Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

iBook2 · Jun 13, 2002, 03:28 AM

<a href="http://www.barefeats.com/pb8.html" target="_blank">http://www.barefeats.com/pb8.html</a>

[ 06-13-2002, 03:28 AM: Message edited by: iBook2 ]

Eug · Jun 13, 2002, 09:27 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by iBook2:
 <a href="http://www.barefeats.com/pb8.html" target="_blank">http://www.barefeats.com/pb8.html</a>

<hr /></blockquote>Yep. The iBook needs a G4.

emsauda · Jun 13, 2002, 10:14 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> How does the iBook G3/700 compare to the NEW PowerBook G4/667? If you run NON-AltiVec optimized applications such as Bryce, FileMaker, MS Office, and MS Explorer, then you will go as fast or faster on the 700MHz iBook. However, if you are using iMovie, iTunes, Final Cut Pro, Photoshop, and other AltiVec "aware" apps, you are better off with a PowerBook. And don't forget, the iBook can only be upgraded to 640MB of RAM.
<hr /></blockquote>I think with this iBook Apple finally got it right. It's zippy enough for consumer portable uses - the 700 feels a lot faster than the 500 I upgraded from - and much cheaper than the PowerBook. Sure a G4 would be nice, but then again, $1000 in my pocket makes the G3 look a lot better.

My $.02.

NeoMac · Jun 13, 2002, 10:51 AM

What impresses me is the PowerBook-800. That thing is just opening up all kinds of woop-ass on the other Macs. It's faster than the PowerMac (1x800)! The Dual-800 only wins on MP tasks.

I'm no expert, but it seems the PowerBook mobo is significantly better than the those PowerMac mobos. Maybe the latest Powermacs fix that.

Hmmm, great performance. God forbid this might become a trend from Apple.

tycheung · Jun 13, 2002, 11:05 AM

AS for me, screw the G4 - I'd bet if they did pure CPU tests, like the SPECint and SPECfp's, they'd come out the same. I'd say the iBook needs the latest mobile motherboard arch - primarily with the 133 mHz bus speed, and a 32 mb Radeon 7500/8500 mobility card.

Eug · Jun 13, 2002, 11:39 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by tycheung:
AS for me, screw the G4 - I'd bet if they did pure CPU tests, like the SPECint and SPECfp's, they'd come out the same. I'd say the iBook needs the latest mobile motherboard arch - primarily with the 133 mHz bus speed, and a 32 mb Radeon 7500/8500 mobility card.<hr /></blockquote>A 133 MHz bus would help. However, a Radeon 7500 mobility with 32 MB I don't think would help that much if you're talking about gaming. Judging by the benches, the current iBook 700 with Radeon is only playable at the "fastest" setting, and it seems to me that upping the card isn't going to improve things as much as one might think. Sure, 32-bit gaming at higher resolution would be better than it is now, but it would still be unplayable. Now Quartz Extreme is another matter, and the question is whether or not 32 MB is required for Quartz Extreme at 1024x768 (which is the iBook's max resolution).

Personally, I'd think that a G4 would be more meaningful than a higher end video card. And, we don't run SPECint. We run stuff like iMovie and iTunes, and the TiBook G4 800 runs at TWICE the speed as the iBook G3 700 with stuff like that. The 133 MHz would be a nice boost though, although I could see Apple not wanting to do that on a lower budget machine.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Sure a G4 would be nice, but then again, $1000 in my pocket makes the G3 look a lot better.<hr /></blockquote>I wonder what is the price difference between a G4 667 and a G3 700. The huge difference in price is not because of the CPU only. It's because of everything else, like bigger screen, slot load, Ti shell, Gigabit ethernet, bigger hard drive, DVI, 133 MHz capable mobo and memory, extra ports, etc.

[ 06-13-2002, 11:45 AM: Message edited by: Eug ]

emsauda · Jun 13, 2002, 11:55 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />I wonder what is the price difference between a G4 667 and a G3 700. The huge difference in price is not because of the CPU only. It's because of everything else, like bigger screen, slot load, Ti shell, Gigabit ethernet, bigger hard drive, DVI, 133 MHz capable mobo and memory, extra ports, etc.<hr /></blockquote>Good point. May be moot, though, unless there are any volunteers to help me find a chip and swap them out.

Superchicken · Jun 13, 2002, 08:22 PM

My theory, eBook

once the iBook hits G4, it'll be the range between this iBook and the current Power Books. The gap is fairly big, and the iMac is becomming more and more, posh, and less consumerish.
And right now the price gap between the iBook and the Power Books are incredibly big. I bet Apple's gona bring in an eBook that's gona be incredibly similar to the current iBook, and maybe bring something more like the Clam shell for the next iBook rev.. then again, I'm stupid so don't listen to me

meducus · Jun 14, 2002, 08:06 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Superchic[k]en:
My theory, eBook

once the iBook hits G4, it'll be the range between this iBook and the current Power Books. The gap is fairly big, and the iMac is becomming more and more, posh, and less consumerish.
And right now the price gap between the iBook and the Power Books are incredibly big. I bet Apple's gona bring in an eBook that's gona be incredibly similar to the current iBook, and maybe bring something more like the Clam shell for the next iBook rev.. then again, I'm stupid so don't listen to me

<hr /></blockquote>someone else suggested this once but someone else pointed out it can't be an ebook, because an ebook is one of those electronic books (i.e. those screens which you can read novels and stuff off).

BannanaFiend · Jun 19, 2002, 02:46 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by NeoMac:
What impresses me is the PowerBook-800. That thing is just opening up all kinds of woop-ass on the other Macs. It's faster than the PowerMac (1x800)! The Dual-800 only wins on MP tasks.

I'm no expert, but it seems the PowerBook mobo is significantly better than the those PowerMac mobos. Maybe the latest Powermacs fix that.

Hmmm, great performance. God forbid this might become a trend from Apple.

<hr /></blockquote>It likely beats the single 800mhz desktop due to the fact that it has an L3 cache and the single proc 800 does not.