It appears that the 7447A is being used but it is not what we expected. it does not scale the processor speed down in 50 Mhz increments but rather cuts it in half.
Taking the 1 Ghz iBook as an example:
Old (7447):
Processor speed cut down from 1 Ghz to 765 Mhz.
Processor and memory bus speed cut down from 133 Mhz to 102 Mhz.
Although it doesn't seem very likely, I hope that these iBooks and Powerbooks have better screens. It needs more brightness, higher contrast, higher color fidelity and wider viewing angle.
It seems that Apple has not changed the LCD panels of it's iBooks since the current shape was created in 2001. A lot of advances have been made during the past 3 years. To the eyes of the computer novice, Apple is only as good as it's 3 year-old screens.
I thought that the high-end iBooks used to have an option for 64MB graphics??? Could be my imagination though.....I dont understand why they dont at least have an option to buy a high-end w/64 instead of 32. Plus, arent the Radeon Mobility 9800 chips out??? Why didn't the Powerbook use these and then the iBook gets the 9600? \
The iBook is low end and although 64 MB really would fit better with it, I guess Apple will continue holding back the VRAM. That's my one complaint with their products right now - VRAM needs to double across the board. Every Mac should have twice as much (well, almost all of them... 64 MB is fine for the 12" PowerBook, for instance). 32 MB in the eMac is ridiculous when there are 256 MB Radeon 9200s for sale for $74. That's 8x the VRAM... same ratio as 4 MB vs. 32 MB.
Also, the Radeon 9700 Mobility is the newest mobile graphics card available, period. Apple is one of the first companies to offer a laptop with the 9700. The 9800 is only in desktop form. Even the highest-end Dell, HP and Gateway systems only offer the 9600, while Alienware has the GeForce FX Go5700.
The iBook is low end and although 64 MB really would fit better with it, I guess Apple will continue holding back the VRAM. That's my one complaint with their products right now - VRAM needs to double across the board. Every Mac should have twice as much (well, almost all of them... 64 MB is fine for the 12" PowerBook, for instance). 32 MB in the eMac is ridiculous when there are 256 MB Radeon 9200s for sale for $74. That's 8x the VRAM... same ratio as 4 MB vs. 32 MB.
What do you plan doing with the VRAM as long as there's not much 3D power in iBook/eMac anyway, they cannot do screen spanning, and cannot use external resolutions over the internal one (IIRC)?
What do you plan doing with the VRAM as long as there's not much 3D power in iBook/eMac anyway, they cannot do screen spanning, and cannot use external resolutions over the internal one (IIRC)?
VRAM is the frame buffer. The faster a graphics card is, the more data it needs to keep close at hand to crunch. Otherwise, the graphics card is starved for data. Just like the G4 - yeah, it can crunch data really fast, but the bus speed is so slow that it can't actually get the data fast enough to take full advantage of the processor.
Yes, the Radeon 9200 is a low end card. Well, NOW it is. It's basically a refined version of the Radeon 8500, ATI's highest end card a few years ago. All Radeon 8500s have at least 64 MB of VRAM, and I would guess that a majority have 128 MB. I'm not saying VRAM = performance, but too little VRAM = not living up to potential. Because the card is so starved for data with only 32 MB of buffer, it really won't be any faster than the Radeon 7500 in the previous eMacs. The really frustrating part is that the eMac could have graphics MUCH faster than the previous one if they just added the $5 or $10 needed to up the VRAM to 64 MB. I mean, face it... 64 MB is standard for a low-end machine now.
Because the card is so starved for data with only 32 MB of buffer, it really won't be any faster than the Radeon 7500 in the previous eMacs. The really frustrating part is that the eMac could have graphics MUCH faster than the previous one if they just added the $5 or $10 needed to up the VRAM to 64 MB. I mean, face it... 64 MB is standard for a low-end machine now.
Are you guessing or are there benchmarks that prove the 9200 to be memory-starved at 32MB in some conceivable use (gaming, ...)?
Since the 9200 is pretty much a 9000 with faster AGP (8x), I'd think it is less hurt by memory starvage than a 9000 would have been. Any data about the 9000 would be useful in evaluating this characteristic of the 9200.
OTOH, it's not certain the lack of memory is significant even if it translates to real-world speed differences. This because there are "performance gaps", for instance, you might be able to play certain types of games with good framerates with the 9200, but even 50% speedup would not make it run another type (for instance, new FPS's) acceptably. (this is meant as a general observation, not as an appraisal about the 9200's specific performance)
The CPU numbers are quite low, I assume due to a bunch of programs being open on it beforehand. The graphics numbers seem to be about right, around the range of the 1 GHz 12" PB which have the 32MB FX5200, similar in performance to the Radeon 9200.
A sidenote regarding the difference between 32/64MB, on the new 12" PB's, the Xbench Quartz/OpenGL scores that have been posted so far on the new ones with 64MB (I saw two yesterday) appeared to be about 30% faster than the old ones with 32MB. As to what that actually translates into real-world usage, not too sure. It would certainly make Expose smoother at a minimum, specifically on dual display.
Haesch 3 Tag lang gschlaafe, Defiant? This is old news, see the very first post on this page [2] of this thread. But thanks anyway.
I'm just glad that the Dev Note points to Moto's page for the 7447A, which means that both the PowerBooks and the iBooks ship with the latest version of the G4.
Comments
Taking the 1 Ghz iBook as an example:
Old (7447):
Processor speed cut down from 1 Ghz to 765 Mhz.
