always been this way.
Apple portables are much better than most PC one's you'll find though, thanks to the G3 and G4s smaller die and lower power requirments.javascript:emoticon('')

lojoma · 2003-08-12 11:16 pm

If I may add my two cents, tests don't seem to always reflect real-world performance on normal tasks (I don't know what the tests were, though). I have an 800 mHz iMac and an 867 mHz tiBook. Even with more ram on the iMac, the Powerbook beats it hands down on most tasks. I especially notice it when I move files into and out of iMovie or convert from one video format to another. I have timed them side by side running the same task, and the tiBook always wins by a respectable margin.

kamizuno · 2003-08-13 12:26 am

Also, the EMac is bigger than the PB, so Apple can do stuff to make it faster, such as putting in a bigger data bus smile

Manga_Magic · 2003-08-16 9:42 pm

Also, the EMac is bigger than the PB, so Apple can do stuff to make it faster, such as putting in a bigger data bus

I know that, but the Powerbooks are meant to be laptops for professionals. For instance, you won't see L3 cache G4s featured in an iMac or a eMac, yet you would in a Powermac G4 and a Powerbook G4. Also higher end graphics cards with more memory (64MBs compared to the 32MBs in the i&eMacs). And the eMac has a modest 133 MHz FSB while the 17" has a faster 165 MHz FSB. The 17" also features 2700 DDR SDRAM compared to the eMac that just has SDRAM memory.

To me, with features like that, the 17" should be quite a bit faster than a iMac or a eMac. Especially with the amount of money you have to shell out for the 17" compared to the two consumer Macs. But who knows, the tests could have improved a bit and recent OS updates could have spead the i&eMacs up a bit. Still this leaves me confused.

Manga_Magic · 2003-08-24 12:58 pm

So I take it, nobody can answer. eek Oh well, was worth a try. sad

Aqua Man · 2003-08-24 1:04 pm

Is this due to resent OS X updates, or actual facts.

Actual facts. Laptops will just never be as powerful as their desktop brethren. There is heat issues, and size constraints, and other such factors that limit what and how much you can put into those sexy 1" powerbooks.

macfreak880 · 2003-08-24 4:13 pm

Have you checked the reference machine? If you have an emac/imac vs. an older emac/imac and the powerbook vs. a desktop (like a DP G4), thats really not fair, is it? I'm too lazy to check for myself, and anyway, you sound like you have the issues on hand. Can anyone support/disprove this?

Manga_Magic · 2003-08-24 4:39 pm

I would scan the issues, but my scanner doesn't work and the scanner in the Mac lab on campus won't open until the 2nd of September. sad

Morph` · 2003-08-25 5:37 pm

Actually, I doubt it has much to do at all with the computer's architecture due to space-saving. I think it has a lot more to do with one major factor: HD Speed. HD Speed makes a GREAT deal of difference in most every kind of test. The 17" PB uses a 4200 RPM HD (which is used mostly for power consumption issues, you can get 7200 RPM HDs for laptops now). As far as I know, most of the other PBs use either 4200 or 5400 RPM drives.

Compare that to 7200 RPM, and your performance in most kinds of real-world tests (I.E. Photoshop, etc) will almost always be poor.

There are, of course, lots of other possible factors, but I bet if you took a PB, stuck a 7200 RPM drive with a decent buffer/fast seek time into it, and then tested it against an iMac or eMac, it would almost certainly perform as well as its desktop counterpart.

David K.

Forums | MacLife

#1 2003-08-12 10:14 pm

eMacs faster than a Powerbook?

#2 2003-08-12 10:24 pm

Re: eMacs faster than a Powerbook?

#3 2003-08-12 11:16 pm

Re: eMacs faster than a Powerbook?

#4 2003-08-13 12:26 am

Re: eMacs faster than a Powerbook?

#5 2003-08-16 9:42 pm

Re: eMacs faster than a Powerbook?

#6 2003-08-24 12:58 pm

Re: eMacs faster than a Powerbook?

#7 2003-08-24 1:04 pm

Re: eMacs faster than a Powerbook?

#8 2003-08-24 4:13 pm

Re: eMacs faster than a Powerbook?

#9 2003-08-24 4:39 pm

Re: eMacs faster than a Powerbook?

#10 2003-08-25 5:37 pm

Re: eMacs faster than a Powerbook?

Board footer