Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
G3 vs. G4
- Thread starter 2ms
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
check http://www.barefeats.com they put a 700MHZ ibook up to a 800MHZ TIbook
The TIbook500 benchmarks high because of its 1MBL2cache 4 times current TIbooks. in logic the tibook 500 can run mor reverbs then the 667 rev b tibook.
Also keep in mind with multiprocessing OSX memory is everything when doing multiple apps ibook only 640 tibook 1GB.
why not get an ibook 12.1 and a emac for video/music graphics work for the same price of a TIBOOK
The TIbook500 benchmarks high because of its 1MBL2cache 4 times current TIbooks. in logic the tibook 500 can run mor reverbs then the 667 rev b tibook.
Also keep in mind with multiprocessing OSX memory is everything when doing multiple apps ibook only 640 tibook 1GB.
why not get an ibook 12.1 and a emac for video/music graphics work for the same price of a TIBOOK
Re: Re: G3 and G4
actually, this is true...but with professional graphics programs and os x istself using altivec, get the tibook if you can afford it over the g3 sahara ibook
for me, with my budget, and needs, the ibook suits me just fine
actually, this is true...but with professional graphics programs and os x istself using altivec, get the tibook if you can afford it over the g3 sahara ibook
for me, with my budget, and needs, the ibook suits me just fine
Re: It really depends more on the machine...
Well, can't give you any anectdotal evidence, but in theory even without the AltiVec instructions the G4 should be significantly faster than the (Motorola) G3 because the memory bus is kept full on the G4 whereas on the G3 it operates at approximately 50% capacity in normal operation.
Effectively, the G4 talks with the rest of the system at twice the rate of the G3 at equivalent bus width/speed. Also, of course, compounding this the newest G4s have a faster bus cycle.
Taking the common assumption that the chief bottleneck in the G4 is the system bus, it would stand to reason that cutting that bus in half (going back to a G3) would come very close to cutting overall processor performance by half as well.
On the other hand, this data is from Motorola's G3s, not IBM's. I don't know how much IBM's G3 design differs from Moto's, and it is quite possible that the IBM G3s do keep their system bus full. But still, currently shipping G3s do have a slower peak rate system bus, so even if they are as efficient as the G4 in keeping their bus filled, they are operating at 25% less bus bandwidth, which, again, should give a close to 25% drop in performance relative to a similarly-clocked G4.
Well, can't give you any anectdotal evidence, but in theory even without the AltiVec instructions the G4 should be significantly faster than the (Motorola) G3 because the memory bus is kept full on the G4 whereas on the G3 it operates at approximately 50% capacity in normal operation.
Effectively, the G4 talks with the rest of the system at twice the rate of the G3 at equivalent bus width/speed. Also, of course, compounding this the newest G4s have a faster bus cycle.
Taking the common assumption that the chief bottleneck in the G4 is the system bus, it would stand to reason that cutting that bus in half (going back to a G3) would come very close to cutting overall processor performance by half as well.
On the other hand, this data is from Motorola's G3s, not IBM's. I don't know how much IBM's G3 design differs from Moto's, and it is quite possible that the IBM G3s do keep their system bus full. But still, currently shipping G3s do have a slower peak rate system bus, so even if they are as efficient as the G4 in keeping their bus filled, they are operating at 25% less bus bandwidth, which, again, should give a close to 25% drop in performance relative to a similarly-clocked G4.
Re: Re: It really depends more on the machine...
The main advantage of the IBM Sahara G3 is it is fully capable of handling DDR buses. It is a very capable chip and IS faster period when tested then an equal MHz G4 chip on cpu tasks without altivec.
The main advantage of the IBM Sahara G3 is it is fully capable of handling DDR buses. It is a very capable chip and IS faster period when tested then an equal MHz G4 chip on cpu tasks without altivec.
Re: Re: Re: It really depends more on the machine...
Now, if they could shoe-horn in Altivec onto a Sahara G3, that would be nice.
It's all well and good that the Sahara G3 is faster than Moto's G4 on non-Altivec stuff, but more and more "consumer" apps are taking advantage of Altivec. Yeah, Word and Excel don't use Altivec, but stuff like iPhoto, iMovie and iTunes all do. And more and more consumers are using stuff like Photoshop. Plus, OS X is very much optimized for Altivec.
Now, if they could shoe-horn in Altivec onto a Sahara G3, that would be nice.
Re: Re: Re: Re: It really depends more on the machine...
It is true that more and more programs are taking advantage of Altivec. Though for someone who is just buying an iBook as a portable word processor and organiser the G3 is more then enough.
