Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Terrible4130 · Jun 29, 2006, 08:18 PM

i am thinking of getting a dual 2.0 Ghz macbook pro. i will be running final cut studio and photoshop alot.

will this laptop be as powerful as a dual 2.0 Ghz Powermac? assuming they both have the same amount of ram.

a loaded 15 inch mac book is about the same price as a powermac w/ 20inch display.

is the portability really worth it? thats the question i need to ask myself.

ghporter · Jun 29, 2006, 08:53 PM

Better. Much, MUCH better in terms of power than a 2.0GHz Powermac. Why? TWO cores running at 2.0Ghz, that's why! I'd max out the RAM, too-that should help with both Final Cut and Photoshop, no matter what speed the computer is.

Screwball · Jun 29, 2006, 10:01 PM

Originally Posted by ghporter

Better. Much, MUCH better in terms of power than a 2.0GHz Powermac. Why? TWO cores running at 2.0Ghz, that's why! I'd max out the RAM, too-that should help with both Final Cut and Photoshop, no matter what speed the computer is.

What you've said there is no real answer! You're saying, that a CPU that has two cores(make that two cpus in theory) running at 2.0 ghz is better than two cpus running at 2.0 ghz respectively! That is no justification itself! The difference lies in the CPUs specifications, which i'm not going to scrutinize! Bottom Line: The Core Duo CPUs are really faster in most of the applications

Simon · Jun 30, 2006, 03:20 AM

AFAIK the PM would blow the MBP out of the water for PS because until we get CS3 PS has to be emulated through Rosetta which means the MBP's performance advantage (which it clearly has when you have UBs) is gone.

Final Cut OTOH is now UB and there I'd expect the MBP to win.

ghporter · Jun 30, 2006, 08:54 PM

I failed to mention the Rosetta issue, because I sort of assumed an Apples to Apples comparison-native code to native code. Isn't UB Photoshop due out "any time now?"

Terrible4130 · Jun 30, 2006, 10:36 PM

so even though they both have the same Ghz processors, the intels are faster?

doesnt this make the powermac obsulete? otherthan the fact that you can put loads o

imitchellg5 · Jun 30, 2006, 10:57 PM

Universal Photoshop is not expected to be out until 2007. Intels do run faster during normal usage, but when they really get bogged down, the PowerPC G5 is really just as fast. But for Photoshop currently don't use Intel.

Terrible4130 · Jul 1, 2006, 01:34 PM

wait, photoshop doesnt even work good on the intel based macs?

ghporter · Jul 1, 2006, 07:15 PM

Photoshop isn't stellar on Intel Macs because it goes through Rosetta. But since the Intel processors work more efficiently than the G4 processor (as an example), you shouldn't think that it's "bad." It's just not as fast as native-code programs, and since it's pretty processor intensive, it will seem slow and laggy.