The 1MB of L2 cache sounds nice. However, a max of 1.1GHz for products that may not ship until sometime in early 2004 seems too little and too late. I would hope that by that time we'll be close to having the G5 in the PowerBooks and that might open the possibility of having G4s in the 1 to 1.2GHz range for the iBooks. So by March 2004 we'd have G4s in the iBook and G5s in the PowerBook. In the meantime it would be nice to have an a G3-based iBook at 1GHz but from the sounds of this press release that doesn't seem likely (too late with production not starting until Dec. 2003).
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
IBM's PowerPC 750GX
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Upgrades for B/W G3s?
When Mojave (or whichever one has the AltiVec unit) comes out, does that mean there will there be simple, cheap Mojave upgrade chips for my old B/W G3? I would really love to get a Velocity Engine in the thing, and a Mojave upgrade sounds like it might not require a whole new card because it's just another G3.
And also, are any of the spiffy newer video cards available to me, or are they all AGP only? For what is available, would that plug into the "special" PCI graphics slot in my G3, or one of the normal PCI slots?
When Mojave (or whichever one has the AltiVec unit) comes out, does that mean there will there be simple, cheap Mojave upgrade chips for my old B/W G3? I would really love to get a Velocity Engine in the thing, and a Mojave upgrade sounds like it might not require a whole new card because it's just another G3.
And also, are any of the spiffy newer video cards available to me, or are they all AGP only? For what is available, would that plug into the "special" PCI graphics slot in my G3, or one of the normal PCI slots?
Re: Upgrades for B/W G3s?
Almost all of the modern graphics cards, from the stock Radeons and Geforces all the way up to the current 9600 and 5200 offerings need an AGP bus. AGP 8X is overkill as there isn't anything currently on the market which will completely saturate the graphics bus. However, it does bode well for the future of graphics hardware.
There's not much out there in terms of PCI graphics. I'm assuming you still have the stock Rage 128 with 16MB of VRAM. Your best bet would be to either track down an original OEM/stock PCI version of the original Radeon (note: no number designation, i.e. 8500, 9700) or the PCI version of the Radeon 7000. From what I've seen, the Radeon 7000 is actually weaker than the original PCI version of the original Radeon. I believe those are the only two 'modern' graphics cards which still support your PCI bus.
Almost all of the modern graphics cards, from the stock Radeons and Geforces all the way up to the current 9600 and 5200 offerings need an AGP bus. AGP 8X is overkill as there isn't anything currently on the market which will completely saturate the graphics bus. However, it does bode well for the future of graphics hardware.
There's not much out there in terms of PCI graphics. I'm assuming you still have the stock Rage 128 with 16MB of VRAM. Your best bet would be to either track down an original OEM/stock PCI version of the original Radeon (note: no number designation, i.e. 8500, 9700) or the PCI version of the Radeon 7000. From what I've seen, the Radeon 7000 is actually weaker than the original PCI version of the original Radeon. I believe those are the only two 'modern' graphics cards which still support your PCI bus.
A 23% greater frequency, plus the L2 cache improvements should add yet another double digit speed increase. That's pretty impressive considering the amount of watts that it will use. The amount of frequency that it will run at is not indicative of its performance in much the same way as Intel's Pentium-M processor. It might also appear that IBM is following Intel's lead with the Pentium-M sporting 1MB of L2 cache.
It's very likely that IBM made these improvements mainly for the benefit of Apple. This will give Apple a processor that can outperform the G4 on some applications when both chips are running at 1GHz.
Plus, this new 750GX processor will undoubtedly cost Apple less since it is substantially smaller than the G4.
rogueimage
I would not worry about waiting to put a Mojave processor in your B/W, it looks like there should be a G4 processor from Sonnet in a couple of weeks. They have already managed to put a G4 1GHz in a Beige Powermac. Hopefully they will be able to get it all the way up to 1.4 by the time it gets released!!!
