[mrweirdo]

Hello, I realize this is a mac forum and I am likely to get pro mac responses but anyways OS and other components aside what is the best overall perfoming cpu between Apples G3 @800mhz or Intel Pentium 3 @ 800mhz. I am looking at geting a labtop(never owned anything apple before but have used at school) and it seems for about the same price the two are very close.

Also what do you think about the 12" ibook objectively. Thanks

[sniffer]

12"s is a great backpack companion. I have noe idea how P3 and G3 are compared directly cpu wise. It can be hard to measure.

[mbryda]

Originally posted by mrweirdo:
Hello, I realize this is a mac forum and I am likely to get pro mac responses but anyways OS and other components aside what is the best overall perfoming cpu between Apples G3 @800mhz or Intel Pentium 3 @ 800mhz. I am looking at geting a labtop(never owned anything apple before but have used at school) and it seems for about the same price the two are very close.

Also what do you think about the 12" ibook objectively. Thanks

The G3 is about 1.5x as fast as a P3, so an 800Mhz G3 is roughly the same as a 1200Mhz P3.

The wife has the 800Mhz G3 iBook and it's a great little machine - speedy (except for it only having 256MB RAM) and oh so portable.

[khufuu]

Originally posted by mrweirdo:
Hello, I realize this is a mac forum and I am likely to get pro mac responses but anyways OS and other components aside what is the best overall perfoming cpu between Apples G3 @800mhz or Intel Pentium 3 @ 800mhz. I am looking at geting a labtop(never owned anything apple before but have used at school) and it seems for about the same price the two are very close.

Also what do you think about the 12" ibook objectively. Thanks

G3 800 IS better than a P3 800 if you take the OS into account. It's Windows that bogs things down really.

I don't think anyone's actually put the same OS on both chips to do an 'apple to apples' comparison.

[Eug Wanker]

The G3 is about 1.5x as fast as a P3, so an 800Mhz G3 is roughly the same as a 1200Mhz P3.

G3 800 IS better than a P3 800 if you take the OS into account. It's Windows that bogs things down really.

Man, talk about biased info.

You're fooling yourself if you think a G3 800 on average can keep up with a PIII 800 in real-life usage in software where speed actually matters. Sorry, in the majority of situations, a PIII will have a significant speed advantage compared to an identically clocked G3. Not only is PIII speed respectable without SIMD, a PIII has MMX and SSE (for which much speed-sensitive Windows software has been optimized). MMX and SSE are not as good as Altivec, but it's moot, since a G3 doesn't have Altivec SIMD at all.

And no Windows does not necessarily "bog things down". Actually, Windows XP is arguably much faster than Panther X.3 in GUI functions (although that's because X.3 has much more eye candy and a more complex overall design). I prefer OS X for sure, but not because it's screamingly fast.

If speed matters for your software, I'd definitely look hard at that PIII 800 (unless it's crap - we don't know what you're looking at exactly). Now, if you're talking a G4 800 or above iBook, I'd really consider that too, but not a G3 800 iBook. It does depend on your software though. What will you be running, because having said all that, a G3 800 iBook is fine for surfing, word, and PowerPoint, etc.

Also, while I'd normally say a G3 800 iBook is a nice design, and nicer than most PC notebooks out there, I can't in good faith say that now that I know the G3 iBooks have had so many logic board and video issues. The G3 iBooks are the lemons of Apple's recent lines. I'm thinking/hoping that the issues have been corrected with the G4 iBooks.

BTW, I run a Celeron 1.4 desktop (which is equivalent to an older PIII like that PIII 800, running at 1.4 GHz) at home and a G4 1 GHz PowerBook. I don't have any urge to upgrade the desktop, but I'm looking to upgrade the PowerBook when the G5 1.6 comes out, precisely because of speed issues. I'm not necessarily saying that a G4 1 GHz is slow, but the software I run on the PowerBook is more speed sensitive (eg. iDVD), and certain things in OS X really "bog things down" too, like image previews in the Finder and even just window resizing.

[mbryda]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
Man, talk about biased info.

No - I used both. I used both the wife's iBook G3/800 and an IBM A30p with a 1.2Ghz P3 CPU in it running Win XP. Both are about dead even in things such as: Office, 'Net, little PS use, and general use.

