Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Thomas32 · Jun 18, 2002, 12:24 AM

I'm planning to buy a new IBook, and trying to decide between a current 700mhz that is currently $1499, or an older 600mhz which I can get for $1199. I will do mostly the basic stuff not a gamer. Also, might due some VPC. They both include a dvd-rom, which I would like to have. The main differences between the two systems are the the Level 2 cache 512 vs.256, video card 8mb vs. 16mb, and of course the increase in of a 100 mhz. Do you think these factors justify spending the extra money, will I truly notice a difference in performance. Any insight will be great. Thanks.

fulmer · Jun 18, 2002, 01:16 AM

based on everything I've read on these boards and off, and from the specs adn benchmarks, that $300 will get you a faster machine, not just for games but for running everything. I wouldn't settle for the 600 model if you can afford the 700.

zonetuke · Jun 18, 2002, 02:13 AM

a few threads/links worth looking at
<a href="http://forums.macnn.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=003593" target="_blank">http://forums.macnn.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=003593</a>

<a href="http://forums.macnn.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=003581" target="_blank">http://forums.macnn.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=003581</a>

<a href="http://forums.macnn.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=003535" target="_blank">http://forums.macnn.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=003535</a>

<a href="http://forums.macnn.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=003496" target="_blank">http://forums.macnn.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=003496</a>

<a href="http://macspeedzone.com/html/hubs/central/ibooks/ibook.shtml" target="_blank">http://macspeedzone.com/html/hubs/central/ibooks/ibook.shtml</a>

Leon van Schie · Jun 18, 2002, 04:09 AM

You'll get a combo drive as well, not just the 100MHz faster CPU. If you have the doe, go for the 700. I just received my 14" 700 and love every bit about it. Swapped my paint blistering, ball burning Ti for this baby. No regrets

[ 06-18-2002, 04:12 AM: Message edited by: Leon van Schie ]

D'Espice · Jun 18, 2002, 04:55 AM

The $300 are much better invested in more RAM than in 100 MHz CPU-speed. OS X needs as much RAM as possible, a 600 MHz iBook with 512MB will be a lot faster than a 700 MHz iBook with 256MB.

[ 06-18-2002, 04:56 AM: Message edited by: D'Espice ]

flatcatch · Jun 18, 2002, 11:10 AM

Yes, you will notice a difference in performance (I sold my old iBook 600 for a new 700 and I'm much happier with OS X performance).

Check out the threads zonetuke posted above for more. And don't "save" the $300 for RAM. Memory is very cheap... <a href="http://macresource.com/mrp/ramwatch/ibook.shtml" target="_blank">$42 for 256MB</a> and you're set (and RAM is user installable very easily in the iBook - instructions included from Apple). That will bring you to 384MB of RAM, which is plenty for basic stuff, even basic iMovie or Photoshop.

Carl Norum · Jun 18, 2002, 12:21 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by D'Espice:
The $300 are much better invested in more RAM than in 100 MHz CPU-speed. OS X needs as much RAM as possible, a 600 MHz iBook with 512MB will be a lot faster than a 700 MHz iBook with 256MB.<hr /></blockquote>This is certainly not true. Go for the 700 model - it has a newer and much faster chip built with more modern technology. It also has twice the L2 cache, which will make a *WAY* bigger speed improvement than the above comment gives it credit for. Get a 700 MHz model and up the RAM to 384 MB. That's all that's currently necessary for pretty much anything, I would expect.

x user · Jun 18, 2002, 01:12 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Carl Norum:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by D'Espice:
The $300 are much better invested in more RAM than in 100 MHz CPU-speed. OS X needs as much RAM as possible, a 600 MHz iBook with 512MB will be a lot faster than a 700 MHz iBook with 256MB.<hr /></blockquote>This is certainly not true. Go for the 700 model - it has a newer and much faster chip built with more modern technology. It also has twice the L2 cache, which will make a *WAY* bigger speed improvement than the above comment gives it credit for. Get a 700 MHz model and up the RAM to 384 MB. That's all that's currently necessary for pretty much anything, I would expect.<hr /></blockquote>Very true, I overclocked my 500 to 600 and had 320mb RAM, running OS X full time. 384 is enough for this, especially with 10.1

zonetuke · Jun 18, 2002, 01:15 PM

I may be wrong, but I think the most important issue would be the video card memory amount and how it will relate to Quartz Extreme in 10.2. Will the older 8 MB ATI card be a dog in Jaguar? Perhaps.

matthew

rampant · Jun 18, 2002, 01:39 PM

If you choose the 600, your machine will be immeaditly outdated and you will not be happy when you see someone with a radeon zip through 10.2. Get the 700, you'll be somewhat current for much longer.

Carl Norum · Jun 18, 2002, 05:50 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by zonetuke:
I may be wrong, but I think the most important issue would be the video card memory amount and how it will relate to Quartz Extreme in 10.2. Will the older 8 MB ATI card be a dog in Jaguar? Perhaps.<hr /></blockquote>OK - Jaguar is certainly not going to be any *slower* than 10.1. So you can't run Quartz Extreme, so what? Do you think you'll really miss it? Maybe if you are a hardcore digital media content creator, but then I'm pretty sure you should go back to using your desktop machine instead of pilfering your kid's iBook.

flatcatch · Jun 18, 2002, 07:45 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Carl Norum:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by zonetuke:
I may be wrong, but I think the most important issue would be the video card memory amount and how it will relate to Quartz Extreme in 10.2. Will the older 8 MB ATI card be a dog in Jaguar? Perhaps.<hr /></blockquote>OK - Jaguar is certainly not going to be any *slower* than 10.1. So you can't run Quartz Extreme, so what? Do you think you'll really miss it? Maybe if you are a hardcore digital media content creator, but then I'm pretty sure you should go back to using your desktop machine instead of pilfering your kid's iBook.<hr /></blockquote>So what? I think you don't understand what Quartz Extreme is all about and are confusing it with the G4. The G4 can speed up media creation, encoding, etc. - QE speeds up the entire OS X desktop by bringing hardware-based acceleration to the Aqua eye candy all over the place. This will free up the CPU from a ton of software rendering and should improve responsiveness from OS X in general. This is what Apple says, of course, we shall see when 10.2 is released in final form.

Any ATI AGP Radeon graphics CPU is supported by QE (32MB recommended) - only the new iBooks have the ATI Mobility Radeon AGP 2x - not the older iBooks.

JeffZPgh · Jun 18, 2002, 10:37 PM

That last bit doesn't quite ring true...the bonus of 10.1.5 was that it finally brought hardware video acceleration to some older video cards - acceleration is something 10.1 already has. What QE does is take that to the next level by using the hardware OpenGL support on certain supported cards to handle the rendering of layers of visuals more like the way GL-based games do.

I'm not big into gaming, but remember back in the Quake 1 days that there was the non-GL version of the game that was widespread, then an OpenGL version of the engine that made it run better on GL-equipped graphics hardware - this is exactly what the difference between Quartz and Quartz Extreme will be. The "old" Quartz (i.e. exactly what we have today) will still be there for non-high-end hardware. It would take some bad mistakes on Apple's part for 10.2 to be any worse in performance than 10.1.5 on current machines.

Jeff