Processor and memory bus speed cut down from 133 Mhz to 102 Mhz.
New (7447A):
Processor speed cut down from 1 Ghz to 500 Mhz.
Processor and memory bus speeds are left alone.
Originally posted by TWinbrook46636
Processor speed cut down from 1 Ghz to 500 Mhz.
Processor and memory bus speeds are left alone.
Hey, it'll still be way faster than my 3 year-old iBook/500.
What a revolution my new 12-inch PowerBook will bring!
Escher
It seems that Apple has not changed the LCD panels of it's iBooks since the current shape was created in 2001. A lot of advances have been made during the past 3 years. To the eyes of the computer novice, Apple is only as good as it's 3 year-old screens.
Also, the Radeon 9700 Mobility is the newest mobile graphics card available, period. Apple is one of the first companies to offer a laptop with the 9700. The 9800 is only in desktop form. Even the highest-end Dell, HP and Gateway systems only offer the 9600, while Alienware has the GeForce FX Go5700.
Originally posted by Luca
The iBook is low end and although 64 MB really would fit better with it, I guess Apple will continue holding back the VRAM. That's my one complaint with their products right now - VRAM needs to double across the board. Every Mac should have twice as much (well, almost all of them... 64 MB is fine for the 12" PowerBook, for instance). 32 MB in the eMac is ridiculous when there are 256 MB Radeon 9200s for sale for $74. That's 8x the VRAM... same ratio as 4 MB vs. 32 MB.
What do you plan doing with the VRAM as long as there's not much 3D power in iBook/eMac anyway, they cannot do screen spanning, and cannot use external resolutions over the internal one (IIRC)?
Originally posted by Gon
What do you plan doing with the VRAM as long as there's not much 3D power in iBook/eMac anyway, they cannot do screen spanning, and cannot use external resolutions over the internal one (IIRC)?
VRAM is the frame buffer. The faster a graphics card is, the more data it needs to keep close at hand to crunch. Otherwise, the graphics card is starved for data. Just like the G4 - yeah, it can crunch data really fast, but the bus speed is so slow that it can't actually get the data fast enough to take full advantage of the processor.
Yes, the Radeon 9200 is a low end card. Well, NOW it is. It's basically a refined version of the Radeon 8500, ATI's highest end card a few years ago. All Radeon 8500s have at least 64 MB of VRAM, and I would guess that a majority have 128 MB. I'm not saying VRAM = performance, but too little VRAM = not living up to potential. Because the card is so starved for data with only 32 MB of buffer, it really won't be any faster than the Radeon 7500 in the previous eMacs. The really frustrating part is that the eMac could have graphics MUCH faster than the previous one if they just added the $5 or $10 needed to up the VRAM to 64 MB. I mean, face it... 64 MB is standard for a low-end machine now.
Originally posted by Luca
Because the card is so starved for data with only 32 MB of buffer, it really won't be any faster than the Radeon 7500 in the previous eMacs. The really frustrating part is that the eMac could have graphics MUCH faster than the previous one if they just added the $5 or $10 needed to up the VRAM to 64 MB. I mean, face it... 64 MB is standard for a low-end machine now.
Are you guessing or are there benchmarks that prove the 9200 to be memory-starved at 32MB in some conceivable use (gaming, ...)?
Since the 9200 is pretty much a 9000 with faster AGP (8x), I'd think it is less hurt by memory starvage than a 9000 would have been. Any data about the 9000 would be useful in evaluating this characteristic of the 9200.
OTOH, it's not certain the lack of memory is significant even if it translates to real-world speed differences. This because there are "performance gaps", for instance, you might be able to play certain types of games with good framerates with the 9200, but even 50% speedup would not make it run another type (for instance, new FPS's) acceptably. (this is meant as a general observation, not as an appraisal about the 9200's specific performance)
http://ladd.dyndns.org/xbench/merge.xhtml?doc1=62522
http://ladd.dyndns.org/xbench/merge.xhtml?doc1=62523
Originally posted by gsxrboy
Not the best sample size of course (i.e. 1 of each,) but an xbench for a 12" 1ghz and a 14" 1.2ghz ... but these numbers look a little low to me !
http://ladd.dyndns.org/xbench/merge.xhtml?doc1=62522
http://ladd.dyndns.org/xbench/merge.xhtml?doc1=62523
The CPU numbers are quite low, I assume due to a bunch of programs being open on it beforehand. The graphics numbers seem to be about right, around the range of the 1 GHz 12" PB which have the 32MB FX5200, similar in performance to the Radeon 9200.
A sidenote regarding the difference between 32/64MB, on the new 12" PB's, the Xbench Quartz/OpenGL scores that have been posted so far on the new ones with 64MB (I saw two yesterday) appeared to be about 30% faster than the old ones with 32MB. As to what that actually translates into real-world usage, not too sure. It would certainly make Expose smoother at a minimum, specifically on dual display.
Originally posted by HOM
YOU WILL BUY AN IBOOK!
I...will...buy...an...iBook...
Enjoy!
Originally posted by Defiant
iBook Developer Notes Enjoy!
Haesch 3 Tag lang gschlaafe, Defiant? This is old news, see the very first post on this page [2] of this thread. But thanks anyway.
I'm just glad that the Dev Note points to Moto's page for the 7447A, which means that both the PowerBooks and the iBooks ship with the latest version of the G4.
Escher