You're fooling yourself if you think a G3 800 on average can keep up with a PIII 800 in real-life usage in software where speed actually matters. Sorry, in the majority of situations, a PIII will have a significant speed advantage compared to an identically clocked G3.

No, again, I've used both and they are both about the same from a speed perspective. Considering both use PC100/133 RAM, have low FSB's, and generally are of the same vintage. The G3 in the iBook has a little more cache, IIRC.

Not only is PIII speed respectable without SIMD, a PIII has MMX and SSE (for which much speed-sensitive Windows software has been optimized). MMX and SSE are not as good as Altivec, but it's moot, since a G3 doesn't have Altivec SIMD at all.

Please read up on your chips then come back. I've lived and breathed thic crap on the PC side, so I know you're full of it.

MMX is hardly used and is/was pretty much a flop. From: http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/pentium3/page2.asp

But almost all of us know about MMX, which failed to live up to the hype.

And SSE is mainly used in games and other areas where FP calculations are needed (much like AltiVec)

From: http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/pentium3/page3.asp

In the real world, this means that only the most popular games may be patched to support SSE - most SSE-ready titles will have to be new apps designed and written from the ground up. In the past 6-7 months, Intel has seeded application and game companies with SSE machines, as well has technical help and money, in order to push for simultaneous release of SSE software with the Pentium III processor.

Neither MMX/SSE/AltiVec weighs heavily in day to day use of office and e-mail type of apps (ok, AV does play a role in Quartz rendering), so that point is moot. The G3 is a fine chip, and in some cases is faster than some iterations of the G4.

And no Windows does not necessarily "bog things down". Actually, Windows XP is arguably much faster than Panther X.3 in GUI functions (although that's because X.3 has much more eye candy and a more complex overall design). I prefer OS X for sure, but not because it's screamingly fast.

That's to each his own, but I found with equal RAM (256MB) on both the P3 IBM XP box and the G3 iBook, both OS's were about the same speed wise. Both swap way too much for my tastes. On my iMac G4/800 with 512MB, it's definitely snappier than on the IBM. Probably a little slower than this Pee4 2.0 I was given to replace the P3.

If speed matters for your software, I'd definitely look hard at that PIII 800 (unless it's crap - we don't know what you're looking at exactly).

Poor advice on all accounts. The P3/800 will be slower in just about every application than the G3.

Also, while I'd normally say a G3 800 iBook is a nice design, and nicer than most PC notebooks out there, I can't in good faith say that now that I know the G3 iBooks have had so many logic board and video issues. The G3 iBooks are the lemons of Apple's recent lines.

Recent replacements seem to be holding up well. If nothing else, get the Applecare if you can. And if it's in the serial # range, have Apple replace the motherboard ASAP.

X really "bog things down" too, like image previews in the Finder and even just window resizing.

Funny people say that - on this Peee4 2.0, resizing in Mozilla is choppy too, same in Lotus Notes and also in Visio. About the only thing that resizes smoothly is InfernelNet Explorer...

[Eug Wanker]

And SSE is mainly used in games and other areas where FP calculations are needed (much like AltiVec)

Exactly. Where speed matters, SIMD optimizations are often prioritized in software development. Sure, MMX and SSE aren't so great, but the G3 doesn't have SIMD support at all. And don't forget that many of OS X's speed optimizations are G4 (and now G5) centered.

No - I used both. I used both the wife's iBook G3/800 and an IBM A30p with a 1.2Ghz P3 CPU in it running Win XP. Both are about dead even in things such as: Office, 'Net, little PS use, and general use.

I've owned both a PIII 600 laptop and an iBook 600, both with the same GPU. For OS and light usage, the PIII 600 felt somewhat faster than the iBook 600, unless there was a lot of swapping going on (because the PIII 600 had a much slower hard drive). However, for SIMD-optimized software (video-encoding and games) it was no contest. The PIII 600 wiped the floor with the G3 600.

I've also used recent PIII 800 and iBook G3 800 laptops. (I set up the latter for a friend of mine.) Neither are particularly fast, but I could see it if one would say that the performance of the iBook G3 800 is acceptable for every day usage. However, it's bizarre to claim a G3 800 runs equivalent to a PIII 1.2, unless the PIII 1.2 was running on battery at reduced speed or it had a slow fragmented hard drive or something.

