I'm assuming that this chip is the 750FX because it is the only G3 class chip (actually the only PowerPC) with a 512KB L2 cache(on ie). unless they went backwards and included an older 750 with seperate cache chips. But I think that is unlikely. So from there I inferred this was a 750FX. About the SIMD unit i was under the impression it had a SIMD unit but i could be mistaken.
<strong>On a positive note they did use a 7500 with true T&L (which ought to help games). I always said they'd just use 7500. It's probably easier to support the MoBo's that way.
The reason there's always a deal breaker is that the specs so seldom match the price. For a few dollars less things become a lot more forgivable, but with Apple taxes, people want to get the absolute most machine they can afford. Fault Apple, not the whiners.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm not so sure about that... the link to the ATI page that Apple is using is to the Mobility Radeon page, not the Mobility Radeon 7500 page. Can anyone confirm if it's the Mobility Radeon or if it's the 7500?
[quote] I'm not so sure about that... the link to the ATI page that Apple is using is to the Mobility Radeon page, not the Mobility Radeon 7500 page. Can anyone confirm if it's the Mobility Radeon or if it's the 7500? <hr></blockquote>
As of this morning the "graphics" section of the new ibook site had the radeon 7500 badge on it. It seems that somebody at Apple *****d up, and it has now been replaced with the older radeon logo!! DAMN!! I was all excited, there really is a discernable difference in performance between them!
It is a first generation Radeon mobility that does not come close to the 7500 in 3D!!! That is what is in the ibook. The new TiBook has the 7500, if you compare the specs, apple lists in the Ti description that it is the 7500.
Damn! This upgrade is truly pointless. But to be fair to Apple, they did it quietly. It's more of a mild bump that brings the iBook to nearly acceptable standards. They're using drop in replacement parts, speed/cache bumped chip, same bus, leftover GPU, slightly bigger HDD.
I'll wait for a real update, thanks. So should anyone who wants to use OSX 10.2 and above. Yes I know we're splitting hairs over 'supported' and 'optimal' implementations, but skimping over a paltry 16Mb of VRAM is truly inexcusable at this point in the game.
Pretty good. 800MHz would've been nice, but 700MHz is fine. And guys, be realistic. This is Apple we're dealing with, do you think they'd give us a 32MB Radeon 7500 on the iBook?
I think Satchmo's got it right. They can't release a G3 iBook that's faster than their $3200 Powerbook. Unfortunate, but I can't disagree with Apple's decision here.
Hopefully we'll get 1.4GHz towers, 1Ghz Powerbooks, 1GHz iMacs, and 900Mhz iBooks before too much longer.
Yes, the iBook sucks now. Apple could put the 7500 in and a faster than 800 G3. But they are really sucking with the PBG4 now. So what do they do? They cripple the iBook, of course. I hate how they do this. Really, why not offer a faster iBook? Pros know what AltiVec is! I don't think it would hurt Apple to give us a faster iBook with better video. The PBG4 drought would be made up for by the iBooks flying off the shelves.
Also of interest: The 14" iBook didn't get a resolution increase. Not that I'd want one of these heavy things, but it'd be nice if the 14" iBook didn't seem like it was designed for folks with poor eyesight.
Still, it's interesting... Apple almost seems to be setting up the 14" iBook as the mid range laptop. The 14" iBook now has its own two configurations, just like the 12" iBook.
<strong>Not that I'd want one of these heavy things, but it'd be nice if the 14" iBook didn't seem like it was designed for folks with poor eyesight. </strong><hr></blockquote>
So we know this chip can handle a 200Mhz bus, and will scale to 1Ghz, supposedly by the end of the year. Now, if we can get a .13µ G4 for the PowerBook up to 1Ghz or more, too...
The chip must be a sahara the only one with 512 KB L2 cache at full speed. IBM is the only supplier of G3 for Apple . Mot did not sell G3 anymore to Apple and they are stuck at 500 mhz. According to the IBM info : this chip is a sahara. It means a very advanced G3 with a 256 bit L2 cache (compared to 256 K and 64 bit ) of the older version.
Except Altivec stuff , the sahara chip is faster than any G4, this is the reason why they did not release a 800 mhz version. Can an I book be faster than a tibook ?
Yes, it is the "Sahara" or the 750FX, which uses SOI for a "20% to 30% performance gain at the same power or 2X lower power at the same performance [of 750Cxe]". It also uses SiLK for a "10% performance improvement".
An iBook 700 with a 30 GB hard drive is a nice buy, and you can build to order one with a 40 GB hard drive.
Maybe Apple's plan eventually scaling the iBook up to 1 Ghz but keeping it on a G3.
Just as Intel has two levels, the Celeron and Pentium.
Mind you, we won't get anywhere one Ghz until the Powerbooks get there first. There's still that perception of higher numbers that the marketing folks have to worry about.
As far as video card, I'm sure some Apple exec will come out and give us some info in the next few days. They have during the past few hardware releases anyway.