I don't think adding Altivec to the G3 would gain you much. I think they would probably have to lenghthen the pipeline to ensure data integrity when adding Altivec and this would destroy it's advantage. On the other hand we would have a DDR FSB.
It is true that more and more programs are taking advantage of Altivec. Though for someone who is just buying an iBook as a portable word processor and organiser the G3 is more then enough.
I don't think adding Altivec to the G3 would gain you much. I think they would probably have to lenghthen the pipeline to ensure data integrity when adding Altivec and this would destroy it's advantage. On the other hand we would have a DDR FSB.
If only IBM could add VMX to the Sahara
This iBook vs iMac vs eMac vs TiBook test page on barefeats shows exactly how a G3 can trash a G4 by quite a significant margin in tests where altivec isn't a factor.
looking at it from a purely cpu point of view the comparison is real mixed bag but if IBM could crank out 1Ghz+ Sahara G3s with VMX/Altivec and only increase the pipeline stages to the SiMD unit then we should have the perfect desktop or laptop chip.
A comparison :
Motorola MPC 7455 (G4)
7 Pipeline Stages
0.18 µm CMOS
256K SRAM L2 @ cpu speed
1Mb or 2Mb L3 @ 1:4 of cpu speed using DDR SRAM (effectively 1:2 of cpu speed)
133Mhz Bus (actually it's 150/167Mhz now, the 7455 has been upgraded)
MPC7455 PDF (unfortunately I can't find a link to the revised documentation with the info about the bus speed increase from 133 to 150/167Mhz)
IBM 700Mhz Sahara G3
4 Pipeline Stages
0.13-micron CMOS
512K SRAM L2 @ Cpu speed
100 - 200Mhz Bus, supports DDR
Sahara PDF
This iBook vs iMac vs eMac vs TiBook test page on barefeats shows exactly how a G3 can trash a G4 by quite a significant margin in tests where altivec isn't a factor.
looking at it from a purely cpu point of view the comparison is real mixed bag but if IBM could crank out 1Ghz+ Sahara G3s with VMX/Altivec and only increase the pipeline stages to the SiMD unit then we should have the perfect desktop or laptop chip.
A comparison :
Motorola MPC 7455 (G4)
7 Pipeline Stages
0.18 µm CMOS
256K SRAM L2 @ cpu speed
1Mb or 2Mb L3 @ 1:4 of cpu speed using DDR SRAM (effectively 1:2 of cpu speed)
133Mhz Bus (actually it's 150/167Mhz now, the 7455 has been upgraded)
MPC7455 PDF (unfortunately I can't find a link to the revised documentation with the info about the bus speed increase from 133 to 150/167Mhz)
IBM 700Mhz Sahara G3
4 Pipeline Stages
0.13-micron CMOS
512K SRAM L2 @ Cpu speed
100 - 200Mhz Bus, supports DDR
Sahara PDF
ibm G3
Are iBooks presently being produced with this .13 IBM G3? If so, I'd imagine that's a pretty big deal. If the G4s are .18 whereas G3s are .13, it'd seem the iBooks must a substantial advantage in battery life and/or heat generation (I don't like having hot plate in lap). The more opposite to 70watt (that underclock by 50% -- read slow as hell -- using Speedstep "technology" when unplugged) P4s the better. The fundamental efficiency advantage of risc versus x86 has always been one of the things that intrigues me the most about apple laptops.
If the sahara isn't in G3s now, when will it be available?
Are iBooks presently being produced with this .13 IBM G3? If so, I'd imagine that's a pretty big deal. If the G4s are .18 whereas G3s are .13, it'd seem the iBooks must a substantial advantage in battery life and/or heat generation (I don't like having hot plate in lap). The more opposite to 70watt (that underclock by 50% -- read slow as hell -- using Speedstep "technology" when unplugged) P4s the better. The fundamental efficiency advantage of risc versus x86 has always been one of the things that intrigues me the most about apple laptops.
If the sahara isn't in G3s now, when will it be available?
Re: ibm G3
The Sahara is current in the the iBooks it's also known as the 750FX. I think even the G4 only consumes 40Watts and yes the G3 is better then that.
The Sahara is current in the the iBooks it's also known as the 750FX. I think even the G4 only consumes 40Watts and yes the G3 is better then that.
