My Radical Rumors: G3s across the board!

[rice_web]

Yep, I'll say it because I don't care enough to be completely and utterly wrong.

The Sahara G3 supports a 200MHz system bus, and 400MHz DDR memory. If the Sahara could top 1GHz, Apple should use it in their pro line. With its 512K L2 cache, SOI, and .13 micron manufacturing technique, it's ideal for a low-heat, pretty darned quick machine.

Now, comes the whine of Apple's commitment to Altivec. Well, let me just say that Altivec is terrible at tasks that are not optimized for it. The Sahara would be the G4 in most any OS 9 application, and does pretty well as it stands in OS X.

However, the G3 has a bit of a bottleneck that it can easily overcome. The iBook has a 100MHz system bus, the PowerBook has a 133Mhz system bus, and yet, the iBook does very well in benchmarks.

So, if a G3 were coupled with a 200MHz bus and 400MHz DDR memory, I could see where it would crush our current G4s at the same clock speed.

[MacAztec]

Do you hear that? You said the Sahara CAN do this and CAN do that. But it wont.

[rice_web]

No, it supports a 200MHz system bus today and now. If Apple built a motherboard for it, it would scream.

[strider42]

Originally posted by rice_web
to Altivec. Well, let me just say that Altivec is terrible at tasks that are not optimized for it. The Sahara would be the G4 in most any OS 9 application, and does pretty well as it stands in OS X.



Non-Altivec tasks aren't even handled by the Atlivec co-processor, so its not fair to say altivec is terrible at non-optimized tasks, it doesn't even touch them. the regular processor does. On top of that, the G4 without altivec is supposed to be a bit better than the G3 (as most tasks are not altivec aware), or at least thats my understanding.

So, improving on the G4's motherboard should be a lot better than even thinking about furzing around with the G3's.

[rice_web]

The new Sahara runs remarkably well, much faster than the previous G3s. Just look at the iBook benchmarks to see the difference. Granted, the new iBook sports a better video card, but the Sahara is a great processor.

[MacAztec]

Do you work for motorola or what. How do you know all this and that. And that the Sahara is better

[rice_web]

Benchmarks! Reading! Jesus, people: if you actually looked at IBMs and Motorolas websites, you'd learn more about processors than you ever cared to learn, and that's how I know this stuff (well, that and reading reviews)

The Sahara's L2 cache is 512K, it incorporates SOI (silicon on insulator - which improves performance by about 10%), and it was built with a .13 micron manufacturing method. With the .13 manufacturing, the core gets smaller and thus produces less heat. When processors produce less heat, they run faster. Plus, the Sahara supports bus speeds up to 200MHz, and if a motherboard supports it, can have 400MHz DDR (which is very rare even in x86 land). Heck, I've even heard rumors that the Sahara has fewer pipeline stages and a more advanced FPU for non-Altivec-enhanced software.

With all of these added together, you get one helluva chip.

(and by the way, the Sahara is manufactured by IBM)

[Sun Baked]

But what about multiple processor support, does the Sahara have that?

The IBM PowerPC roadmap has SMP and an integrated SIMD engine coming in the next generation.

[rice_web]

Yes, yes, I know that.

From what I've heard, the G3 only supports multiprocessing to a very limited degree, and would hardly be worth doing. So yes, the G4 has its definite advantage there.

[sjs]

New Apple ad at MWSF:
Introducing our new 1 ghz G3. That's right potential switchers, we run at 1/3 the mhz of wintels AND we have reverted to our previous generation chip!

[alex_ant]

I guess the theory is that by now, all the "pro users" who use the "pro machines" are dependent on AltiVec, which the Sahara doesn't have. The G4 will still outperform any G3 at AltiVec-optimized tasks. In that case, the Sahara in the pro lines would be a step down. At the moment, in the eyes of the public, G3 = slow and G4 = fast. Apple would have to rename the Sahara to something snappy and modern... G3-XP? :)

The G3 is also not MERSI compliant, as far as I know, so no SMP G3 systems will be possible until that gets straightened out. Apple obviously realizes it's getting screwed by Motorola (and has realized this for years) - I wonder if it is merely waiting for AltiVec-compatible SIMD and SMP capability in IBM's PPCs and planning to jump ship and abandon Motorola forever once those arrive. That, I think, would be great. It would hopefully also shut up all the port-OS X-to-Intel idiots.

Alex

[billiam0878]

Nice post rice_web. The only problem I see other than the lack of Altivec would be (as sjs touched on) the fact that switching to the G3 would be seen as a regression-- as if Apple were moving backwards which prove injurious to sales. However, if Apple were to bump up the bus and enhance performance in a number of other ways they could call it a whole new processor and problem solved.

