G3 Vs G4

Discussion in 'Macintosh Computers' started by mattmack, Jun 2, 2003.

  1. mattmack macrumors 6502a

    mattmack

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2002
    Location:
    San Francisco Area
    #1
    Allright, when I went to buy my last mac. (it was from computerware which shows you how long ago it was.) I asked the sales rep if he could explain the differences between a G3 and a G4 processor. He couldn't. In fact he said he preferred windows. So I went to another salesperson and dealt with him, but that's another story. Anyway I still have not found a very good answer to the question and was wondering if anyone here could explain it in relatively simplistic terms? :confused: I know it is not just the Altivec that makes the difference otherwise what would the big deal be about the IBM G3 with altivec on it?(Gobi?). Any way thank in advance and I know this might be unimportant come next month, but I just want to know :)
     
  2. funkywhat2 macrumors 6502a

    funkywhat2

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2002
    #2
    The G3 can be scaled to 2GHz+, the G4 is dead. The G3 is made by IBM, the G4 by Motorola. The G3 also runs much cooler than the G4.

    There are more, but I can't think straight today. Any help?
     
  3. mattmack thread starter macrumors 6502a

    mattmack

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2002
    Location:
    San Francisco Area
    #3
    WOw I didn't realize it was that easy thanks:D
     
  4. MacBandit macrumors 604

    MacBandit

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2002
    Location:
    Springfield, OR (Home of the Simpsons)
    #4
    Okay here goes. The G3 when it first came out was an evelotionary step from the 603e processor which was an energy efficient process and had a poor FPU on it. So G3=Low energy slow FPU. Also the G3 could not be used in SMP (symettrical processing systems) computers with more then one processor.

    The G4 was more of an evolutionary step of the 604e which was a chip with a very good FPU. The problem with the 604 as it appears it didn't scale to higher speeds very well though Motorola had though they had that worked out when they went to the G4. Some people believe that part of the problem with scaling the G4 was the integer processing unit they had on board (Altivec). Also the G4 is SMP compatible allowing multiproccesor systems. So G4=Higher energy consumption good FPU and SMP friendly and Altivec.

    Also currently G4=Motorola and G3=IBM. IBM tends to be light years ahead of Motorola when it comes to actual production of chips. They have a fabrication process that is second to none. Also IBM does a lot of chips for high end servers and workstations which makes them aware of the need to be competitive and flexible. Motorola on the other hand builds chips fo the embeded market. Phone switches and relays etc.. This makes them blind to the need to be competitive as in there market they have a stronghold and it's unecessary for these GHz speed processors.

    All in all by stepping over to IBM we should have a much better future. IBM has a good timeline set out and they have a good history of being able to deliver on it. Also with there recent advancements with the G3 into higher speeds and the stong possibility of adding an Integer processing unit they should have a good consumer chip for Apple that will be able to keep up with there higher end chip which we are all hoping with be the PPC970.

    There are a lot of other finer points about the chips that I don't know if you want to go into. I just gave you the basics of the two. If you want more just go to IBM and Motorolas websites and you there are tons of stuff on them both. Also if you goggle search them both I'm sure you will get a history as written by an Apple geek somewhere.
     
  5. Steradian macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Location:
    San Jose
    #5
    Well they do have a bunch of really nice information here at MR if you do a quick search...but I guess it boils down to the G3 being less power consuming but not as powerful in many if not all tasks tham a G4. A G4 is to me a great chip with a good arch however Moto's inability to deliever faster Procs is really hurting apple... I am not too sure that this 970 thing is for certain I wouldn't buy into it too much and be VERY dissapointed IF it dosen't happen. Hmm too sum up the G4 is better IMO but the G3 uses less power, I am not too sure that we will see 2ghz G3's maybe 750s though...
     
  6. MacBandit macrumors 604

    MacBandit

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2002
    Location:
    Springfield, OR (Home of the Simpsons)
    #6
    Something I left out is that the G3 in someways has caught up to the G4 in MHz to MHz speed comparrisons. When the G4 was first released I would say it was about 1.5x faster at the same MHz. In order to scale the G4 to faster MHz Motorola added pipeline stages to the chip this cuts down on the number of errors a chip produces in processing by letting different operations catch up by waiting. The G3 on the other hand has kept it's rather short pipeline. So now when you compare the two chips a G3 and a G4 are pretty competitive at the same MHz except when comparring Altivec processes.
     
