From what ive read about the sahrah, b/c of its .13u SOI construction and 5 stage pipeline, it is MHz for MHz FASTER then the G4s for non altivec related tasks... so the 700MHz iBook is FASTER then the 667 TiBook for most tasks and about ON PAR with the 800MHz TiBook....
Smaller fab size doesn't make a proc faster, it makes it cooler and less hungry so that you can up the clock speed. IBM hasn't upped anything, though -- it still runs at max 700, just like the old cxe.
The only possible speed advantages of this sahara are the bigger L2 and the shorter pipeline.
Unless IBM has added more FP/int units I don't see how a 750fx would even run on par with an SOI G4 in this case. It's 5 vs 7 stages, but that isn't the whole story. Longer pipes don't always mean less speed per Mhz, the way the pipes are implemented also counts. Yes the Sahara has 512KB on-die cache, but the SOI G4's in the Ti have 256KB on-die plus another 1MB of L3. Also the TiBooks run on a 133Mhz bus vs the 100Mhz bus of the iBook. You can be pretty sure that an iBook 700 doesn't run on par with a TiBook 800 on anything, might run on par with the 667 on some things, but certainly DOES NOT run faster than a Ti667 on MOST tasks.
The features might be the deciding factor, but even with these new Sahara chips, the Ti's are faster.
It depends on what you want/need. iBook gives more bang for the buck, as they say, TiBook gives more overall bang, but you need a lot more bucks. [Steve started the whole sex and laptops thing, don't blame me]
IBM claims, for the 750FX, a ">25% [performance increase over 750CXe] on bus intensive apps at same bus frequency" due to cache and bus improvements, a "20 - 30% performance gain at the same power [usage]" due to SOI, and claims that SiLK yields a further "10% performance improvement and significant capacitance reduction".
I'm expecting that the latest iBooks are going to stack up well, in all around performance, against notebooks at much higher price points. I'd like to see some performance comparisons, especially against PC portables, while running on battery power. Now that would be a good "real world" test.
Further illustrating my point that pipeline length doesn't directly translate into better or worse performance or efficiency. The 750FX has 5 stages versus the CXe's 4, yet it still gives a 25% better performance clock for clock. Same thing with the new SOI G4's, they are faster overall than any previous G4's and any current G3's (altivec or not) and only pull further away in SIMD tasks. IBM needs an SIMD unit now.
Programmer, if you're reading this, would you mind clearing this up once and for all (again , I must be stupid)
Torifile said:
[quote]
It's already been confirmed that the rev. b tibooks will support QE. By extension, the new ibooks will, as well (they have the same GPU).
<hr></blockquote>
I assume you mean rev. b = still the 500/600 versions of the iBook with the Rage 128 M4 with 8 megs of VRAM. And do we know the brand new iBook (rev. c) supports QE?
I may be out of my league here, because I admit I don't know much about graphics. BUT, Programmer explained this issue concisely, leaving out one, possibly two, key factors. He said AGP allows the Video board to read out of system (main) memory. Cool! So, perhaps iBooks could support Quartz Extreme after all, overcoming their paltry 8megs of VRAM. However, Programmer could not remember if the Rage 128 supports this. This would be key. But anyway I think someone indicated all this shuffling of data would lead to negligible benefits anyway.
T&L in newer cards was blustered about by people too,as required by Quartz Extreme, but a definitive answer was never given. I think Programmer wondered why it would be needed. I don't know.
So, in response to this whole iBook w/Rage128M4 & QE issue, Programmer had this to say:
even though I don' think we ever got the issues of T&L and AGP reads from system (main) memory worked out.
Looking back at your post, Torifile, I may just have read you wrong on your semantics. I think you might have meant rev. c for the brand new iBook. But since I wrote all this, here we go again.
