[No One]

My friend is selling his tiBook G4 with some extras, including some extra memory, the airport card, and case....$800

Other option is a G5, but some questions:

Which would be best for regular use of Illustrator, Photoshop, Lightwave, InDesign, Quark and various other word and graphics programs?

Which g5 should I get - single or dual processor and how much RAM is ideal for those applications? And is a single processor upgradeable to a dual?

I know the g5 is much faster and pretty much the best out right now, but how much better? Is it $1500 better? How long would the powerbook last me vs the g5?

Thanks

[No One]

I believe the powerbook is 867 MHz / 667 RAM

[Lateralus]

If it is an 867... grab it and sell the puppy on eBay. You could get almost enough money from it to buy a 1.6GHz G5 or a Dual G4, especially if you buy a refurbished unit.

[runejoha]

Regular use: tibook G4.

Games & etc. stuff requires power: G5.

Think the tibook works ok. The G5 is not even very good cause of lack in software.

Originally posted by No One:
My friend is selling his tiBook G4 with some extras, including some extra memory, the airport card, and case....$800

Other option is a G5, but some questions:

Which would be best for regular use of Illustrator, Photoshop, Lightwave, InDesign, Quark and various other word and graphics programs?

Which g5 should I get - single or dual processor and how much RAM is ideal for those applications? And is a single processor upgradeable to a dual?

I know the g5 is much faster and pretty much the best out right now, but how much better? Is it $1500 better? How long would the powerbook last me vs the g5?

Thanks

[No One]

Originally posted by runejoha:
Regular use: tibook G4.

Games & etc. stuff requires power: G5.

Think the tibook works ok. The G5 is not even very good cause of lack in software.

As far as regular use, would that mean heavy graphics programs or would you put that in the G5 category?

And could you explain the lack in software?

[Lateralus]

Originally posted by No One:
As far as regular use, would that mean heavy graphics programs or would you put that in the G5 category?

And could you explain the lack in software?

He just means that there isn't a lot of software that is optimized for the G5 yet. As in, not optimized for 64bit. The G5 will run all software though, worry not.

[runejoha]

Originally posted by No One:
As far as regular use, would that mean heavy graphics programs or would you put that in the G5 category?

And could you explain the lack in software?

Well, good question sorry for the short answer.

Heavy graphcis progs. is difficult to define. It is always difficult to decide where the limits goes, and the upper level never ends. What you should do is to test out some progs. on the tibook and find out if this is sufficient for you, if not you probably should invest the money neccessary for your work.

The lack in software of the G5 is pretty complicated, but I can give a short answer. There are many things I as well don't know to much:

The 64 bit arch. is new and many apps does NOT work optimalized on these cpus.
YOu might spend a lot of money on something that does not work well with todays applications. The OS X 10.3 is made for the G5, but it is, as I understand, a little buggy and far away from a stable 32 arch. OS (the 64 version).

Another case is the memory/Cashe algorithms. The algorithms for switching a casche block is much more complicated for a 64 bit arch. than a 32 bit arch. There are potensially more cache misses ona 64 bit arch (which means: which part of the memory or HD should be closest to the CPU - a pyramide like solution where the alg. has to decide which block should be most time close to the top/cpu) and many scientists think that the 64 arch. because of this often is slower than the 32 arch.

These problems will be solved, but it will take some time before the 64 arch functions properly, both the HW implementation and the SW impl., and you might consider if you want to spend money on this today.

Regards
runejoha

[Paul Huang]

If you work with photoshop files in the 20+ MB range, even the G4/800 (desktop) will blow the screen off of the 15.2" PowerBook 867 or even 1.33 GHz.

Worrying about 64-bit optimization is like not buying a Ferrari because none of the roads are able to accommodate 100+ MPH.

If there is an AppleStore near you, bring your files and clock your tasks. If you don't have the need to move around (factor #1), then get the G5. It will be faster in every way.

