[iXavier]

Morning,

Recently when visiting my local Apple store, I noticed the 800MHz G4 Flat Panel iMac seemed a lot faster than my 12" G4 PB.

Was it just me--was I deceived, or is a desktop computer even with relatively the same specs (and less RAM, actually 256MB vs. my 384 in the 'Book) faster than my notebook?

Say it ain't so, folks!

X.

[sensorfreaky]

Originally posted by iXavier:
Morning,

Recently when visiting my local Apple store, I noticed the 800MHz G4 Flat Panel iMac seemed a lot faster than my 12" G4 PB.

Was it just me--was I deceived, or is a desktop computer even with relatively the same specs (and less RAM, actually 256MB vs. my 384 in the 'Book) faster than my notebook?

Say it ain't so, folks!

X.

What kind of tests of apps did you run for you to come to that conclusion?

I have both a 12" PB and a 17" iMac (older 800MHz model) and with most apps I use, the 12" PB is faster. Not by a alot though. In fact, XBench tests show that my PB only scores 2-3 points higher overall than the 17" iMac. This is somewhat misleading though... the iMac has a slightly better GPU (GeForce4 MX versus GeForce4 420 Go) and obviously, a faster internal hard drive. The only real advantage the 12" PB has is the slightly faster CPU and the "faster" DDR RAM. Neither machine has a level 3 cache.

But nevertheless, most photoshop filters process faster, iTunes rips CD's faster, and most FCP renders are quicker on the 12" PB. Again, not by a lot.

The only thing the iMac is clearly faster at is games. WC3, RTCW, and Jedi Knight II all run much smoother with better framerate despite running at higher resolution and having less RAM. But this advantage can really be only attributed to the faster GPU.

[SOLIDAge]

Originally posted by sensorfreaky:
What kind of tests of apps did you run for you to come to that conclusion?

I have both a 12" PB and a 17" iMac (older 800MHz model) and with most apps I use, the 12" PB is faster. Not by a alot though. In fact, XBench tests show that my PB only scores 2-3 points higher overall than the 17" iMac. This is somewhat misleading though... the iMac has a slightly better GPU (GeForce4 MX versus GeForce4 420 Go) and obviously, a faster internal hard drive. The only real advantage the 12" PB has is the slightly faster CPU and the "faster" DDR RAM. Neither machine has a level 3 cache.

But nevertheless, most photoshop filters process faster, iTunes rips CD's faster, and most FCP renders are quicker on the 12" PB. Again, not by a lot.

The only thing the iMac is clearly faster at is games. WC3, RTCW, and Jedi Knight II all run much smoother with better framerate despite running at higher resolution and having less RAM. But this advantage can really be only attributed to the faster GPU.

ditto
i have both and my 12" is byfar faster then the 17" iMac

[iXavier]

Originally posted by sensorfreaky:
What kind of tests of apps did you run for you to come to that conclusion?

Just the operating system look and feel over all seemed faster on the other machine, but I didn't perform any sort of processor intensive activities that would have had a noticible performance gain or loss.

Launching applications such as Safari and iTunes seemed slower on my 12" than the FP iMac. Could this be due to the slower RPM of the hard drive in the PowerBook?

X.

[mrmister]

Yep.

You'l find that desktops (IMHO) often outperform laptops, even when the specs seem like it shouldn't happen. Often its the HD...that's the slowest part of any computer, so if you can speed that up it is really noticable.

[sensorfreaky]

Originally posted by iXavier:
Just the operating system look and feel over all seemed faster on the other machine, but I didn't perform any sort of processor intensive activities that would have had a noticible performance gain or loss.

Launching applications such as Safari and iTunes seemed slower on my 12" than the FP iMac. Could this be due to the slower RPM of the hard drive in the PowerBook?

X.

Yep. Launching apps, startup, rebooting, and just about any operation that is largely dependent on hard drive access performance is definitely going to show where the 12" PB lags behind the iMac's faster internal drive. That's par for the course when it comes to comparing desktops with notebooks. But if that really bothers you, you can always swap out the current 4200rpm drive with a 2.5" Travelstar 40GNX 5400rpm with 8mb cache. Then that little PB would start haulin' some serious ass. A 40GNX can be had for cheap these days... last I checked was $150 from some online vendor.