<strong>Looking back at your post, Torifile, I may just have read you wrong on your semantics. I think you might have meant rev. c for the brand new iBook. But since I wrote all this, here we go again.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, I think he meant the rev. B TiBooks (G4 Titanium PowerBooks) just like he said
a comparison between the Toshiba Protege 4010 and the iBook 700
Name: Price:
PORTÉGÉ 4010 2,199
12" TFT-XGA 0
Pentium® III-M 933 MHz 0
256MB (256+0) 0
20GB HDD -100
CD-RW/DVD-ROM 150
Cisco 128-Bit Aironet 350 WiFi Mini-PCI Card 50
No Bluetooth 0
No FDD 0
Microsoft® Windows® XP-Pro/ Windows® 2000-Pro 0
Application None 0
Modem/LAN 0
generic grfx support? there is no mention on the toshiba site of the gfx card and the detailed specs .pdf is corrupted ... therefore i could also not note the cache size
$2,299.00
same config 700mhz ibook, except w/ethernet (notice no Modem/LAN ethernet available for toshiba) and w/Radeon 16mb
$1,673.00
i chose the protege because of its 12.1inch screen, slim profile, and light weight (4.2 pounds) - physical characteristics which correctly match the ibook
that's a p3 in the toshiba, and a p3M at that...
$600 buys you an extra 233mhz on a p3M - xp pro
unsure on the gfx card - but if it was noteable, wouldn't it have been noted?
<strong>Yes, fiune and good. I'll accept that a G4 is twice as fast per hegahertz than a Pentium 4. But the G3 is not.
I have used a 400 Pismo and a 700 Dell something-or-other laptop. The Pismo was slightly faster at common tasks, and signifcantly faster at MP3 ripping and DVD playing.
But still not very good. Why can't I buy an Apple laptop with a DVD drive that can actually the play the things at full speed?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Are you crazy??? In OS 9, DVD playback wasn't the greatest, but it was acceptable. On OS X however, it's insanely fast and much sharper. Heck, I can check e-mail while watching a movie with no skipping, pausing, or stuttering. I never thought I'd ever be able to do that! Maybe you need more RAM or something, but DVD playback in X is great on a Pismo 400.
Looking at these new iBooks makes me drool. These things gotta be at least twice as powerful as my Pismo, and they have CD burners, better video, and a seriously kick-*** version of the G3. If I had money to burn, I'd love one of those new iBooks, they are awesome for their price. The 12" Combo model for $1500 is a much better machine than any PC laptop for that price, and you're getting a real processor running at full speed, not one of those stupid stepped down, underclocked on battery power things they stick in the Pentium laptops.
If I was in the market for a new laptop right now, I would definitely get the 12" Combo iBook, (heck, even Matsu, who hates everything, says it's decent) but my Pismo is still serving me well and will only get better when Jaguar comes out.
Man, some people just aren't happy unless they are complaining about something.
I haven't read this entire thread, but I must say that a 600mhz G3 in any current machine is an embarrassment. Absolutely ludicrous to put that in the ibook. IBM has much faster G3's if Jobs is against putting in a G4..................................
<strong>I haven't read this entire thread, but I must say that a 600mhz G3 in any current machine is an embarrassment. Absolutely ludicrous to put that in the ibook. IBM has much faster G3's if Jobs is against putting in a G4..................................</strong><hr></blockquote>
IBM 750FX is currently available at 600 Mhz and 700 Mhz. It is expected to scale to 1 Ghz by the end of the year. That means in production by, what, January?
<strong>I haven't read this entire thread, but I must say that a 600mhz G3 in any current machine is an embarrassment. Absolutely ludicrous to put that in the ibook. IBM has much faster G3's if Jobs is against putting in a G4..................................</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's not the best thing in the world but why is a 600MHz G3 an embarrassment?
...but it is much improved over the original G3 design, and I'd much rather have the 700Mhz Sahara G3 than the 900Mhz Celeron that is in some competing laptops from IBM and other companies.
G3s were also competitive with P3s in terms of performance per clock, and the P3 has very few changes from the P2, most of which just involve the processor having a unique identifier number making it easier to track illegal activity or sell information about legal activity to advertisers.
Now, if a 700Mhz G3 is comparable to a 700 or 800Mhz P3, and a real 1.4 Ghz P4 is widely documented as being slower than a 1 Ghz P3, it doesn't make the 1.4 Ghz Pentium 4 Mobility look that fast anymore.