  7. funkywhat2 macrumors 6502a

    funkywhat2

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2002
    #7
  8. MacBandit macrumors 604

    MacBandit

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2002
    Location:
    Springfield, OR (Home of the Simpsons)
    #8
  9. mattmack thread starter macrumors 6502a

    mattmack

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2002
    Location:
    San Francisco Area
    #9
    This is what I was really curious about. It makes sense that whn I bought a G450 (dual) it seemed so much faster than a G3 450 or 300. Thanks so much for all the input. Looking forward to investing in a new mac probably by Dec
     
  10. Mr. MacPhisto macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2003
    #10
    The next gen is going to be at .10 and pushed above 2 GHZ with SiMB (Altivec) enhancement. This will allow Apple to have a ship that competes w/ the Intel processors, especially on the low-end.

    I'm not sure if the pipeline is extended on the next gen, but IBM's ability to make chips is far more advanced than anyone elses tech. AMD does a good job, but their chips run hot and their chipsets are still not the greatest. Intel has had big yield and developmental problems. They were already supposed to be at .09 and were supposed to deliver Itanium two years before its actual introduction - and failed to deliver on promises when released. IBM, in contrast, tends to run ahead of schedule and looks to be the first chipmaker that'll get to .065 - possibly as early as mid to late 2005. End rant.
     
  11. macphoria macrumors 6502a

    macphoria

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2002
    #11
    IBM's G3 with SIMD will blow the pants off G4 from Motorola. Can't wait to see something like that in near future, probably in iBook.
     
  12. MacBandit macrumors 604

    MacBandit

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2002
    Location:
    Springfield, OR (Home of the Simpsons)
    #12
    They might even be at .065 next year. The reports I have heard is that they have there production down to .09 already a year ahead of schedule.
     
  13. MacBandit macrumors 604

    MacBandit

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2002
    Location:
    Springfield, OR (Home of the Simpsons)
    #13
    Only because it will be at higher MHz. The G3 still has a poor FPU even with Altivec.
     
  14. MacBandit macrumors 604

    MacBandit

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2002
    Location:
    Springfield, OR (Home of the Simpsons)
    #14
    And even faster in OSX thanks to the duals. Something I have already said but I would like to point out is that unless IBM makes a massive modification to the G3 architecture you will never see it in dual configurations.
     
  15. ddtlm macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2001
    #15
    funkywhat2:

    No, the G3 as we know it cannot go anywhere near 2ghz on its stubby pipelines.

    MacBandit:

    Perhaps you meant "vector processing unit". Integer processing units are pretty much the most basic processing unit that there is.

    Second it Intel. Before challenging me to back that up with some sort of fact, you should be able to list non-rumor sources of your own.

    Rumored recent advancements. Rumored advancements which will do nothing but make an IBM G4... if IBM makes a chip like a 7457 is it automatically good? This seems like Motophopia.

    macphoria:

    This is speculation on your part. However, by comparing Moto's original "stubby" G4 that peaked out at 533mhz to the newer G4's, we see that clockspeed won the day by time 800mhz (or so) rolled around. I see no reason why IBM will find anything different. The IBM G3 as it stands cannot scale anywhere near as far as the 745x processors and so even with AltiVec it really cannot be much of a performance threat unless IBM can maintain a constant, significant production technology edge. (And even then, I wonder why IBM would bother to try so hard.)
     
  16. MacBandit macrumors 604

    MacBandit

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2002
    Location:
    Springfield, OR (Home of the Simpsons)
    #16
    Thank you, yes, I did mean vector processing unit.


    This is of course my own oppinion as based on IBM's development of silicon on insulator and other processes developed in the recent years that Intel has chosen to copy.



    There is little doubt of the existence of the 750GX as it is a documented chip with white that is in there timeline. Also we both know that a G3 with Altivec does not equal a G4 as it is still not SMP compatible and still have a lowsy FPU unit.


    As it stands the IBM G3 with it's stubby pipeline has already scaled into the realm of the 7455. The 7455 barely achieved 1 GHz and was in fact only supposed to acheive that but thanks to some miracle on Motorolas side in there production was able to be approved at a slightly higher speed. The G3 without doubt and without rumor has achieved 1 GHz and it's no one but Apple preventing it from hitting the production laptops.

    I don't have the information anymore (I know it's convenient) but IBM announced like 2 years ago that they had gotten the G3 to run stable at 2GHz in the lab. I know that they go to great lengths in those lab tests to eek every last bit of speed out of a chip through cooling and what have you. Though those lab tests usually show what a chip could do in the future with minor revissions and a smaller die.
     
  17. Mr. MacPhisto macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2003
    #17
    IBM has got them running at 2 GHZ and ready to go into production using a .10 micron process. They are not currently producing them because Apple doesn't want them yet, but the 750 series will see a ramping up of speed as soon as Apple cuts ties with Moto.

