[Eriamjh]

with the recent announcement of the 1.1GHz G3, I found this article that mentions it was expected back in 1999.

What the hell happened, IBM?

Article

(Read the last paragraph and try not to cry.)

[Lateralus]

Apple happened.

They went with the G4 and refused to step back on their decision even when it became apparent that the G3 was growing much longer legs than the G4. And since Apple didnt show interest in a G3 that would be faster than the G4, IBM stopped pushing the G3 any harder than Apple needed.

[Sosa]

Wow, is this really the same G3 chip we are using today in iBooks? Sucks to think Apple would deliberately not give us the fastest chips economically possible.

[Lateralus]

It is the same in that it is not the same.

Yes, the chip mentioned in the article above and the chip currently used in the iBooks are G3s, but much has changed about the chip architectually since 1999.

Nevertheless, it was a terrible decision on Apples part. But, what's past is past and now the PowerPC 970 is here. We're back on the right track again.

[bleee]

Originally posted by PowerMacMan:
It is the same in that it is not the same.

Yes, the chip mentioned in the article above and the chip currently used in the iBooks are G3s, but much has changed about the chip architectually since 1999.

Nevertheless, it was a terrible decision on Apples part. But, what's past is past and now the PowerPC 970 is here. We're back on the right track again.

It's terrible for us G3 users but from a marketing/sales perspective it was a good move. How would it look if there was a 1.1Ghz G3 out and the G4 users are still on 867Mhz? people generally assume that the higher the model number G"4" means that it should have higher everything. Remember that it was not too long ago that they eeked past the 1.0Ghz barrier with G4 1.25 and 1.42.

[Lateralus]

Yes, but we are referring to 1999 when the G4 was first adopted.

[MartiNZ]

So basically if they had kept with the G3 instead of going with the G4 then Macs would have passed 1GHz much earlier and would have been able to grow it further than they have the G4s?

That's interesting, and it might have prevented the long and slow growth of their top-of-the-line that we have seen with the G4s. I guess we'll never know now, but I do think it's good that they are keeping on with the G3 in the iBooks as it means the prices can probably keep coming down, and that they have to update the G4 'books regularly in order to keep them faster than the iBooks !

[Sosa]

I don't buy this argument that G3 mhz should be kept lower than G4 so people don't think its faster. By doing this Apple is hampering its G3 machines which could be faster than they are now and may be losing customers in the process.

Argument number two is that if we play to this mistaken megahertz myth then we continue to perpetuate it. Thus it is better to give the fastest product you can than to dumb it down for uneducated consumers.

[slider]

The people in the know know about the megahertz myth, the person going out and really knows nothing about computers is still going to look at the Mhz and it is those people that are dominate, it's really that simple. Apple was tell us, the ones in the know, they didn't not go in a major campainge to enlighten to masses. This seems like one of those" hind sight is 20/20" things. Anyways with the G5 out this is almost moot. And, right not the low end powerbook is behind the highend iBook in Mhz, what does that tell you?

[Peder Rice]

Important Note:

The iBook has outperformed similar offerings of PowerBooks (megahertz for megahertz) on various benchmarks, thanks to its improved design. This new G3 could probably take the PowerBook to town on various tests, and more than hold its own on even Altivec-enabled tests.

Let's say that Apple does the works with the iBook, giving it a 400MHz system bus and PC3200 DDR memory. These would work along side the G3s new 1MB L2 cache.

Compare this to the PowerBook, which currently uses a G4 maxing out at a 167MHz system bus, 256K L2 cache, and no real support for DDR memory. However nice a 1MB L3 cache might be, a 1MB L2 cache (as we'll have in the G3) is just that much better (and over four times faster).

FSB: G3 wins
Cache: G3 wins
Altivec: G4 wins
Architecture: G3 wins

Would a 1.1GHz G3 beat a 1.1GHz G4? Tough to say, but I'd actually bet on this new G3 to beat the current G4. Though, we will have to see what Motorola will have to offer by the release of the new G3. Motorola may just have enough goodies to surprise.