Pepople are falling prey to the "name myth". Just because it's called "G3" doesn't mean it sucks or is as weak as the G3s we are used to from days gone by.
I'm sure Jaguar benchmarks of the 700Mhz iBook will look favorable compared to XP benchmarks on the 1.4Ghz P4 Mobility. After you factor in size, ease-of-use, power usage and heat generation (which does lend itself to a shorter lifespan), the iBook will seem like a very fine machine.
<strong>...but it is much improved over the original G3 design, and I'd much rather have the 700Mhz Sahara G3 than the 900Mhz Celeron that is in some competing laptops from IBM and other companies.
G3s were also competitive with P3s in terms of performance per clock, and the P3 has very few changes from the P2, most of which just involve the processor having a unique identifier number making it easier to track illegal activity or sell information about legal activity to advertisers.
Now, if a 700Mhz G3 is comparable to a 700 or 800Mhz P3, and a real 1.4 Ghz P4 is widely documented as being slower than a 1 Ghz P3, it doesn't make the 1.4 Ghz Pentium 4 Mobility look that fast anymore.
Pepople are falling prey to the "name myth". Just because it's called "G3" doesn't mean it sucks or is as weak as the G3s we are used to from days gone by.
I'm sure Jaguar benchmarks of the 700Mhz iBook will look favorable compared to XP benchmarks on the 1.4Ghz P4 Mobility. After you factor in size, ease-of-use, power usage and heat generation (which does lend itself to a shorter lifespan), the iBook will seem like a very fine machine.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<strong>I don't have to, it's not my job to market it, but if you'd rather have a pentium laptop, go get one.
The most pathetic thing is that all the people in here whining probably wouldn't buy an iBook anyway, no matter what kind of processor it had.</strong><hr></blockquote>
actually I'll be buying an iBook by October whether I like it or not.
Comments
This is just making the descision harder!!
The only possible speed advantages of this sahara are the bigger L2 and the shorter pipeline.
Unless IBM has added more FP/int units I don't see how a 750fx would even run on par with an SOI G4 in this case. It's 5 vs 7 stages, but that isn't the whole story. Longer pipes don't always mean less speed per Mhz, the way the pipes are implemented also counts. Yes the Sahara has 512KB on-die cache, but the SOI G4's in the Ti have 256KB on-die plus another 1MB of L3. Also the TiBooks run on a 133Mhz bus vs the 100Mhz bus of the iBook. You can be pretty sure that an iBook 700 doesn't run on par with a TiBook 800 on anything, might run on par with the 667 on some things, but certainly DOES NOT run faster than a Ti667 on MOST tasks.
The features might be the deciding factor, but even with these new Sahara chips, the Ti's are faster.
It depends on what you want/need. iBook gives more bang for the buck, as they say, TiBook gives more overall bang, but you need a lot more bucks. [Steve started the whole sex and laptops thing, don't blame me]
I'm expecting that the latest iBooks are going to stack up well, in all around performance, against notebooks at much higher price points. I'd like to see some performance comparisons, especially against PC portables, while running on battery power. Now that would be a good "real world" test.
[ 05-24-2002: Message edited by: Scooterboy ]</p>
Torifile said:
[quote]
It's already been confirmed that the rev. b tibooks will support QE. By extension, the new ibooks will, as well (they have the same GPU).
<hr></blockquote>
I assume you mean rev. b = still the 500/600 versions of the iBook with the Rage 128 M4 with 8 megs of VRAM. And do we know the brand new iBook (rev. c) supports QE?
I may be out of my league here, because I admit I don't know much about graphics. BUT, Programmer explained this issue concisely, leaving out one, possibly two, key factors. He said AGP allows the Video board to read out of system (main) memory. Cool! So, perhaps iBooks could support Quartz Extreme after all, overcoming their paltry 8megs of VRAM. However, Programmer could not remember if the Rage 128 supports this. This would be key. But anyway I think someone indicated all this shuffling of data would lead to negligible benefits anyway.