    When it comes to processors over the past two years, IBM has ALWAYS been ahead of their own timetable. Their manufacturing and R&D is second-to-none. And IBM's name just speaks reliability. IF Apple lets everyone know they are working with IBM now (and IBM begins using OS X on some servers and workstations - which is in the works), the Apple has greater legitimacy than it has ever had. I can almost guarantee that Intel is not thrilled with IBM getting into the desktop chip market because they know IBM can run circles around them. With Intel's manufcaturing and development problems, it wouldn't surprise me if PCs are forced to migrate over to PowerPC chips 5-6 years from now. If you compare roadmaps, you'll see IBM will be so far ahead of Intel it won't even be funny.
     
  18. Cubeboy macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2003
    Location:
    Bridgewater NJ
    #18
    IBM is indeed a very formidable threat to Intel, especially their manufacturing which introduced the market to silicon on insulator (SOI), Of course, fourth quarter this year, Intel will be the first to have .09 nm micron process cpus and strained silicon technology with the launch Pentium 5. I can definitely assure you that Intel is not thrilled to have IBM working with Apple, especially now that IBM and AMD are working together and sharing resources and technogies to create even faster cpus. With motorola out of the powermac picture, things are looking up.
     
  19. MacBandit macrumors 604

    MacBandit

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2002
    Location:
    Springfield, OR (Home of the Simpsons)
    #19
    It looks to me that Intel has been beat out as the latest news out of IBM is that they have succeeded in their 9nm production.
     
  20. Cubeboy macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2003
    Location:
    Bridgewater NJ
    #20
    And when exactly are we going to see .09 micron process PPC970s and G3's?
     
  21. ddtlm macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2001
    #21
    Cubeboy:

    Poor Intel, they keep having to work for their money. :)

    Mr. MacPhisto:

    I definately still think this is all very far-fetched, but tell you what, I'll give up argueing about that and we'll just wait and see.

    MacBandit:

    I'll agree the 750fx has done well, but it remains to be seen how a G3 will be able to overtake Moto, since Moto is a moving target. At best I only think the 750gx will be on par with the 7457, so I'm not sure how this makes the 750gx an exciting new chip. For one thing, if IBM adds vector units then they will be paying the heat and size penalty and be reducing their advantage over the 7457 in that area.
     
  22. Mr. MacPhisto macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2003
    #22
    I'll believe Intel is at .09 when I see it. As I've said, they've had a great number of manufacturing and development problems as of late and have not been getting products out on time. The continuous scaling of the P4 indicates to me that the P5 will be delayed and Intel may be the last of the IBM/AMD/Intel triumvirate to actually get to .09. IBM should be delivering chips @ .09 by the end of the year in bulk. Methinks we'll see Apple clockspeeds and performance scaling rapidly soon enough.

    And as to the 2GHZ 750, I understand skepticism. But those familiar with chips will have no doubt about IBM's supremacy if they deliver an energy efficient Altivec chip with a stubby pipeline. A 750 series chip at 2 GHZ with Altivec should be able to fly by any other currently released consumer chip by Moto, Intel, or AMD if it is using a high speed bus with equivalent DDR RAM.
     
  23. MacBandit macrumors 604

    MacBandit

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2002
    Location:
    Springfield, OR (Home of the Simpsons)
    #23
    I think this process was for another chip I'm not sure. I am sure that it was an announcement by IBM though now.
     
  24. Cubeboy macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2003
    Location:
    Bridgewater NJ
    #24
    Read this article done by Silicon International a very respected professional publication on computer tecnology, it is quite widely accepted that Intel's Fab11X is the most advanced fabrication plant in the world and well known that it is the first plant to transition to 300mm wafers as well as being already capable of manufacturing 90nm processors.

    Intel has already released detailed technical drawings of the Prescott and this was a while ago. What it proves is that the prescott core was already largely finished at the time of the drawings. It doesn't take much to come to the conclusion that by now, Intel has pretty much finished with the Prescott design. The Prescott motherboard has already been out for a while as has the dual channel DDR400 memory.

    AMD processors are made at the TSMC fab which isn't going to even begin to update it's plants for .09 micron process until next year. Intel on the other hand can already manufacture .09 micron process cpus with their Fab11X plant. I really wonder how you come up with this stuff when so much of it is false.

    As far as I know, IBM is has yet to release any 130 nm PPC970 and G3 processors publicly, I've yet to see a single 130 nm PPC970 in a blade server or powermac, until a considerable amount of time passes after the 130 nm PPC970s launch so they can actually have a chance to be sold, we won't have any 90 nm PPC970s.
     
  25. Cubeboy macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2003
    Location:
    Bridgewater NJ
    #25
    Yes, I've read about those, their Xilinx Field Programmable Gate Arrays, likely engineering samples. These are relatively simple chips, not nearly as complicated as a Pentium 4 or Athlon. I doubt IBM has the capacity right now to produce something as complicated as a PPC970 in .09 micron process.
     

Share This Page