[runejoha]

>>Worrying about 64-bit optimization is like not buying a Ferrari because none of the roads are able to accommodate 100+ MPH.<<

I highly disagree. There are proves for that a 32 arch is faster than the 64 for some tasks, even when the SW for the 64 is optimized. This is a matter of HW algorithms! You could end up useing a computer which is not faster than a much cheaper one. Ferrari is a high class car for people with money to spend on style and luxery (Ferrari is MUCH more than a car!) and is not an objet for pure speed and performance as a computer. You could compare it with a F1 car where the speed and driving skills is everything and where the roads alow 200 mhp ++. If the roads are difficult to drive on (lots of slopes etc.) a slower car with better stearingwheel could beat the fast car with less developed stearing. Here it is tempting to compare the very bad corvette with european quality cars where overall performance is what is important, not only the engine.

The algorithms for the 64 arch are far away to be optimized (they still are finding alg. for the 32 which perorms better, after sevral years of research).

The 64 arch is not yet ready for the comercial market if you look at the facts, but the name 64 sells much, and people spend money on having the newest model. Intel has stated this several times.

Originally posted by Paul Huang:
If you work with photoshop files in the 20+ MB range, even the G4/800 (desktop) will blow the screen off of the 15.2" PowerBook 867 or even 1.33 GHz.

Worrying about 64-bit optimization is like not buying a Ferrari because none of the roads are able to accommodate 100+ MPH.

If there is an AppleStore near you, bring your files and clock your tasks. If you don't have the need to move around (factor #1), then get the G5. It will be faster in every way.

[ae86_16v]

The G5 which ever model you might get including teh Single 1.6 (Although the Dual 1.8 is the best deal) will still be faster than a G4 PowerBook period.

[runejoha]

Originally posted by ae86_16v:
The G5 which ever model you might get including teh Single 1.6 (Although the Dual 1.8 is the best deal) will still be faster than a G4 PowerBook period.

Arguments?

This is probably true for manye cases, but for algorithms which has a lot of cache misses this could be very wrong. For example in matrix muliplication (to pick an easy example) for big matrixes you get lot of cache misses if you don't rewrite the program for fixing the matrixes in the cache. Cache misses for the 64 arch is a bigger problem than for a 32, and in this case the G4 is probably faster if you don't edit the traditional code heavily. (Which again means that it is more difficult to write a code for 64, more difficult to understand and develope for)

This example proves that you have other cases that the G5 not neccessary is faster than the G4 whith todays HW implementations.

I could have explained this much more detailed, but I am sure you are not that interested in this. Anyway I hope this shows that a 64 arch today is not automaticly faster than a 32.

Intel has proved with their new CPUs that the MHZ does not always show that more MHZ means a faster CPU. Longer pipeline "eats" MHZ and **** up on cache misses pretty ugly.

The CPU dilemma is difficult to get into, and is almost different from app to app (as my matrix multiplication shows). This is the reason why nobody can say if the G5, the Intel or the AMD 64 chip is the "best".

Regards
runejoha

[crouchingtiger]

Originally posted by runejoha:
Arguments?

This is probably true for manye cases, but for algorithms which has a lot of cache misses this
<snip>
Regards
runejoha

well, I think that the poster you are replying to meant that any G5 on the market you can buy today is a lot faster than the G4 Powerbook the guy who started the thread is thinking of buying (e.g. the 867 MHz TiBook).
I don't think that anybody _really_ cares about MHz for MHz when a G5 is faster and when a G4 is faster. The fact is that one can comfortably say that a low-end 1.6 GHz G5 will completely wipe the floor of any stock G4 Powerbook configuration <1.25 GHz on pretty much every test you do. Of course, this is also because desktop hard drives are faster, bus speeds are faster, etc. etc.

To respond to the original poster, $800 for a 867MHz Powerbook is a steal. I have a feeling that what your friend has is actually a 667 MHz non-DVI Powerbook, however. (based on that price and the fact that you don't seem to be quite sure exactly what the config is).