It was supposed to be out by July this year but Moto has serious problems making any chip at that size. So it has been delayed and delayed again. Current outlook is for early 2003. If they ever get the G4 to .13 there is a good posibility we will see the G5 chips because they were supposed to start at .13. The reason they gave up or delayed the G5 indefinitely was because they never could get the die down to that size.
that is interesting to know
i wonder if that will greatly reduce heat and up battery times on laptops
seemed to do well for the pentiums when they went to .13 so i hope the G4 running machines won't get complaints about loud fans and hot laptops once the process goes to .13
at some point, heat will cease to be a "major" issue of complaint for computers
processor prices will become the most major issues and the reflection it has on the now overpriced macs
at least, thank god lcd prices and ram prices have come down over the last couple of years
Re: Re: G3 and G4
I agree , I was always told that the oringinall g4 7400 was a g3 with the fpu from the 604e added along with altivec. so tecnically the should be the same at non altivec apps. however the g4 lost its large L2 cache was 1MB now 256k thats only 1/4 the size and has grown from 4 pipeline stages to 7. (thiss was the only way to increase clock speed. Meanwhile the g3 only lost half of its L2 cache and i may be wrong here but still has a smaller pipe which is why its top speed now is just 1.00 instead of 1.25 also it has less things to do since the is no altivec and other g4 custom things and its memory system if utilized is much more advance.
I am in to audio so I most have a G4 for plug ins and not i get about twice the performance of a same clocked g3 because of altivec.
I agree , I was always told that the oringinall g4 7400 was a g3 with the fpu from the 604e added along with altivec. so tecnically the should be the same at non altivec apps. however the g4 lost its large L2 cache was 1MB now 256k thats only 1/4 the size and has grown from 4 pipeline stages to 7. (thiss was the only way to increase clock speed. Meanwhile the g3 only lost half of its L2 cache and i may be wrong here but still has a smaller pipe which is why its top speed now is just 1.00 instead of 1.25 also it has less things to do since the is no altivec and other g4 custom things and its memory system if utilized is much more advance.
I am in to audio so I most have a G4 for plug ins and not i get about twice the performance of a same clocked g3 because of altivec.
ibook 700 vs ti 800
http://www.barefeats.com/pb8.html
the ibook 700 even beats the ti800 in bryce
of course it loses in every thing else that is altivec related
http://www.barefeats.com/pb8.html
the ibook 700 even beats the ti800 in bryce
of course it loses in every thing else that is altivec related
Re: Re: dammit
We benchmark all of our machines at work (we have slow days), and have found that, when using the Norton Benchmarking software, the G3 chip is actually faster per Mhz than the G4. One example was that we test an iBook 700 against an eMac 700. The eMac won out in the end due to the faster drive and better video, but the CPU performance was lower than the iBooks. (I should mention that the Norton app doesn't test altivec operations.)
The reason for the G3 being faster than the G4 (per Mhz) comes down to the shorter pipeline of the G3 (4 stages vs. 7).
We benchmark all of our machines at work (we have slow days), and have found that, when using the Norton Benchmarking software, the G3 chip is actually faster per Mhz than the G4. One example was that we test an iBook 700 against an eMac 700. The eMac won out in the end due to the faster drive and better video, but the CPU performance was lower than the iBooks. (I should mention that the Norton app doesn't test altivec operations.)
The reason for the G3 being faster than the G4 (per Mhz) comes down to the shorter pipeline of the G3 (4 stages vs. 7).
Re: Re: Re: dammit
If you read some of my other posts I explained myself in more detail. I agree 100% that the G3 is faster then a G4 at the same MHz as long as Altivec is not being used.
If you read some of my other posts I explained myself in more detail. I agree 100% that the G3 is faster then a G4 at the same MHz as long as Altivec is not being used.
I love my Pismo
I know the graphics card ain't the best, but I'm absolutely in love with my Pismo. you can probably get one pretty cheap on ebay or such and for $300 drop in a 500MHz G4. Its a lil extra work, but a nice way to get a G4 on a budget. Plus the expansion bay is nice. If I could upgrade the graphics card to a Quarts Extreme compatable card I would in a heart beat, but hey, what the heck. I have no complaints about this lil philly.
I know the graphics card ain't the best, but I'm absolutely in love with my Pismo. you can probably get one pretty cheap on ebay or such and for $300 drop in a 500MHz G4. Its a lil extra work, but a nice way to get a G4 on a budget. Plus the expansion bay is nice. If I could upgrade the graphics card to a Quarts Extreme compatable card I would in a heart beat, but hey, what the heck. I have no complaints about this lil philly.
Re: I love my Pismo
Not really cheap...Pismo's still go for $800-$1000 on ebay...and then to put a G4 in it...another few hundred...it isn't worth it unless you absolutely hate the TiBooks design or think that the iBook sucks. At this point, the iBook for $1299 or $1599 kills the Pismo...but I know some people love the Pismo so...it is all about what you want.
