Opinions wanted: P4 2.8 ghz to Powerbook 1.25 ghz?

[72reissue]

HI there,

Ill post this in both the Windows and Mac forums just to see the response I get, though I am seeking honest opinions, since I am kind of stuck on this issue...

ANYWAY,

I am in love with the Powerbook G4's. I know the PB G4 1.25 ghz are more than enough to power the Digi 002 rack that I have. But currently I am using a custom built P4 2.6 Ghz machine that, to be honest, works pretty well with the 002 Rack. It has a gig of Ram, and only on occasion do i run into problems running too many RTA's. I can run about 5-6 RTA DVerbs before I get the message to chill out.

But 2.6 ghz are much different than 1.25 Macs. BUT HOW MUCH DIFFERENT? Will a Powerbook G4 1.25 perform better/same/worse then my P4 2.6 Windows machine? I want to make the jump to the Powerbook due to its portability and sleekness and MAC sturdyiness (which makes sense with my 002 Rack), but I will be a little upset if it runs like a turtle next to my 2.6 Windows machine.

any thoughts? Experiences? ideas?

I thank you all in advance for your replies.

thanks!

[Bhennies]

I don't specifically know how much slower or faster it will be, but I have a PB that works great with PT and it's very well known that the PC world way overinflates their claims for processor speed (or should I say implies that higher pentium processors are the sole benchmark of a fast computer).

p.s. a dual 2.0 g5 outbenches a dual 3.0 xeon. Go figure.

[72reissue]

Yea. I hear ya. I know a 1 ghz Mac = a 2.2 PC or something like that...

But I did hear from a colleague that the new Pentiums ran circles around the G5's...

can this be possible? I think i was misinformed.

[Chris Cavell]

I have several setups...including a 17 inch PB 1.25. I also have an older P4 (400 MHz FSB instead of 800) at 2.4 gHz with a gig of 333 MHz ram. You're colleague is correct...as far as plugin count, my PC runs circles around the powerbook...even around the dual 1.25 G4...and according to my pals with G5's, they've got to disable half the plugs on my extreme sessions I send to them b/c the cpu's just can't handle it. Give it a while and the mac's will probably outperform the PC's once again, but right now the PC's, even the year old ones, are smoking the best mac has to offer.

[tele_player]

I concur with Chris. I've got a PB 1.5Ghz, and an Athlon XP running at about 2Ghz. The PC can handle MUCH more.

But the Mac does it with more style.

[MarkH]

In terms of raw power the PC will be faster. There are fewer plugins available for PC and if exchanging studio sessions with another Pro Tools facility you are better off with Mac. I do not feel the Powerbook should be a main platform for heavy mixing sessions. It's great for recording and doing quick edits.

Currently the high-end Xeon computers are quite fast, but they are at least the same cost (or more) than dual G5 desktops. I'd like to see Digi release a G5 optimized version of Pro Tools that takes advantage of the 64-bit processors. Performance would be increased dramatically.

[JFreak]

In terms of raw power the PC will be faster.

that is only half true. granted, if we take one cpu cycle into account, the pentium might have had processed more data than the powerbook, and can have a respectable margin also. BUT... (and that's a big but) when we are however using protools, which is a highly cpu-dependant app that has strict real-time requirements, the system throughput becomes more important than the power one gets for a short period of time. if has been proven that powerbook has more reliable overall throughput than most pentium desktop systems, and the G5 powermacs perform even better.

besides; even with straight comparison in pure power, 1.25GHz G4 would equal to pentium4 of about +2GHz. but given that the planned environment would be protools, the vector unit in G4 (altivec) performs much better than the one in pentium4 and therefore the performance gap will be smaller than one would think. that is, IF there's a performance gap. it might be so that the powerbook equals to the pentium - it all depends on how well the plugins have been optimized to each system in use. but then again, that becomes a real-world benchmark and not measuring "raw power". (on the other hand, how on earth one compares raw power on two completely different architectures? it will become a real-world test if all the strengths and weaknesses are taken into account in both platforms.)

anyway, i'd recommend the powerbook. or any other macintosh. i have one ([email protected]) and it performs well - and most importantly, very reliably, and can take very high cpu loads in protools without a hiccup. i wouldn't even dream of doing live foh mixing with a windows-based system, so thank god for apple making macintoshes very reliable, indeed.

[Ultraslide]

besides; even with straight comparison in pure power, 1.25GHz G4 would equal to pentium4 of about +2GHz.

Bull. I own both. Dont beleive the hype. Your 1.25Ghz Powerbook with an outboard firewire drive will be no more powerful then a 1.33Ghz PC. My Dual 1.25 G4 performs about the same as the 2Ghz (XP2400) Athlon. And only slightly better than a 1.7Ghz Pentium M laptop.

There some really good reasons to buy an Apple laptop for ProTools. Raw ProTools performance for the $$$ is not one of them. Stability, plugin selection, and stability would be the big ones. Oh yeah and the Windows wave driver .... whats that smell ???

the 'slide

[Carl Z]

I wouldn't make that switch. Computer power means a lot to me and I've always been on a mac. The fastest I can get. All things held equal (since your used to the PC anyway) stay with the 2.8.

There has to be things where that money could be better well spent.

C