[Paul Huang]

Disagree all you want. Who cares about optimization when nearly ALL Photoshop, Illustrator, FinalCut Pro 4.0 tasks are easily 2X-4X faster (half to 1/4 the time to complete the task) on a G5 2.0 dual than a PowerBook 867.

We are talking about end results, not what it looks on paper. For that matter, who cares about how many seconds from 0-60 MPH or 60-100 MPH when I can leave you behind my rearview mirror--in the dust?

End results count. Benchmark and phoney baloney talks about optimization is moot. The price difference of $1,500 is just nothing when you are gaining at least two hours each day.

Hey, if your hourly rate is less than $10, it's a different story all together.

[runejoha]

I am disagreeing with arguments (at least). Lets look at some of your statements:

>>Who cares about optimization when nearly ALL Photoshop, Illustrator, FinalCut Pro 4.0 tasks are easily 2X-4X faster (half to 1/4 the time to complete the task) on a G5 2.0 dual than a PowerBook 867.<<

You are not only comparing one laptop with a desktop, but also two different generations. This is hardly a good way to look at the problem.

My arguments only shows that a G5 can be slower than a 32 architecture because of the cache HW algorithms. This is because there are more blocks to keep under control and switch. For some applications the performance of an 64 bit architecture can be slower than a 32. Of course, the graphicscards, systemsbuses etc. are faster on a new computer, so if the hotspot is NOT the CPU or memory, of course a G5 is faster.

My point is only that whenewer the CPU is the hotspot and the application produces a lot of cache misses, a 64 arch. is not automaticly faster but some times slower.

runejoha

Originally posted by Paul Huang:
Disagree all you want. Who cares about optimization when nearly ALL Photoshop, Illustrator, FinalCut Pro 4.0 tasks are easily 2X-4X faster (half to 1/4 the time to complete the task) on a G5 2.0 dual than a PowerBook 867.

We are talking about end results, not what it looks on paper. For that matter, who cares about how many seconds from 0-60 MPH or 60-100 MPH when I can leave you behind my rearview mirror--in the dust?

End results count. Benchmark and phoney baloney talks about optimization is moot. The price difference of $1,500 is just nothing when you are gaining at least two hours each day.

Hey, if your hourly rate is less than $10, it's a different story all together.

[runejoha]

>>The fact is that one can comfortably say that a low-end 1.6 GHz G5 will completely wipe the floor of any stock G4 Powerbook configuration <1.25 GHz on pretty much every test you do<<

This is wrong, and I have tried to explain why. The cache dilemma makes a 64 bit CPU and Cache levels sometimes to be slower when there are a lot of cache misses, which often happens.

Originally posted by crouchingtiger:
well, I think that the poster you are replying to meant that any G5 on the market you can buy today is a lot faster than the G4 Powerbook the guy who started the thread is thinking of buying (e.g. the 867 MHz TiBook).
I don't think that anybody _really_ cares about MHz for MHz when a G5 is faster and when a G4 is faster. The fact is that one can comfortably say that a low-end 1.6 GHz G5 will completely wipe the floor of any stock G4 Powerbook configuration <1.25 GHz on pretty much every test you do. Of course, this is also because desktop hard drives are faster, bus speeds are faster, etc. etc.

To respond to the original poster, $800 for a 867MHz Powerbook is a steal. I have a feeling that what your friend has is actually a 667 MHz non-DVI Powerbook, however. (based on that price and the fact that you don't seem to be quite sure exactly what the config is).

[Paul Huang]

I am focusing on two systems presented by the original postor.

You can waste all your time on all the phoney baloney. It's common knowledge that on most graphics tasks, a PowerBook 1GHz is NO FASTER than a desktop of half the speed.

I use the two everyday and it's painfully clear. Let's look at everyday graphics operations between G4 dual and G5 dual and, again, it's abundantly clear that G5's overall performance is fast enough to justify the price difference.