[dettociao]

faster on my 12" than on my 17"

on ALMOST everything, except as has been noted-- hard drive intensive and GPU intensive activities.

[iXavier]

Originally posted by sensorfreaky:
Yep. Launching apps, startup, rebooting, and just about any operation that is largely dependent on hard drive access performance is definitely going to show where the 12" PB lags behind the iMac's faster internal drive. That's par for the course when it comes to comparing desktops with notebooks. But if that really bothers you, you can always swap out the current 4200rpm drive with a 2.5" Travelstar 40GNX 5400rpm with 8mb cache. Then that little PB would start haulin' some serious ass. A 40GNX can be had for cheap these days... last I checked was $150 from some online vendor.

How easy or difficult is it to replace the hard drive in the 12"? I installed more RAM and an Airport card and I've built numerous desktops (PC, though) and I'm rather affluent in computer tinkering but I've never really had any desire to open my PowerBook.

X.

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by iXavier:
How easy or difficult is it to replace the hard drive in the 12"? I installed more RAM and an Airport card and I've built numerous desktops (PC, though) and I'm rather affluent in computer tinkering but I've never really had any desire to open my PowerBook.

X.

I can only speak for the 12" iBook where I replaced my dead 20GB drive for a new 40GB one. It was a pretty scary thing to do, espcially prying the case open. Although it all worked out just fine I wouldn't want to do it again.

[Shaddim]

The "take apart" is not too bad, and actually quite a bit easier than the iBook 12 or 14... but I take apart 5-10 Apple `books a week. however, I wouldn't recommend it to a novice, there's many, many tiny little screws that require different size drivers to remove or you may strip a screw. Not to mention some parts of the case that need a "black stick" to pry open (or you'll scar or break the case). I've broken several iBook cases, the vast majority when I first started working on `books. Prying the top and bottom cases apart for the first time can be a heart-stopping experience, even when you've got a service manual in front of you and an experienced tech standing next to you. Spend the extra $ and go to an Apple service location and have it done, a good tech can replace a drive in less than an hour.

[Eug]

For OS stuff - app launching, etc. the iMac 800 feels faster IMO, because of the hard drive.

[cambro]

Originally posted by mrmister:
You'l find that desktops (IMHO) often outperform laptops, even when the specs seem like it shouldn't happen. Often its the HD...that's the slowest part of any computer, so if you can speed that up it is really noticable.

Absolutely. You can have the fastest, coolest, processor on the planet and the HD will slow you down in a portable for most tasks. IMO, increasing the performance of HDs in Apple's portables (or any other for that matter) would be better than increasing the speed of the processor in terms of overall performance.

Why has there been relatively glacially slow progress on HD speed?

[Eug]

Originally posted by cambro:
Why has there been relatively glacially slow progress on HD speed?

Because of power limitations. Power savings are often more important than speed increases when you're dealing with laptops. That said, my current TiBook 4200 rpm drive has a max transfer speed similar to one of my (slower) 7200 rpm desktop drives, and that laptop drive still uses almost as little power as previous 4200 rpm drives.

[mcs37]

I really want the 12" PB for travel and a year of academia I have left after I return from my coop here with IBM. But I am having problems justifying spending $1,800 on a 12" laptop with only 17 Mhz faster clock speed than my ancient 850 MHz PC (albeit, an x86 P3 vs. a G4 RISC is not a Mhz-to-Mhz comparison). Why no L3 cache, Apple? Why no GHz G4 in the 12" PB? Why no Airport Extreme standard?

So what do you guys think of the 12" for travel and student use? I don't need a powerhouse machine to do everything under the sun---I'll let my PC do that when I soup it from 850 MHz up to 2.5 GHz this summer for $300. But I do want my 12" PB to be fast enough to handle email, word, ichat, iphoto and safari simultaneously (640 MB RAM) without any slowdown.

Then I'll wait till next year when Apple introduces the next generation of its first laptop with a 17" screen, as they create the first dual processor laptop with 64-bit PPC's. Mmmmm....graduation present!