In terms of raw CPU speed, a G3 800 is significantly slower than a PIII 1.2. OTOH, things get muddier with laptops, because of the overall design, including things like memory, GPU, and hard drive, etc.

[Captain Obvious]

Originally posted by mrweirdo:

Also what do you think about the 12" ibook objectively. Thanks

Almost no objectivity around here. Go ask these people: http://episteme.arstechnica.com/6/ubb.x

[mbryda]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
And don't forget that many of OS X's speed optimizations are G4 (and now G5) centered.

If that were the case then my wife's iBook and my iMac, both at 800 Mhz, with the iMac having a G4 and the 'book a G3 would have the iMac blowing the doors off the 'book. Doesn't happen. If anything, the 'book seems faster.

However, for SIMD-optimized software video-encoding and games) it was no contest. The PIII 600 wiped the floor with the G3 600.

The 'Book does well with iMovie - it's no speed deamon, but is definitely useable, but can't do iDVD, which is no biggie - just xfer to the iMac.

However, it's bizarre to claim a G3 800 runs equivalent to a PIII 1.2.

No it isn't - it depends on what you are doing with it. If you game heavily, yes you will notice a difference (but you would be looking at an AthlonM or Pee4). But, I never game (doesn't interest me).

I do photo work and general office type usage and the 2 are the same speed. I had them both running side by side, and the G3/800 was as fast as the P3/1.2 laptop. Neither have very good RAM bandwidth (PC100/133) and the G3 is a little more efficient in work per CPU cycle than the P3 (and way ahead of the P4). Even this P4/2.0 doesn't impress me with blinding speed. The P3 will be better in games, but the 2 are in the same league. Don't let the clockspeed fool you.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by mbryda:
If that were the case then my wife's iBook and my iMac, both at 800 Mhz, with the iMac having a G4 and the 'book a G3 would have the iMac blowing the doors off the 'book. Doesn't happen. If anything, the 'book seems faster.

Well, that's interesting, because when I've used G4 800 iMacs, they've felt significantly faster overall than any G3 800 iBook I've ever used, including the one I set up for my friend. However, much of the speedup is related to the different hard drives.

The 'Book does well with iMovie - it's no speed deamon, but is definitely useable, but can't do iDVD, which is no biggie - just xfer to the iMac.

iMovie on a G3 800 iBook almost makes me want to rip my hair out. Mind you it's not fast on a G4 1 GHz either. OTOH, it's still an advantage compared to the PIII because the software on Windows sucks (even though it may be faster).

Don't let the clockspeed fool you.

Don't let the Jobsian MHz myth propaganda fool you. For some un-SIMD-ified software, a G3 may be faster than a PIII clock for clock in raw speed, but on average a PIII 1.2 is much faster than a G3 800. It is quite difficult for a G3 800 to overcome the 50% clock speed advantage of PIII 1.2 (esp. when you're talking software which has SIMD optimizations).

Anyways, I've said this before in this forum, but IMO the iBook G3 800 with 384 MB is the practical minimum for acceptable OS X performance (for my threshold level). However, for more complex computing, a G4 1 GHz or above is recommended. I suspect the bottom end iBook will be upgraded to a 1 GHz G4 (7447A?) at the next refresh, fortunately.

[typoon]

Well to me it's relative. If you are comparing 800MHz to 800 MHz.

I look at it this way. What can I do on OS X compared to a PC. firstly the multitasking in OS X is IMO far superior that that of XP. Being able to do mulitple things at once for me is more efficient and speedy than the speed of a processor running at essentially the same speed.

Try doing a windows update while trying to access other stuff on your system. Try burning a CD on an XP box while listening to tunes and browsing with email running. Can't be done too well on XP at all.

With OS X you CAN do a SW update while doing all those things at the same time. To me that is what Makes it faster than a PC running at about the same speed. Even those running at higher speeds.

To me being able to work more effectively on the Mac is faster than working on a PC twice the speed not being able to do everything I need/want to do.

[mbryda]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
Well, that's interesting, because when I've used G4 800 iMacs, they've felt significantly faster overall than any G3 800 iBook I've ever used, including the one I set up for my friend. However, much of the speedup is related to the different hard drives.

Then I must have a lemon, as the hard drive in my iMac is dog slow. Dog slow - the weakest link in an awesome machine.