Of course, the performance of the G5 is not at its potential if the optimization is fully implemented. Just remember that the original quesiton is which is a better choice, ***NOT*** which one is optimized.

An out-of-focus picture shows no vision.

64-bit? Damn, your car must have a huge tail pipe, with all the stickers you can find and modified to the wazoo.

By the way, do you even use G5s enough to tell the difference.

Originally posted by runejoha:
I am disagreeing with arguments (at least). Lets look at some of your statements:

>>Who cares about optimization when nearly ALL Photoshop, Illustrator, FinalCut Pro 4.0 tasks are easily 2X-4X faster (half to 1/4 the time to complete the task) on a G5 2.0 dual than a PowerBook 867.<<

You are not only comparing one laptop with a desktop, but also two different generations. This is hardly a good way to look at the problem.

My arguments only shows that a G5 can be slower than a 32 architecture because of the cache HW algorithms. This is because there are more blocks to keep under control and switch. For some applications the performance of an 64 bit architecture can be slower than a 32. Of course, the graphicscards, systemsbuses etc. are faster on a new computer, so if the hotspot is NOT the CPU or memory, of course a G5 is faster.

My point is only that whenewer the CPU is the hotspot and the application produces a lot of cache misses, a 64 arch. is not automaticly faster but some times slower.

runejoha

[runejoha]

I think we use different approaches here. I talk about potensially bottleneck with a 64 architecture with the cache dilemma and block switch problem. This is mainly a HW problem. My approach is based on research.

You talk about it in a practical way. Which of YOUR applications run ok on a G4 PB or a G5. I am sure that many of the programs runs very OK and better than on a G4, but what I say that for scientific work this is not always the truth.

A CPUs compiler can as well decide a lot . The 64 thing is, as Intel as well says, more a marketing thing than a real speedup, at least today.

Am am not out of focus here, but you do not get what I am saying.

runejoha

Originally posted by Paul Huang:
I am focusing on two systems presented by the original postor.

You can waste all your time on all the phoney baloney. It's common knowledge that on most graphics tasks, a PowerBook 1GHz is NO FASTER than a desktop of half the speed.

I use the two everyday and it's painfully clear. Let's look at everyday graphics operations between G4 dual and G5 dual and, again, it's abundantly clear that G5's overall performance is fast enough to justify the price difference.

Of course, the performance of the G5 is not at its potential if the optimization is fully implemented. Just remember that the original quesiton is which is a better choice, ***NOT*** which one is optimized.

An out-of-focus picture shows no vision.

64-bit? Damn, your car must have a huge tail pipe, with all the stickers you can find and modified to the wazoo.

By the way, do you even use G5s enough to tell the difference.

[crouchingtiger]

Originally posted by runejoha:
I think we use different approaches here. I talk about potensially bottleneck with a 64 architecture
<snip>
Am am not out of focus here, but you do not get what I am saying.

runejoha

I think we're talking circles around each other, but this post sums it up nicely. Basically, I don't think that anybody disagrees that there are technical aspects of each chip that can result in a G4 chip executing a task faster than a G5 chip. But, the bottom line is that you'd be hard-pressed to find any real-world examples of this for the applications used by the average consumer, especially comparing an 867 MHz G4 Powerbook to any G5 computer!

[No One]

Thanks for all the replies - I'm new to Macs, so all of this is good info. The main use of the computer would be your average graphics work in mostly illustrator, photoshop, and indesign - and some mild video editing as well as music recording/editing.

I haven't had a chance to talk to my friend again about the tibook but Im getting turned around with the whole MHz, RAM numbers, at first he said it was 667 MHz G4 and 867 RAM - but I looked at some on ebay that were opposite - 867 MHz and 667 RAM, so I thought he just mixed them up......is there a 667 MHz? If so I think thats the one he has.......after reading your replies it seems any G5 is far superior to a 667 MHz and it would be worth the extra $$$ to get a G5

more input is welcome.....regarding lcd's vs crt's, graphics cards, etc.