Bill

[tjwett]

Originally posted by alex_ant
I guess the theory is that by now, all the "pro users" who use the "pro machines" are dependent on AltiVec, which the Sahara doesn't have. The G4 will still outperform any G3 at AltiVec-optimized tasks. In that case, the Sahara in the pro lines would be a step down. At the moment, in the eyes of the public, G3 = slow and G4 = fast. Apple would have to rename the Sahara to something snappy and modern... G3-XP? :)
Alex

in my eyes the G4=slow and the G3=slow, but not as overpriced. i have a 933 Power and a 550 Tibook and they are both SLOW. my powerbook has become not much more than a bedside radio for listening to iTunes radio tuner when i sleep. and my tower which is maxed on RAM and has high-speed drives is getting too slow to handle serious Combustion and After Effects work. i can barely stand it anymore. whoever makes claims that OSX "runs like a dream" or "flys" on the current machines is nuts. yeah, it's fast compared to our old Macs, but it's still slow by todays technology standards. but, what choice do we have? Windows? It's a sad state of affairs right now. Lose the G4. Lose AltiVec. Lose Motorola. Do SOMETHING, anything. Don't you want another $4000 from me?

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by tjwett
in my eyes the G4=slow and the G3=slow, but not as overpriced. i have a 933 Power and a 550 Tibook and they are both SLOW. my powerbook has become not much more than a bedside radio for listening to iTunes radio tuner when i sleep. and my tower which is maxed on RAM and has high-speed drives is getting too slow to handle serious Combustion and After Effects work. i can barely stand it anymore. whoever makes claims that OSX "runs like a dream" or "flys" on the current machines is nuts. yeah, it's fast compared to our old Macs, but it's still slow by todays technology standards. but, what choice do we have? Windows? It's a sad state of affairs right now. Lose the G4. Lose AltiVec. Lose Motorola. Do SOMETHING, anything. Don't you want another $4000 from me?
I also own a 550MHz TiBook, which I use as my primary workstation (!!!!!!!!!!!), and I second everything you said.

[Grokgod]

Ok APPLE is slow ,m but backwards is isnt slow its Backwards!

You are desperate to be posting this.... even if it makes sense ina twisted way.

It would never happen.

Ok maybe if Intel went back to the P3 , telling everyone that the p4 was a mistake and that a 2 ghz P3 is coming to blow everyone away!

I think that could happen first before APPLE does it~!

[rice_web]

The funny thing is this: I have an iMac DV 400MHz. And yet, it performs just perfectly for me. With 384MB RAM, it most certainly isn't maxed out, and OS X runs much better with 512MB.

However, I run DreamWeaver, Photoshop, BBEdit (and that is one processor hog, I tell you), and all of the iTools 'ceptin fur iDVD.

Now obviously, my demands on my iMac aren't that great, but I really just don't need any more speed.

But yeah, I'd really love a 1.4GHz G4 with a 166MHz system bus and 333MHz DDR and 512K L2 Cache and 4MB L3 Cache. Here's to wishing.

[rice_web]

And to Grokgod:

I am fully aware that Apple would never do this. However, I want one.

The G3 is MUCH cheaper. I'd rather have a 1GHz G3 with a 200MHz system bus and 400MHz DDR memory than a current 933MHz G4, and largely because of the cost.

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by rice_web
The funny thing is this: I have an iMac DV 400MHz. And yet, it performs just perfectly for me. With 384MB RAM, it most certainly isn't maxed out, and OS X runs much better with 512MB.

However, I run DreamWeaver, Photoshop, BBEdit (and that is one processor hog, I tell you), and all of the iTools 'ceptin fur iDVD.

Now obviously, my demands on my iMac aren't that great, but I really just don't need any more speed.
I feel similarly with my 550MHz TiBook and my 500MHz iMac DV. They're "fast enough." The fastest PC I've ever used was 550MHz as well. I hope I never have an opportunity to use a modern 2GHz+ PC, because that will ruin everything - my Macs won't seem "fast enough" anymore. This is the dilemma that is winding so many Mac users into a tizzy today, and I think it's justified.

Alex

[Beej]

rice-
I think many of the points you have bought up are perfectly valid, but not quite in the context you see them. I suggest you, and everyone else, looks at what you've written, and rather than thinking 'desktop,' think 'laptop.'

Apple will never move their pro machines back to a G3 for all sorts of obvious reasons, many of which have been stated above.

However, the iBook still uses a G3. Remeber that comment from someone at Apple a few weeks ago that said the G3 still has life in it? Everythng you've said shows why.

Wasting time, money and resources on souping up the G3 for use in Pro machines would be a waste of time for Apple/IBM/Motorola. Why not put those resources into souping up the G4? But at the same time, why not let the G3 evolve into a chip that will make the iBook (and possible future Apple devices?) even more of a killer buy than it is now?