<strong>Also of interest: The 14" iBook didn't get a resolution increase. Not that I'd want one of these heavy things, but it'd be nice if the 14" iBook didn't seem like it was designed for folks with poor eyesight.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not that I really care, but how come nobody bitched about the resolution on the Pismos when they were out? It was the same 14" 1024x768.
Comments
<strong>On a positive note they did use a 7500 with true T&L (which ought to help games). I always said they'd just use 7500. It's probably easier to support the MoBo's that way.
The reason there's always a deal breaker is that the specs so seldom match the price. For a few dollars less things become a lot more forgivable, but with Apple taxes, people want to get the absolute most machine they can afford. Fault Apple, not the whiners.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm not so sure about that... the link to the ATI page that Apple is using is to the Mobility Radeon page, not the Mobility Radeon 7500 page. Can anyone confirm if it's the Mobility Radeon or if it's the 7500?
<strong>On the other hand, Sahara was supposed to debut at 700, and the 600 version also has the 512k cache. Maybe it's just down-clocked.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
IBM's specs for the 750fx say 600 MHz to 1 GHz:
<a href="http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/techlib/techlib.nsf/techdocs/2FF4861D6755A6CA87256BB1006B1DE6/$file/PPC750FX_PB.PDF"; target="_blank">pdf</a>
As of this morning the "graphics" section of the new ibook site had the radeon 7500 badge on it. It seems that somebody at Apple *****d up, and it has now been replaced with the older radeon logo!! DAMN!! I was all excited, there really is a discernable difference in performance between them!
[ 05-20-2002: Message edited by: warpd ]</p>
I'll wait for a real update, thanks. So should anyone who wants to use OSX 10.2 and above. Yes I know we're splitting hairs over 'supported' and 'optimal' implementations, but skimping over a paltry 16Mb of VRAM is truly inexcusable at this point in the game.
Hopefully we'll get 1.4GHz towers, 1Ghz Powerbooks, 1GHz iMacs, and 900Mhz iBooks before too much longer.
Yes, the iBook sucks now. Apple could put the 7500 in and a faster than 800 G3. But they are really sucking with the PBG4 now. So what do they do? They cripple the iBook, of course. I hate how they do this. Really, why not offer a faster iBook? Pros know what AltiVec is! I don't think it would hurt Apple to give us a faster iBook with better video. The PBG4 drought would be made up for by the iBooks flying off the shelves.
<strong>Worth a mention, these are the new 750FX G3's. 512KB L2 cache and a SIMD unit.</strong><hr></blockquote>
if this is a sahara overclocking will be a no-brainer
[ 05-20-2002: Message edited by: janitor ]</p>
Still, it's interesting... Apple almost seems to be setting up the 14" iBook as the mid range laptop. The 14" iBook now has its own two configurations, just like the 12" iBook.
<strong>Not that I'd want one of these heavy things, but it'd be nice if the 14" iBook didn't seem like it was designed for folks with poor eyesight.
The Apple iBook. Now available in large print.
<strong>IBM's specs for the 750fx say 600 MHz to 1 GHz:
<a href="http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/techlib/techlib.nsf/techdocs/2FF4861D6755A6CA87256BB1006B1DE6/$file/PPC750FX_PB.PDF"; target="_blank">pdf</a></strong><hr></blockquote>Interesting. That's new - the original October 2001 press release said it started at 700Mhz.
So we know this chip can handle a 200Mhz bus, and will scale to 1Ghz, supposedly by the end of the year. Now, if we can get a .13µ G4 for the PowerBook up to 1Ghz or more, too...
Except Altivec stuff , the sahara chip is faster than any G4, this is the reason why they did not release a 800 mhz version. Can an I book be faster than a tibook ?
An iBook 700 with a 30 GB hard drive is a nice buy, and you can build to order one with a 40 GB hard drive.
[ 05-20-2002: Message edited by: Scooterboy ]</p>
...but LOL, what's with:
[quote]If you are looking for information about Family Systems Ltd. and its IBOOK products to create interactive electronic books, please visit <a href="http://www.ibook.com."; target="_blank">http://www.ibook.com.</a><hr></blockquote>;
???
Haha!
[ 05-20-2002: Message edited by: Eugene ]</p>
Just as Intel has two levels, the Celeron and Pentium.
Mind you, we won't get anywhere one Ghz until the Powerbooks get there first. There's still that perception of higher numbers that the marketing folks have to worry about.
As far as video card, I'm sure some Apple exec will come out and give us some info in the next few days. They have during the past few hardware releases anyway.
<strong>Also of interest: The 14" iBook didn't get a resolution increase. Not that I'd want one of these heavy things, but it'd be nice if the 14" iBook didn't seem like it was designed for folks with poor eyesight.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not that I really care, but how come nobody bitched about the resolution on the Pismos when they were out? It was the same 14" 1024x768.