I want one of these., New Mac laptop and iMac Options

[*mipadi*]

Good news from MacWorld San Francisco today! Apple began it's transition to Intel chips with the release of a new iMac model and a new laptop called the "MacBook Pro". I'm rather envious of the MacBook Pro: it features a dual-core Intel processor at 1.67 or 1.83 GHz, digital/optical audio in and out, a 256 MB graphics card on the high-end model with dual-link built in, 15.4-inch LCD, remote control for controlling music and DVD playback, a magnetic power adapter (so tripping over a power cable will detach the cable, rather than yanking the computer), a built-in digital video camera (for videoconferencing), and a bunch of other sweet stuff. It's about 4x as fast as the PowerBook G4. And it's about an inch thick and weighs only 5.6 pounds!

The iMac line got a bunch of improvements, too. The new iMac features the Intel Core Duo chip like the MacBook Pro. I'm not positive what the other features are, since I'm not as interested in the iMac, but it is reputed to be much faster than the previous iMacs.

[*kryogenix*]

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,1136018,00.asp

Notes on Apple benchmarking.

[*mipadi*]

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,1136018,00.asp

Notes on Apple benchmarking.

An interesting article, but it doesn't apply to this case; the benchmarks cited are in comparison to the old iMac and PowerBook, not to any non-Apple PC's. Also, the article is several years old, which also diminishes its relevance in this case.

[*kryogenix*]

An interesting article, but it doesn't apply to this case; the benchmarks cited are in comparison to the old iMac and PowerBook, not to any non-Apple PC's. Also, the article is several years old, which also diminishes its relevance in this case.

Oh it's relevant. A few years ago, they were trying to get the benchmarking software to run slower on intel processors. Now they're probably trying to optimize it for Intel processors!

[*mipadi*]

Oh it's relevant. A few years ago, they were trying to get the benchmarking software to run slower on intel processors. Now they're probably trying to optimize it for Intel processors!

The article is irrelevant because it's entirely different scenarios. The ability to "play" with optimization here is not as great. Furthermore, the benchmarks aren't to show that these Macs are better than a competitor's offerings; they're to show that the machines are an improvement over previous models. It's not likely Apple would "fake" benchmarks in this case—and even with clever optimization techniques, the new models are not going to show an improvement of 400-500%. So yes, I think the article is irrelevant. It's a shame Apple even released benchmarks—the PowerMac G5 is fast, especially the quad-core model, but everyone just brings up the benchmarks and the controversy, which was largely fueled by people angry that Apple finally had a fast machine.

At any rate, benchmarks are often useless anyway—rarely do they show a computer performing under a "normal" load, and it's very easy for anyone to optimize benchmarks. Apple's were so easy to criticize because the way the benchmarks were performed was publicized. Furthermore, some of the "tweaks" were an attempt to compare two different architectures that are really an "Apples-to-oranges" comparison (if you'll pardon the pun). Also, as noted by The Register, many vendors don't release the methods used to get their own benchmarks, so it's hard to compare benchmarks.

Also, the point can be made that raw performance is not the only factor in a computer. I, for instance, am not terribly concerned about raw performance. Most of my computing tasks involve browing the Internet, reading email, writing basic software, and writing papers—tasks for which I value usability, stability, and security over raw performance figures.