You can get a 500mhz G4 TiBook off of ebay for about $1300...and the 400mhz TiBook for $1100.
Not really cheap...Pismo's still go for $800-$1000 on ebay...and then to put a G4 in it...another few hundred...it isn't worth it unless you absolutely hate the TiBooks design or think that the iBook sucks. At this point, the iBook for $1299 or $1599 kills the Pismo...but I know some people love the Pismo so...it is all about what you want.
You can get a 500mhz G4 TiBook off of ebay for about $1300...and the 400mhz TiBook for $1100.
pismos do have that hot swapable bay option which is great for traveling people...you can have two batteries
and not everybody needs power beyond a 500 mhz G4 chip
if apple brought in a tibook at $1999, there would probably be no reason for a used pismo
but i am glad that apple brought their ibook to $999
and not everybody needs power beyond a 500 mhz G4 chip
if apple brought in a tibook at $1999, there would probably be no reason for a used pismo
but i am glad that apple brought their ibook to $999
G3 iBook vs G4 PowerBook
As a person who also wanted to purchase either iBook or PowerBook, I'll try to give a definitive answer.
I recently tested G3 iBook 700 and Powerbook G4 667 with bunch of different softwares. And this is what I think.
I extensively use Photoshop, Illustrator, QuarkXpress, AfterEffects, little bit of Final Cut Pro, and iMovie. When I tested these programs on G3 iBook everything worked just fine. Things ran smoothly without any noticeable problems and a little slow but nothing major. Until I did Filters and Rendering on video programs. While you are working on the project, iBook is fine. But when you apply filters or render the movie (export as QuickTime movie, etc) it takes MUCH longer time than PowerBook G4. And if your QuickTime movie is large (pixel dimensions and frame rate), it will not run smoothly.
I was very disappointed about this because G3 iBook worked fine on everything until I tried filters and rendering on video programs. And I actually wanted G3 iBook more than G4 Powerbook because I've been hearing a lot about problems with G4 Powerbook such as paint flaking off and hinge breaking off. An option would have been to buy G4 Powerbook at local vendor and pay extra warranty fee so that I could return it if some problems arouse with G4 Powerbook. But I simply don't have that kind of budget. And I just like G3 iBook compactness better.
Personally, I decided to wait and get more money so I can afford either G4 Powerbook or faster G3 iBook (maybe G4 iBook?) when it comes out in the future. But if you are considering G3 iBook or G4 Powerbook NOW, I dare to say go with G3 iBook. Because if you are a casual user and do not use video programs often as I do (I use video programs daily) you can work around little bit of wait on rendering time. You can work on the project and set it to render when you go on a break or to sleep, which is what I used to do with older Power Mac G3. And to me, with ruggedness, price, iBook is much better value overall. If I didn't have to worry about tight deadlines on my work, I would go out TODAY and by iBook G3.
As a person who also wanted to purchase either iBook or PowerBook, I'll try to give a definitive answer.
I recently tested G3 iBook 700 and Powerbook G4 667 with bunch of different softwares. And this is what I think.
I extensively use Photoshop, Illustrator, QuarkXpress, AfterEffects, little bit of Final Cut Pro, and iMovie. When I tested these programs on G3 iBook everything worked just fine. Things ran smoothly without any noticeable problems and a little slow but nothing major. Until I did Filters and Rendering on video programs. While you are working on the project, iBook is fine. But when you apply filters or render the movie (export as QuickTime movie, etc) it takes MUCH longer time than PowerBook G4. And if your QuickTime movie is large (pixel dimensions and frame rate), it will not run smoothly.
I was very disappointed about this because G3 iBook worked fine on everything until I tried filters and rendering on video programs. And I actually wanted G3 iBook more than G4 Powerbook because I've been hearing a lot about problems with G4 Powerbook such as paint flaking off and hinge breaking off. An option would have been to buy G4 Powerbook at local vendor and pay extra warranty fee so that I could return it if some problems arouse with G4 Powerbook. But I simply don't have that kind of budget. And I just like G3 iBook compactness better.
Personally, I decided to wait and get more money so I can afford either G4 Powerbook or faster G3 iBook (maybe G4 iBook?) when it comes out in the future. But if you are considering G3 iBook or G4 Powerbook NOW, I dare to say go with G3 iBook. Because if you are a casual user and do not use video programs often as I do (I use video programs daily) you can work around little bit of wait on rendering time. You can work on the project and set it to render when you go on a break or to sleep, which is what I used to do with older Power Mac G3. And to me, with ruggedness, price, iBook is much better value overall. If I didn't have to worry about tight deadlines on my work, I would go out TODAY and by iBook G3.