Just looking for info on which Mac to replace my 1.2 GHz / 528 RAM PC for the uses described above. I know the G4 667 (?) would be a slower processor than my 1.2, but it seems that my PC just cant handle heavy graphics work (or light graphics work for that matter) while the G4's Ive seen take it with ease...

[Paul Huang]

PB G4:

400, 500 550 667, 800 867, 1000
10/100TX, 1,000TX
VGA, DVI

There are two different 667 models. It begain with 667, then 667 DVI. The DVI model has 1MB of cache, but the VGA 667 has only 256K cache (on-die, I believe). The DVI model is in addition to the on-die 256K cache, you have 1MB.

Test the system yourself and time it. All the bench mark numbers and whatever theoretical discussions are useless to you. You buy the computer for yourself and you are the user. I do graphics and G5 2.0 dual is easily 2x to 4x faster than any PowerBook.

Wasting time on something that is completely irrelevant to your situation is silly. I hope you have been entertained by the exchanges here.

Originally posted by No One:
Thanks for all the replies - I'm new to Macs, so all of this is good info. The main use of the computer would be your average graphics work in mostly illustrator, photoshop, and indesign - and some mild video editing as well as music recording/editing.

I haven't had a chance to talk to my friend again about the tibook but Im getting turned around with the whole MHz, RAM numbers, at first he said it was 667 MHz G4 and 867 RAM - but I looked at some on ebay that were opposite - 867 MHz and 667 RAM, so I thought he just mixed them up......is there a 667 MHz? If so I think thats the one he has.......after reading your replies it seems any G5 is far superior to a 667 MHz and it would be worth the extra $$$ to get a G5

more input is welcome.....regarding lcd's vs crt's, graphics cards, etc.

Just looking for info on which Mac to replace my 1.2 GHz / 528 RAM PC for the uses described above. I know the G4 667 (?) would be a slower processor than my 1.2, but it seems that my PC just cant handle heavy graphics work (or light graphics work for that matter) while the G4's Ive seen take it with ease...

[runejoha]

>>after reading your replies it seems any G5 is far superior to a 667 MHz and it would be worth the extra $$$ to get a G5<<

Yes, it is faster for MOST applications, but not always (as I have tried to explain several times here, but lets think practical for a moment). A tibook is portable, looks better than a clumsy big G5 box, cheaper and works very good for most things exception for games. (But if you are addicted to games you buy a x86 - so I don't understand the market for the G5 which performs worse on games than the new Intel 32 cpus or the amds - that it's for the very few games which are on the market for macs...)

If you ask me it is not worth it. The G5 is not very interesting before it goes portable. To spend these money is not economical unless you just want it. At least try the tibook before deciding with your usage. The mac portables are very nice while the desktops are not that special, but you have a very good OS anyway which is better for your working area.


Hope this help.

runejoha

Originally posted by No One:
Thanks for all the replies - I'm new to Macs, so all of this is good info. The main use of the computer would be your average graphics work in mostly illustrator, photoshop, and indesign - and some mild video editing as well as music recording/editing.

I haven't had a chance to talk to my friend again about the tibook but Im getting turned around with the whole MHz, RAM numbers, at first he said it was 667 MHz G4 and 867 RAM - but I looked at some on ebay that were opposite - 867 MHz and 667 RAM, so I thought he just mixed them up......is there a 667 MHz? If so I think thats the one he has.......after reading your replies it seems any G5 is far superior to a 667 MHz and it would be worth the extra $$$ to get a G5

more input is welcome.....regarding lcd's vs crt's, graphics cards, etc.





Just looking for info on which Mac to replace my 1.2 GHz / 528 RAM PC for the uses described above. I know the G4 667 (?) would be a slower processor than my 1.2, but it seems that my PC just cant handle heavy graphics work (or light graphics work for that matter) while the G4's Ive seen take it with ease...