I would not worry about waiting to put a Mojave processor in your B/W, it looks like there should be a G4 processor from Sonnet in a couple of weeks. They have already managed to put a G4 1GHz in a Beige Powermac. Hopefully they will be able to get it all the way up to 1.4 by the time it gets released!!!
I think people have some misconceptiosn about the G3 vs the G4. I don't claim to know the details of all the specifics...
but the G3 chip from IBM has been a strong performer. From my understanding these g3's likely perform quite well as compared to similarly mhz'd g4 counterparts.... of course on non-Altivec dependant applications -- which are still the most of your day to day applications.
arn
but the G3 chip from IBM has been a strong performer. From my understanding these g3's likely perform quite well as compared to similarly mhz'd g4 counterparts.... of course on non-Altivec dependant applications -- which are still the most of your day to day applications.
arn
Transmetta processor & G3 performance
Would a Transmetta processor be a better alternative than a G3 for the iBook?
The G3 lacks hype but it has been a solid performer so far. My 266MHz iMac still gets things done and feels snappy with OS 9.2 installed.
Would a Transmetta processor be a better alternative than a G3 for the iBook?
The G3 lacks hype but it has been a solid performer so far. My 266MHz iMac still gets things done and feels snappy with OS 9.2 installed.
It's good to see that IBM is releasing another version of the G3, although the fact that they are using the same 0.13 um technology it is rather dissapointing, I must say.
The increased Mhz would help, but I expect that the new 1MB L2 does contribute much more to performance, and if the processor bus is 200 Mhz, it is time for Apple to design a new chipset to feed the G3 properly!!
So I expect November-December ibooks with that chip
1.1 Ghz G3 with 1 MB L2 cache
200 Mhz front side bus
166 Mhz DDR RAM
8X AGP
...
In addition we will have October-November Powerbooks with the 7457 G4s (generating less heat, GOOD for the 12" model) and well, i am still hoping for a low-power (1.2v) 1.2 Ghz G5 15" powerbook for the end of the year
So, well, it MIGHT be the year of the laptop after all
The increased Mhz would help, but I expect that the new 1MB L2 does contribute much more to performance, and if the processor bus is 200 Mhz, it is time for Apple to design a new chipset to feed the G3 properly!!
So I expect November-December ibooks with that chip
1.1 Ghz G3 with 1 MB L2 cache
200 Mhz front side bus
166 Mhz DDR RAM
8X AGP
...
In addition we will have October-November Powerbooks with the 7457 G4s (generating less heat, GOOD for the 12" model) and well, i am still hoping for a low-power (1.2v) 1.2 Ghz G5 15" powerbook for the end of the year
So, well, it MIGHT be the year of the laptop after all
heat issue
There is no need for the g3 to dragged to its death. the g3 @1Ghz is stated as being less than 8, the new g4 runs @ higher speeds but @ 7.5.
in the end the g4s got alvitec and faster clock speeds available. the only advantage of the g3 is cost, but how much does this new g3 cost.....?
There is no need for the g3 to dragged to its death. the g3 @1Ghz is stated as being less than 8, the new g4 runs @ higher speeds but @ 7.5.
in the end the g4s got alvitec and faster clock speeds available. the only advantage of the g3 is cost, but how much does this new g3 cost.....?
i find the too little too late.. kinda silly
in a way i agree.. only 1.1 when other chips are in the multi ghz range..
i dont totally understand when some people say if your a pro you need a g5..
1 year ago a pro needed a g4 tower.. now a g5? i mean yeah that would be great!. but a professional can do the same work on a B/W 350MHZ G3 tower as he can on a dual 2ghz g5, it might take substantially longer but the software is the same.
its just silly that people think that since the latest and greatest just came out that the , old latest and greatest isnt capable of doing the same thing or isnt even good enough anymore for more mundane things
my 2 cents
in a way i agree.. only 1.1 when other chips are in the multi ghz range..
i dont totally understand when some people say if your a pro you need a g5..