[CIA]

The flip side of this "imagine what could've happened" is, where would we be now? Would Apple have a sick G5? I think a huge part of the G5 development was because of how shi**y G4 ended up being. Apple wagered a lot on Altivec, and it didn't realy pay off, how long were we stuck @ 500Mhz?
Even the G5's Altivec was just tacked on during development. What's better.. A G4 with altivec at 1Ghz or a G3 without it running at 3Ghz? It's like selling 2 sports cars, one with a 600 horsepower engine,and another with a 150 horsepower engine that's faster.
More importantly, say we had a G3 running at 3Ghz (if Apple and IBM pushed hard on development starting in '99). Would we back-track Mhz with the G5 (or whatever it would be called)? It's like the problem Intel is having these days. Their 64 bit chip is fast, but runs at a lower Mhz. How do you tell Joe Schmoe consumer that even though we've been pushing our 3.2Ghz P4's on you, our new P5 is just as fast but runs at 1.5Ghz?

Put this in Apple's corner. We all know the truth, but Apple's not converting Macnn Forum members. How would Apple show people that it's new chip is faster at a lower Mhz?

[Peder Rice]

Well, I can pretty well guarantee you that IBM's G3 would never clock to 3GHz unless the manfuacturing process was something like 20nm. Hell, IBM has only four pipeline stages in its G3, as opposed to the seven in the current run of G4s. The AMD Athlon has somewhere around ten, and the P4 has something like twenty. The more pipeline stages, the higher the megahertz count (in the most basic of levels). I don't recall the exact number, but the 970 has significantly more stages than the G3 and still has only clocked to 2.0GHz.

The bottom line, however, is that the iBook and all other Mac models are now set for major speed increases. The iMac looks like a toy next to the PowerMac, and the PowerBooks are just begging for speed. Eventually, the iBook will receive an update as well, be it a 1.1GHz G3 from IBM or a switch to the G4.

[Stratus Fear]

Originally posted by Peder Rice:
Well, I can pretty well guarantee you that IBM's G3 would never clock to 3GHz unless the manfuacturing process was something like 20nm. Hell, IBM has only four pipeline stages in its G3, as opposed to the seven in the current run of G4s. The AMD Athlon has somewhere around ten, and the P4 has something like twenty. The more pipeline stages, the higher the megahertz count (in the most basic of levels). I don't recall the exact number, but the 970 has significantly more stages than the G3 and still has only clocked to 2.0GHz.

The bottom line, however, is that the iBook and all other Mac models are now set for major speed increases. The iMac looks like a toy next to the PowerMac, and the PowerBooks are just begging for speed. Eventually, the iBook will receive an update as well, be it a 1.1GHz G3 from IBM or a switch to the G4.

It does depend on more than just the number of pipeline stages: The original G4, IIRC had either 4 or 5 stages, and it's max clock got nowhere near the current G3s. The P3 had more stages than the Athlon (12 vs 10) and the Athlon clocks much higher.

[Peder Rice]

The real difference is actually the manufacturing process. ArsTechnica has a diagram (if I find it, I'll post it) that shows the equivalent megahertz rating of the P4, P3, and so on. Up until the P6 core, the Pentiums would have held the same megahertz rating for all processors built on the same manufacturing process. When the PII and PIII rolled on in, they had more pipeline stages, effectively giving the processor a 1.5x increase in clock speed (but not necessarily work). The P4 can clock 2.5x faster than the original Pentium cores on the same manufacturing process due to its extra pipeline stages.

Yes, Motorola couldn't get the G4 past 500MHz, they had to build the G4e with three more useless pipeline stages to do that. However, the manufacturing process has much to do with this, as Motorola has always been behind. IBM is pushing 90nm as Motorola moves to 130nm.

EDIT: corrected number

[Peder Rice]

Found it

http://arstechnica.com/cpu/01q2/p4andg4e/figure8.jpg

[ccsccs7]

Originally posted by CIA:
...More importantly, say we had a G3 running at 3Ghz (if Apple and IBM pushed hard on development starting in '99). Would we back-track Mhz with the G5 (or whatever it would be called)? It's like the problem Intel is having these days. Their 64 bit chip is fast, but runs at a lower Mhz. How do you tell Joe Schmoe consumer that even though we've been pushing our 3.2Ghz P4's on you, our new P5 is just as fast but runs at 1.5Ghz?

Put this in Apple's corner. We all know the truth, but Apple's not converting Macnn Forum members. How would Apple show people that it's new chip is faster at a lower Mhz?

Well, back in 1998 when Apple released the G3 at 266MHz, the fastest chip at that time was the 350MHz 604e, so it has been done. Not to say that such a dramatic difference wouldn't have that effect, it's just interesting to note that Apple did do something like that.