[TypeR389]

Yup, give me 933 iBook, 133MHz bus, and say maybe 256 built in so I can up to 768 total for ram, and I am so there. I was playing around with a 700 iBook and a 667 RevB TiBook last weekend, and I was surprised at how the iBook did. Now Photoshop wasn't on either of them, but for applworks, Office and IE were on both, and in some things, the iBook with less ram actually seemed faster! Don't know, maybe I was stoned, but since I don't live in Altivec land, saving the $1000 on the ibook seems like a good deal to me. ( I actually liked the iBook screen better than the Ti believe it or not, now the new rev c is sweet, just pricy!)

Oh well, hopefully we can get another small bump in the iBook in the next three months!

[tjwett]

Originally posted by alex_ant

I feel similarly with my 550MHz TiBook and my 500MHz iMac DV. They're "fast enough." The fastest PC I've ever used was 550MHz as well. I hope I never have an opportunity to use a modern 2GHz+ PC, because that will ruin everything - my Macs won't seem "fast enough" anymore. This is the dilemma that is winding so many Mac users into a tizzy today, and I think it's justified.

Alex

This is how I got so depressed. A friend had a project due and the clock was ticking. His Mac workstation was down due to storage problems so we had to take the footage elsewhere to work. We rented a post room for the next few days and used the same apps we use everyday(After Effects and Combustion), except on Windows machines. These machines outran our dual 1gigs and didn't break a sweat. The work flow was super fast and he finished early. Granted, the gray interface was ugly to work in but hey, the final product came out great. Point is, the fastest and most expensive Mac has a hard time going up against consumer level PCs at less than half the cost. I think that is lame and I feel like a sucker when I'm chugging along at a cool 1ghz with an empty wallet. Still, I refuse to use Windows, for now.

[Beej]

Originally posted by tjwett
I think that is lame and I feel like a sucker when I'm chugging along at a cool 1ghz with an empty wallet. Still, I refuse to use Windows, for now. Like I keep saying... it's not the speed of the Mac that keeps me here... it's the OS. If I wanted raw power, I'd buy an AMD setup. But I hate Windows, and couldn't bare to run Linux 24/7. I love the Mac OS, and I'm willing to pay the extra $$$ to keep using it. More than happy.

[barkmonster]

check out the benchmarks (http://www.barefeats.com/pb8.html) on barefeats site comparing the 700Mhz iBook to an 800Mhz TiBook and some other models of desktop and powerbook.

The iBook is faster than a dual 800, iMac 800Mhz and the 800MHz TiBook at raw CPU muscle. In the bryce test on the page it totally trashes all the other models. This isn't a test based on Altivec, dual CPU code or how fast the graphics card is. It's just a fair cross platform test.

for example (in seconds) :

iBook 700Mhz : 34

Powerbook G4 800Mhz : 37

iMac 800Mhz : 48

Powermac G4 933Mhz : 33

Powermac G4 1Ghz : 30

and just for comparison....

Althon 1.4Ghz : 21

Pentium 4 1.8Ghz : 42


This suggests a few things to me.

1. A 512K L2 offers a big performance boost.

2. Apple should do a Pentium 4 vs G4 shoot out with bryce instead of photoshop.

3. AMD make the most efficient desktop chips but who cares when you have to stare at windows all day to use them.

4. We need a G4 with a 512K L2 and DDR so people doing work with similar CPU demands to bryce have a fast enough mac to do it.

5. The iBook is the best performing mac for the price.

[drastik]

Originally posted by Beej
Like I keep saying... it's not the speed of the Mac that keeps me here... it's the OS. If I wanted raw power, I'd buy an AMD setup. But I hate Windows, and couldn't bare to run Linux 24/7. I love the Mac OS, and I'm willing to pay the extra $$$ to keep using it. More than happy.

Oh no Beej!!, you're stranded on a desert Island!!!!

Yes I totaly agree on the OS keeps me around point. NOt only the OS, but the Form factor and programs too. I'm hooked on Final Cut after about three weeks, I can't go back to Media 100 and I can't afford and avid setup, so here I am. Even if my workflow is slower, When its done its dome better because I take my time with it. Its a labor of love. :)

[drastik]

Also cxonsider this: the Newtech G4 upgrade for the pismo comes with 1MB on the L2, they seem to undestand this cache thing, and it cost a wopping $300. I can't wait to get mine!!:D

[ibjoshua]

this is totally subjective but i'm running a pentium 1.6 with XP at work and i'm not too impressed with windows explorer. i can't speak for the cpu because i don't do very cpu intensive tasks but moving between applications and using the 'start' menu is painfully slow considering what's inside the box.

give me rice_web's g3 and osX any day

joshua

[Anon]

Quartz Extreme could be seen as an attempt by Apple to lessen it's dependance on Altivec for Quartz. This could extend the life of the G3 in Apple products.