T&L in newer cards was blustered about by people too,as required by Quartz Extreme, but a definitive answer was never given. I think Programmer wondered why it would be needed. I don't know.
So, in response to this whole iBook w/Rage128M4 & QE issue, Programmer had this to say:
[quote]
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Aquatik:
Programmer, are you saying that it's not just Apple's arbitrary decision to keep us buying new hardware, that the Rage 128 just can't do QE?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's what I'm saying alright.
<hr></blockquote>
even though I don' think we ever got the issues of T&L and AGP reads from system (main) memory worked out.
Looking back at your post, Torifile, I may just have read you wrong on your semantics. I think you might have meant rev. c for the brand new iBook. But since I wrote all this, here we go again.
<strong>Looking back at your post, Torifile, I may just have read you wrong on your semantics. I think you might have meant rev. c for the brand new iBook. But since I wrote all this, here we go again.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, I think he meant the rev. B TiBooks (G4 Titanium PowerBooks) just like he said
Name: Price:
PORTÉGÉ 4010 2,199
12" TFT-XGA 0
Pentium® III-M 933 MHz 0
256MB (256+0) 0
20GB HDD -100
CD-RW/DVD-ROM 150
Cisco 128-Bit Aironet 350 WiFi Mini-PCI Card 50
No Bluetooth 0
No FDD 0
Microsoft® Windows® XP-Pro/ Windows® 2000-Pro 0
Application None 0
Modem/LAN 0
generic grfx support? there is no mention on the toshiba site of the gfx card and the detailed specs .pdf is corrupted ... therefore i could also not note the cache size
$2,299.00
same config 700mhz ibook, except w/ethernet (notice no Modem/LAN ethernet available for toshiba) and w/Radeon 16mb
$1,673.00
i chose the protege because of its 12.1inch screen, slim profile, and light weight (4.2 pounds) - physical characteristics which correctly match the ibook
that's a p3 in the toshiba, and a p3M at that...
$600 buys you an extra 233mhz on a p3M - xp pro
unsure on the gfx card - but if it was noteable, wouldn't it have been noted?
[ 05-25-2002: Message edited by: janitor ]</p>
<strong>Yes, fiune and good. I'll accept that a G4 is twice as fast per hegahertz than a Pentium 4. But the G3 is not.
I have used a 400 Pismo and a 700 Dell something-or-other laptop. The Pismo was slightly faster at common tasks, and signifcantly faster at MP3 ripping and DVD playing.
But still not very good. Why can't I buy an Apple laptop with a DVD drive that can actually the play the things at full speed?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Are you crazy??? In OS 9, DVD playback wasn't the greatest, but it was acceptable. On OS X however, it's insanely fast and much sharper. Heck, I can check e-mail while watching a movie with no skipping, pausing, or stuttering. I never thought I'd ever be able to do that! Maybe you need more RAM or something, but DVD playback in X is great on a Pismo 400.
Looking at these new iBooks makes me drool. These things gotta be at least twice as powerful as my Pismo, and they have CD burners, better video, and a seriously kick-*** version of the G3. If I had money to burn, I'd love one of those new iBooks, they are awesome for their price. The 12" Combo model for $1500 is a much better machine than any PC laptop for that price, and you're getting a real processor running at full speed, not one of those stupid stepped down, underclocked on battery power things they stick in the Pentium laptops.
If I was in the market for a new laptop right now, I would definitely get the 12" Combo iBook, (heck, even Matsu, who hates everything, says it's decent) but my Pismo is still serving me well and will only get better when Jaguar comes out.
Man, some people just aren't happy unless they are complaining about something.
<strong>I haven't read this entire thread, but I must say that a 600mhz G3 in any current machine is an embarrassment. Absolutely ludicrous to put that in the ibook. IBM has much faster G3's if Jobs is against putting in a G4..................................</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
IBM DOESN'T have much faster CPUs.