1 year ago a pro needed a g4 tower.. now a g5? i mean yeah that would be great!. but a professional can do the same work on a B/W 350MHZ G3 tower as he can on a dual 2ghz g5, it might take substantially longer but the software is the same.
its just silly that people think that since the latest and greatest just came out that the , old latest and greatest isnt capable of doing the same thing or isnt even good enough anymore for more mundane things
my 2 cents
Re: Re: Upgrades for B/W G3s?
As far as I know there are Radeon 7500 PCI 32Mb. I don't know if they will work in your Mac. As there is a small market of PCI graphics (in Alpha workstations, for example) maybe ATI releases a newer video card for PCI. In the USA you can buy the 7500 directly from ATI, in Europe there is at least one company making them: http://www.club-3d.nl/
As far as I know there are Radeon 7500 PCI 32Mb. I don't know if they will work in your Mac. As there is a small market of PCI graphics (in Alpha workstations, for example) maybe ATI releases a newer video card for PCI. In the USA you can buy the 7500 directly from ATI, in Europe there is at least one company making them: http://www.club-3d.nl/
The reason a pro needs a dual G5 is because time = $$. Think about it.
I design for multi million gate Xilinx FPGAs. (No, damn software does NOT run on a mac!) Compile times take upwards of 30 minutes just to try out a small change. That limits me to 16 design changes in a day max. Realistically it is far fewer than that. If a machine could cut compile times by 50%, the increased productivity directly equals $ on fixed cost contracts.
On hourly contracts, the slower machine makes more sense, cause you can bill more. BUT, it makes you less compettive.
If you are a home user, you do not need the fastest machine ever.
Not right (I think...). The die size is larger (51.9mm^2 versus the current 36.6mm^2). This may lead to a different socket size. Which is probably a good thing, allowing for a bigger fan and heatsink to deal with the extra heat compared to the current 750FX.
But...
Which is the same as the 750FX.
"Up to 200MHz bus" scares me. My guess would be that it will be used in the 133MHz state again (750FX can do the 200MHz bus as well)...
I hope the iBook will be up to a higher frequency than 1.1 GHz before December. This doesn't make such a good year of the notebook.
G4 VS G3
You might see PowerBooks with G4s running up to 1.5-1.6 GHz next month. Motorola has been supplying some 7455 G4s to Apple that use a low-k dielectric process. This bumps the speed up to 20% faster and at lower power than those made without it. The 1.3 GHz 7457 has a lower power use than the 1 GHz 7455, so it could very well be that Apple will use a faster chip than the 1.3 GHz in a PowerBook starting next month.
That would leave room for 1 GHz+ G4s to be move over to the iBook and the upcoming 750GX could be used for a new Apple product announcement in January.
You might see PowerBooks with G4s running up to 1.5-1.6 GHz next month. Motorola has been supplying some 7455 G4s to Apple that use a low-k dielectric process. This bumps the speed up to 20% faster and at lower power than those made without it. The 1.3 GHz 7457 has a lower power use than the 1 GHz 7455, so it could very well be that Apple will use a faster chip than the 1.3 GHz in a PowerBook starting next month.
That would leave room for 1 GHz+ G4s to be move over to the iBook and the upcoming 750GX could be used for a new Apple product announcement in January.
This might be a terrific upgrade for PowerLogix to invest in for the Pismo PBs. Listen up guys: I'd buy it!
No way am I going buy a G4 laptop now and Moto has driven up the wall, I can't stand them anymore. I'll wait for the G5 PowerBooks, thank you very much!
Besides, the G5 desktop is all I need for heavy duty graphic composition and I can take the 1.1 Ghz Pismo (hopefully) on the road with me with some power to spare. Jump on it PL!
No way am I going buy a G4 laptop now and Moto has driven up the wall, I can't stand them anymore. I'll wait for the G5 PowerBooks, thank you very much!