Don't let the Jobsian MHz myth propaganda fool you.

Nothing to do with it - I've known Mhz doesn't matter back to the K5 days when it was faster at most things than a similarly clocked Pentium. Even Intel is starting to learn this with it's p-rating system for the new CPU's.

It is quite difficult for a G3 800 to overcome the 50% clock speed advantage of PIII 1.2 (esp. when you're talking software which has SIMD optimizations).

AMD has been doing it for years with the Athlon line. And been beating the P4 most of the time.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by typoon:
Try burning a CD on an XP box while listening to tunes and browsing with email running. Can't be done too well on XP at all.

I used to do that all the time when I had my Celeron 800 desktop (which is slower than a PIII 800) - burning a CD, browsing the web, and playing MP3s, all simultaneously. No problem in either Windows 2000 or Windows XP.

[typoon]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
I used to do that all the time when I had my Celeron 800 desktop (which is slower than a PIII 800) - burning a CD, browsing the web, and playing MP3s, all simultaneously. No problem in either Windows 2000 or Windows XP.

I've also tried it on my P4 1.7 as well. the Machien always seems to choke when I try and do stuff like that while burning.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by typoon:
I've also tried it on my P4 1.7 as well. the Machien always seems to choke when I try and do stuff like that while burning.

Hmmm... Strange... I wonder if DMA was turned on for the drives. Leaving DMA off may cause XP to choke - CPU utilization is dramatically higher with DMA off.

With OS X, I think DMA is just always set to be on.

That of course, can be argued to be an OS X advantage - easier out-of-the-box usage.

[typoon]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
Hmmm... Strange... I wonder if DMA was turned on for the drives. Leaving DMA off may cause XP to choke - CPU utilization is dramatically higher with DMA off.

With OS X, I think DMA is just always set to be on.

That of course, can be argued to be an OS X advantage - easier out-of-the-box usage.

hmmm DMA? Not sure what that is or how to turn it on or see if it is on.

[mrweirdo]

some good info so far

I noticed I should probably add what I intend on doing with this notebook. Anyways if it were A PC I would like to run Linux on it probably either Fedora or Gentoo. I've been mainly looking at notebooks like dell etc that I have seen some success with Linux on. Then of coarse a Mac would be running OS X. I will be using this notebook mostly for college doing things like office docs, browsing the web via wireless, and playing DVDs. Other then that i cant realy think of much else i will be doing with it.

[mbryda]

You'll be fine with that usage with whatever. Just don't get a Dell - pure POS. I'd get a used Thinkpad.

[typoon]

Originally posted by mrweirdo:
some good info so far

I noticed I should probably add what I intend on doing with this notebook. Anyways if it were A PC I would like to run Linux on it probably either Fedora or Gentoo. I've been mainly looking at notebooks like dell etc that I have seen some success with Linux on. Then of coarse a Mac would be running OS X. I will be using this notebook mostly for college doing things like office docs, browsing the web via wireless, and playing DVDs. Other then that i cant realy think of much else i will be doing with it.

If you want a Unix based OS that will run all your major apps as well as being able to do unix stuff then the choice is simple. OS X all the way.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by mrweirdo:
some good info so far

I noticed I should probably add what I intend on doing with this notebook. Anyways if it were A PC I would like to run Linux on it probably either Fedora or Gentoo. I've been mainly looking at notebooks like dell etc that I have seen some success with Linux on. Then of coarse a Mac would be running OS X. I will be using this notebook mostly for college doing things like office docs, browsing the web via wireless, and playing DVDs. Other then that i cant realy think of much else i will be doing with it.

An iBook G3 800 will work for that, and if you really want to you could even dual boot Yellow Dog Linux and OS X. But OS X is all you'd need.

Remember though, some more advanced Apple software will not run on the G3 at all. For example, iDVD requires a G4. You may not need to run iDVD, but perhaps in the future you may want to, and there is now a workaround for iDVD to burn to external DVD-R burners.

[typoon]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
An iBook 800 will work for that, and if you really want to you could even dual boot Yellow Dog Linux and OS X. But OS X is all you'd need.

Remember though, some more advanced Apple software will not run on the G3 at all. For example, iDVD requires a G4. You may not need to run iDVD, but perhaps in the future you may want to, and there is now a workaround for iDVD to burn to external DVD-R burners.