<strong>I haven't read this entire thread, but I must say that a 600mhz G3 in any current machine is an embarrassment. Absolutely ludicrous to put that in the ibook. IBM has much faster G3's if Jobs is against putting in a G4..................................</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's not the best thing in the world but why is a 600MHz G3 an embarrassment?
<strong>
It's not the best thing in the world but why is a 600MHz G3 an embarrassment?</strong><hr></blockquote>
1.) it's a processor based on a design that was compettive against Pentium IIs in 1997/98 not Pentium 3 and 4s and athlons in 2002.
2.) it's half the clockspeed of the competition
3.) it lacks a SIMD unit which the competition and all other apple products have
4.) tied to three. it is missing the one thing that is keeping apple competitive performance wise- altivec.
G3s were also competitive with P3s in terms of performance per clock, and the P3 has very few changes from the P2, most of which just involve the processor having a unique identifier number making it easier to track illegal activity or sell information about legal activity to advertisers.
Now, if a 700Mhz G3 is comparable to a 700 or 800Mhz P3, and a real 1.4 Ghz P4 is widely documented as being slower than a 1 Ghz P3, it doesn't make the 1.4 Ghz Pentium 4 Mobility look that fast anymore.
Pepople are falling prey to the "name myth". Just because it's called "G3" doesn't mean it sucks or is as weak as the G3s we are used to from days gone by.
I'm sure Jaguar benchmarks of the 700Mhz iBook will look favorable compared to XP benchmarks on the 1.4Ghz P4 Mobility. After you factor in size, ease-of-use, power usage and heat generation (which does lend itself to a shorter lifespan), the iBook will seem like a very fine machine.
<strong>...but it is much improved over the original G3 design, and I'd much rather have the 700Mhz Sahara G3 than the 900Mhz Celeron that is in some competing laptops from IBM and other companies.
G3s were also competitive with P3s in terms of performance per clock, and the P3 has very few changes from the P2, most of which just involve the processor having a unique identifier number making it easier to track illegal activity or sell information about legal activity to advertisers.
Now, if a 700Mhz G3 is comparable to a 700 or 800Mhz P3, and a real 1.4 Ghz P4 is widely documented as being slower than a 1 Ghz P3, it doesn't make the 1.4 Ghz Pentium 4 Mobility look that fast anymore.
Pepople are falling prey to the "name myth". Just because it's called "G3" doesn't mean it sucks or is as weak as the G3s we are used to from days gone by.
I'm sure Jaguar benchmarks of the 700Mhz iBook will look favorable compared to XP benchmarks on the 1.4Ghz P4 Mobility. After you factor in size, ease-of-use, power usage and heat generation (which does lend itself to a shorter lifespan), the iBook will seem like a very fine machine.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
have fun marketing how 512K of fullspeed L2 on die cache makes the new G3 competive to the consumer market.
The most pathetic thing is that all the people in here whining probably wouldn't buy an iBook anyway, no matter what kind of processor it had.
<strong>I don't have to, it's not my job to market it, but if you'd rather have a pentium laptop, go get one.
The most pathetic thing is that all the people in here whining probably wouldn't buy an iBook anyway, no matter what kind of processor it had.</strong><hr></blockquote>
actually I'll be buying an iBook by October whether I like it or not.
speak for yourself, not others dumbass
<strong>
actually I'll be buying an iBook by October whether I like it or not.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
How come you're getting an iBook? You still gunna keep the Ti?
[ 05-26-2002: Message edited by: EmAn ]</p>
<strong>
actually I'll be buying an iBook by October whether I like it or not.
speak for yourself, not others dumbass</strong><hr></blockquote>
Then I guess somebody did a good job of marketing that 700Mhz G3 to you...
...you also sunk to the level of namecalling because you ran out of intelligent things to say. (Gee, that didn't take long...)
'nuff said.
I will buy a new Macintosh at the end of the summer if it is one of the following machines:
PowerMac 1.4 GHz with significant upgrades to current specs (DDR, faster FSB, etc)
iBook 1 GHz
If neither of these is available, I will keep my iMac 500 and invest in something else. Ooh... I want a Paul Chen katana.