Besides, the G5 desktop is all I need for heavy duty graphic composition and I can take the 1.1 Ghz Pismo (hopefully) on the road with me with some power to spare. Jump on it PL!
It's no problem, I'll just upgrade the 'ole Pismo to 1.1 Ghz for mobility and the Dual 2 Gig G5 will be more than enough to sustain me in the power dept.
Hmmm. I remember reading somewhere, many months back, that IBM already had G3 processors running at up to 2 GHz. The assertion at the time was that Apple wasn't using them in the iBooks only because it would make the Motorola G4s look bad and cannibalize sales of the PowerBooks.
So, what ever happened to this? Anyone remember it? Was this just talking about lab samples and not production runs? Or completely false? I wish I could remember where I saw that.
Anyway, this isn't so bad as far as upgrades go. I honestly don't feel like my 600 MHz iBook is sluggish at all, and I'm sure a 1.1 GHz would feel downright zippy. It leaves a clear distinction between the iBook and possibly upgraded PowerBooks with ~1.3 GHz G4s, since many consumers won't care about the difference between a G3 and G4, but they can see that the more expensive one (PowerBook) has the higher GHz. Otherwise they'd be confused, and that's bad for sales. Or at least that's what the marketing people seem to think, since they like the product lines to have fairly clear distinctions in terms of performance/features and price.
So, what ever happened to this? Anyone remember it? Was this just talking about lab samples and not production runs? Or completely false? I wish I could remember where I saw that.
Anyway, this isn't so bad as far as upgrades go. I honestly don't feel like my 600 MHz iBook is sluggish at all, and I'm sure a 1.1 GHz would feel downright zippy. It leaves a clear distinction between the iBook and possibly upgraded PowerBooks with ~1.3 GHz G4s, since many consumers won't care about the difference between a G3 and G4, but they can see that the more expensive one (PowerBook) has the higher GHz. Otherwise they'd be confused, and that's bad for sales. Or at least that's what the marketing people seem to think, since they like the product lines to have fairly clear distinctions in terms of performance/features and price.
Productivity = $$$
The point is the faster a task can be completed, the more tasks one can take on which converts to more cash hence productivity. It is critical in many industries to have the fastest available, not to mention to be the first on your block with a dual 2 ghz G5.
The point is the faster a task can be completed, the more tasks one can take on which converts to more cash hence productivity. It is critical in many industries to have the fastest available, not to mention to be the first on your block with a dual 2 ghz G5.
Re: Productivity = $$$
. I feel like I am in Peeceeville .
lol.... That wouldn't be too hard for me if i were getting a dual 2 ghz g5. Nobody on my street has a mac other than me
. I feel like I am in Peeceeville .Looking at a time-table it seems that some of you are stating a November/December or even January iBook update. Since the iBook is geared heavily towards students, I would think that Apple would want to update their iBooks at the end of the summer for the back-to-school-rush. How do you think this factors into the iBook release equation, if at all? Anybody?
Re: Re: Mojave
Um.... Why are the G3 architectures named after deserts???
Just curious. I mean... Why not rodent species or something....
Ground Shrew: Current iBook processor
Tree Rat: Faster Processor
Long-Haired Hampster: Altivec enabled
Um.... Why are the G3 architectures named after deserts???
Just curious. I mean... Why not rodent species or something....
Ground Shrew: Current iBook processor
Tree Rat: Faster Processor
Long-Haired Hampster: Altivec enabled
And why would that be? Currently the top of the line iBook has a higher MHz rating than the low end TiPB (900MHz vs 867MHz).
None of this is good. We'll have 1.1GHz iBooks by December 2003? Maybe later than that!! I hope IBM can get some of these babies into the iBook come November instead of Dec/January. Maybe Apple can get an earlier batch and release an iBook in November?
-- Canada Day: July 1, 1867