Why not get an 800 MHz G4 laptop instead od the older G3? ONce you get into school you can use the EDU discount and get one.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by typoon:
Why not get an 8000 MHz G4 laptop instead od the older G3? ONce you get into school you can use the EDU discount and get one.

I suspect you mean 800 MHz G4.

I edited my message as you were posting yours. Yes, I'm recommending a G4 800 over a G3 800, but I suspect there is a cost concern here, since the original poster spec'd a G3 800. Overstock G3 800s can be a bargain these days if you can find one. But they're a bargain for a reason. They don't leave much room for growth.

BTW, by the time the fall semester comes around, the G4 1 GHz 12" iBook will likely be out.

[typoon]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
I suspect you mean 800 MHz G4.

I edited my message as you were posting yours. Yes, I'm recommending a G4 800 over a G3 800, but I suspect there is a cost concern here, since the original poster spec'd a G3 800. Overstock G3 800s can be a bargain these days if you can find one. But they're a bargain for a reason. They don't leave much room for growth.

BTW, by the time the fall semester comes around, the G4 1 GHz 12" iBook will likely be out.

Yeah I meant 800 MHz. btw Eug What is the DMA and how do I check to see if it is on or off and how do I turn it on or off?

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by typoon:
What is the DMA and how do I check to see if it is on or off and how do I turn it on or off?

"DMA" stands for "Direct Memory Access".

I can't remember what it is off hand in XP, but in Windows 2000 (XP is similar):

Right click on My Computer
Select the Hardware tab
Click on Device Manager
Open up IDE ATA/ATAPI controllers
Right click on Primary IDE Channel or Secondary IDE channel, depending on which controller the CD-RW drive is installed on.
Select the Advanced Settings tab and look at the information for your devices' "Transfer Mode".

It should say "DMA if available". If it says "PIO Only" then that's your problem. Change it to DMA.

Note: Some very old burners have a problem using DMA on some systems, but recent burners shouldn't be a problem (but often are installed in PIO mode anyways for some reason).

And yes, fiddling with things like this in Windows is a pain in the @ss.

[pat++]

Originally posted by mrweirdo:
some good info so far

I noticed I should probably add what I intend on doing with this notebook. Anyways if it were A PC I would like to run Linux on it probably either Fedora or Gentoo. I've been mainly looking at notebooks like dell etc that I have seen some success with Linux on. Then of coarse a Mac would be running OS X. I will be using this notebook mostly for college doing things like office docs, browsing the web via wireless, and playing DVDs. Other then that i cant realy think of much else i will be doing with it.

Any computer available on the market today will handle these tasks. But I would say that OS X has a big advantage : it's unix but you can still use MS Word, play DVD etc.... whereas with a PC, you would need to have a dual boot with windows + linux.
I think the Mac is the way to go. Get an iBook G4 if you can afford it, it's worth it.

[ccsccs7]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
"DMA" stands for "Direct Memory Access".… If it says "PIO Only" then that's your problem. Change it to DMA.…

I think I've figured out the first word (processor, inter–(?), operation(?)) but what does the rest mean in PIO?

[typoon]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
"DMA" stands for "Direct Memory Access".

I can't remember what it is off hand in XP, but in Windows 2000 (XP is similar):

Right click on My Computer
Select the Hardware tab
Click on Device Manager
Open up IDE ATA/ATAPI controllers
Right click on Primary IDE Channel or Secondary IDE channel, depending on which controller the CD-RW drive is installed on.
Select the Advanced Settings tab and look at the information for your devices' "Transfer Mode".

It should say "DMA if available". If it says "PIO Only" then that's your problem. Change it to DMA.

Note: Some very old burners have a problem using DMA on some systems, but recent burners shouldn't be a problem (but often are installed in PIO mode anyways for some reason).

And yes, fiddling with things like this in Windows is a pain in the @ss.

Thanks, And like you said it's a real PITA (Pain In The @ss)

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by ccsccs7:
I think I've figured out the first word (processor, inter–(?), operation(?)) but what does the rest mean in PIO?

Programmed input/output.

Originally posted by typoon:
Thanks, And like you said it's a real PITA (Pain In The @ss)

Did it help?