The way they told the consumer was through the use of "clever" advertising. Remember the snail with the Pentium on its back?

[ccsccs7]

This reminds me, the PowerPC 603e (I know, I know, ancient history) was the consumer chip and the 604e was the "professional" chip. Well, the G3 (which began as the professional chip) was based on the "consumer" 603e. Now considering what happened with the G4 (now the "professional" chip), while the G3 could continue to progress. It's just interesting...

[Simon]

Originally posted by ccsccs7:
This reminds me, the PowerPC 603e (I know, I know, ancient history) was the consumer chip and the 604e was the "professional" chip. Well, the G3 (which began as the professional chip) was based on the "consumer" 603e.

Actually, if I remeber correctly the G3/PPC750 was originally planned to be a consumer chip.

Only after initial testing when the AIM alliance realized how well the chip actually preformed Apple decided that it would be used throughout the entire pro line and replace the 604+/604e, which happened shortly after. Soon after the PowerMac G3 (DT and MT) came out the G3 was all there was. The 604 got abandoned much faster than originally thought.

[ccsccs7]

Originally posted by Simon:
Actually, if I remeber correctly the G3/PPC750 was originally planned to be a consumer chip.

Oh, that statement I made was a bit misleading. I meant it began its useful life as a professional chip before being "left behind" as the consumer chip.

[pat++]

I think a 1.1Ghz G3 for the iBook would be a nice update, particularly with its 1mb of L2 cache... Speeding up system bus would be nice too... well we'll have the answer in 2-3 months

[Stratus Fear]

Originally posted by Peder Rice:
The real difference is actually the manufacturing process. ArsTechnica has a diagram (if I find it, I'll post it) that shows the equivalent megahertz rating of the P4, P3, and so on. Up until the P6 core, the Pentiums would have held the same megahertz rating for all processors built on the same manufacturing process. When the PII and PIII rolled on in, they had more pipeline stages, effectively giving the processor a 1.5x increase in clock speed (but not necessarily work). The P4 can clock 2.5x faster than the original Pentium cores on the same manufacturing process due to its extra pipeline stages.

Yes, Motorola couldn't get the G4 past 500MHz, they had to build the G4e with three more useless pipeline stages to do that. However, the manufacturing process has much to do with this, as Motorola has always been behind. IBM is pushing 90nm as Motorola moves to 130nm.

EDIT: corrected number

That's exactly what I was getting at.

[supernature]

A 1.1ghz ibook G3 with the bigger cache and faster bus is welcome anytime ... anytime soon that is. The 12" PowerBook, though G4, isn't all that much faster than my iBook 800mhz. Once I see 1.1ghz on the iBook, that's a big improvement over my current iBook. I think they need to make the iBook architecture (and overall notebook architecture) faster.

Here's to looking forward to a good moderate upgrade in the next few months.

[zubro]

watever...
"Speed is nothing without control" that s not from me, but a Wintel machine never attracted me because it is unstable.
A Mac is.
Might be out of the tread, but it is a fact.

And, to me, apple f***ed up dealing with Moto., and I dont think that Moto will push faster a G4 ONLY for the PB!... I ll say that some guys are working hard on a G5 of 1GHZ for PB....
And so they can Play honnest and freely with G3 and 5! ;o)
"....what a beautyful world!"

[waffffffle]

The 604 never really got its chance to shine. The G3 came on so fast and Apple spread it across the entire line very quickly. I remember the PowerTower 225 was the fastest PC in the world for a while. Although the PowerMac G3 also became the fastest PC in the world as well.


Remember the good old days when Apple led in BOTH MHz and actual performance? I remember the speed at which iMac processors were sped up. Summer 98: 233 Mhz, Jan 99: 266, summer 99: 333, fall 99: 350-450. That however ended the fast speed bumps for the G3 iMacs. The G4 was rolled out with the infamous problems and Apple was faced with the problem of its consumer computers running at higher clock speeds than its pro computers. I really feel Apple was stupid for holding back the G3. Apple should have kept both lines running at full steam. We could have had a G3 tower running at much higher speeds, the same goes for G3 PowerBooks. I think this was a big mistake on Apple's part (that and also rolling out the G4 before MOT was even ready just so Steve can bash the rumor sites at the keynote).