On the other hand IBM hasn't hasn't been able to make the G3 faster than Motorola has made the G4, so I don't see Apple moving the entire line back from the G4 to the G3.

[tjwett]

Originally posted by Beej
Like I keep saying... it's not the speed of the Mac that keeps me here... it's the OS. If I wanted raw power, I'd buy an AMD setup. But I hate Windows, and couldn't bare to run Linux 24/7. I love the Mac OS, and I'm willing to pay the extra $$$ to keep using it. More than happy.

same here. but why is Apple still calling them "pro" machines and charging insane prices if they are having a hard time running "pro" apps and are, hardware-wise, severely outdated? as someone who needs these machines to make a living i can't help but feel, that compared with the current state of technology, there is very little that is "pro" about my PowerMac or PowerBook. i always get flamed for making statements like this, but isn't it the truth? eventually my wallet and patience will run out and i'll have to go with what's powerful and not brand loyalty for the sake of it.

[rice_web]

Apple's two biggest problems with price are:

(1) They want to maintain high margins
(2) G4s are pricey

However, I do understand your frustration of being with a slow computer.

[rice_web]

And some more information on the 750FX:

The L1 and L2 cache on the 750FX are each 256 bits, which also improves performance (I believe that the current G4 uses 128, and that the previous G3s used 64)

For more information on the 750FX, I'd recommend reading IBM's technical explanations of the processor.

http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/techlib/techlib.nsf/techdocs/BECF98824B9B663287256BCA00587B22/$file/750FX_Technical_Summary_DD2.X_V1.0_prel28May02.pdf

(and yes, the G3 uses a 4 stage pipeline, while the current G4s use 7)

[iH8Quark]

This is a certainty. G3's across the line, and they will be sporting a new, nebulous, non industry standard "revolutionary" new vector processing unit...UltraVec

;)

...or Mach 3 TurboVec

:D

[ftaok]

Originally posted by rice_web
Apple's two biggest problems with price are:

(1) They want to maintain high margins
(2) G4s are pricey

However, I do understand your frustration of being with a slow computer. rice-web,

I agree with number 1 (what company doesn't want high margins), but on number 2, I have to ask for clarification. If you look at Motorola's press releases, you'll see that the 7455 costs $295 in quantities and the 7445 costs $125. That seems pretty cheap to me. How much do the 750FX's cost? I've never found that info in any IBM document.

[rice_web]

But in what quantities? Even Apple doesn't purchase G4s at the rate that other companies looking for embedded chips do. (in other words, Motorola has bigger customers than Apple)

[TypeR389]

From what I remember when buying electronic components while in EE school, generally buying in quantity would mean in quantities of 1000 or more for items such as CPU's...

[Malus120]

$295 for the 7455 in QUANTITY
$125 for the 7445 in QUANTITY
Yes these chips are freaking expensive!!!! The CONSUMER can get 1 AMD AthalonXP for under $200. DAMN i actually wish apple would at least give us a choice to use IBM's new G3's in our machines especially if it would reduce the cost. With the faster bus and DDR ram it would OWN G4's. Screw Altavic make a PCI card For it :D

[MacAztec]

BarkMonster....are you blind? Go take another look at that BareFeats page. The only thing the iBook won in was the Rock Island test, and it lost HARD in everythign else

[ftaok]

Originally posted by rice_web
But in what quantities? Even Apple doesn't purchase G4s at the rate that other companies looking for embedded chips do. (in other words, Motorola has bigger customers than Apple) I doubled checked.

$295 for 1ghz G4 7455 (in quantities of 10000)
$125 for 800mhz G4 7445 (in quantities of 10000)

I agree that the G4 would be much more expensive than P4s and AMDs (only because of the economies of scale that Intel and AMD enjoy), but what about the IBM 750Fx? IBM isn't selling too many of these babies, I can't imagine that they'd be super cheap.

[barkmonster]

I know the G4s beat the hell out of the iBook in all the test that are based on Altivec, GPU speed and memory bandwidth...

In the bryce test on the page it totally trashes all the other models. This isn't a test based on Altivec, dual CPU code or how fast the graphics card is. It's just a fair cross platform test.

It's just surprising how well it did on the test where RAW cpu speed was the only issue, in that test a G4 is basically the same as a G3 and that's why a G3 can be faster. I know if you're using photoshop, fcp, iMovie, iTunes, Software Synths, 3D games or any of the other things where a fast GPU and Altivec matter more than clock speed the G3 is the loser, infact as an all round chip, it's fairly slow compared with the G4's potential speed. Obviously I'm not saying the the G3 is categorically faster than the G4 across the board, if I thought 1 good result in a Bryce 3D test was all the mattered, I really would be blind! (not to mention stupid).