Hello Fellow Mac Speedsterz... I bought my powerbook for ONE thing: MUSIC PRODUCTION When the Ti 400's and 500's came out it decided by many that the power book had finally come-of-age for portable music production - enough proc. power and drive space etc... I was thrilled! So i waited for the next gen. machines (not going to buy first rev.) then the Ti550 and 667's were announced... i bought. and I both experience and read that the 550's and 667's are NO comparison to the 400's and 500's... I feel like Apple was misleading (or elusively-leading) in their advertisement of the next gen. of machines. The machine i bought which should be faster than the prev. models is actually considerably slower. I read the following and was wondering if anyone will comment on this? ======================================================================== == > Memory Bandwidth and Logic Audio Tests: (from the 12/14/2001 > www.xlr8yourmac.com news page.) > Regular readers here know that since the first 7450 G4 based Macs were > released there's been comments on much much lower than expected memory > bandwidth compared to the G4 7400/7410 CPUs. (The 7410/7400 G4s had > dramatically higher bandwidth - nearly 100MB/sec more in some tests.) > A first report on the 2.1 stepping 7450 seemed to show this was fixed, > but tests I've run since then show the rates are still much lower even > with 2.1 rev 7450s compared to external L2 cache/shorter pipeline > 7400/7410s. (There have been discussions on this many times since the > beginning of the year about compiler optimizations, etc. which is too > long to discuss here). My comments above noted my PB G4/400 had much > higher memory bandwidth than the PB G4/667 (2001). > A reader sent an email tonight on why the much lower memory bandwidth > of the new PowerBook G4/550 and G4/667 models (compared to the PB > G4/400 and /500 models which use the 7410 CPU) make the earlier > Powerbooks a better choice for Logic Audio. > > (Update: I've added a reader's results with the 2002 PB G4/800 to the > listing below. For other PB G4/800 2002 model tests, see this > article.) > > > " Hi - though you might like to have this info - I and a few others > have been doing some testing on the old Powerbook G4/500 vs the new > 550 & 667. > > Memory bandwidth on the 550/667 is a *lot* lower than on the 500 - the > new 7440 CPU is to blame, not the amount of cache. The older 7410 CPU > is better - we've measured memory bandwidth at 230MB/sec on the > 400/500, vs 145MB/sec on the 550/667. > [Again this is not news to regular readers here and was noted in my > earlier comments above comparing the PB G4/667 (2001) to my PB G4/400. > It's good to see an example of where this has an actual applications > impact.-Mike] > > What this means is that for audio use, where many simultaneous > realtime DSP processes are required, the old PBG4/500 will perform > significantly *better* in many operations than either the 550 or the > 667. > > A simple test using simultaneous stereo Platinumverbs in Logic Audio > 4.7.3: > > > * PB G4/667 (2001) - 9 platinumverbs > * PB G4/550 - 7 platinumverbs > * PB G4/500 - 13(!) platinumverbs > * PB G4/800 (2002) - 18 platinumverbs > > (He later said his Umax S900 w/G4 at 473Mhz managed 6 Platinumverbs on > 67MB/sec memory bandwidth.-Mike) > We didn't test the PBG4/400, but it's likely that will also outperform > the 550 and perhaps even the 667... Memory bandwidth is the key. > > While end-of-stock, secondhand, or refurbished PBG4/500 and PBG4/400s > are available, they are a *much* better choice for audio work than the > new 550 or 667... The 400/500 also have the advantage of allowing the > processor speed to be reduced which increases battery life & > eliminates fan noise - the 550/667 do not allow this I believe. > John Pitcairn " ======================================================================== = source: http://xlr8yourmac.com/systems/PowerBookG4_fall2001/ powerbook_g4_667_quake3.html#logic For an evening of thought-provoking background music... etyrnal.muzik http://www.mp3.com/lukeetyrnal etyrnal at ameritech.net