G3 B&W Users - anyone have this cpu upgrade? fastest g3 ever!

[supernova777]

http://www.powerlogix.com/products/g3_zif/

PowerForce G3  ZIF! 1.1ghz G3 /w 1MB L2 cache
http://www.everymac.com/upgrade_cards/powerlogix/powerforce_g3/powerforce_g3_1.html

heard good things from one guy about this g3 being faster then most g4s!

The PowerForce G3 ZIF (Zero Insertion Force) is the super-fast, yet economical CPU upgrade for your "Beige" Power Mac G3, Blue and White G3's, "G3 All-in-One" education model, and the PowerMac G4 "PCI" (also known as the "Yikes" motherboard G4.) The PowerForce G3 ZIF uses IBM’s new PowerPC 750GX processor and operates up to 1.1 GHz.

PowerLogix opted for the IBM PowerPC 750GX for these upgrades, instead of the Motorola G4s, due to a bug we discovered in 2001 (not even Motorola knew about this bug..it even existed in their evaluation boards.) The 745x chip is incompatible with the Motorola bridge chip used on these motherboards. The bug can be worked around, but it requires significant extra circuitry, raising the cost of the product. For these older machines, we did not feel that this extra cost was justified. This extra circuitry creates a performance penalty -- slowing the system bus
from 100 MHz to 66 MHz. On the other hand, the PowerLogix G3 ZIF will run at
the native G3 bus speed of 100 MHz.

Although this ZIF model is a G3, make no mistake; it is a very fast performer. Remember, the only difference between a G3 and a G4 is Altivec. Altivec is a specialized vector processor and only a small number of specific software tasks in some applications actually utilize it. The majority of mainstream applications do not take advantage of Altivec. Even the Darwin kernel, at the heart of Mac OS X, is not optimized to use Altivec.

Unless you are using Altivec constantly, it is better to have a CPU that runs all tasks faster all the time, than a CPU that runs slower all the time, except for a few Altivec specific tasks.
In most real world tests, a G3 1.1Ghz ZIF upgrade outperformed a similarly priced G4 500 card by nearly 2:1. The PowerForce G3 ZIF offers the highest ratio of performance vs. price of any product available for the G3.

If you already have a large investment in your Power Mac G3, it makes economic sense to upgrade the processor rather than opting for G4 or G5 systems from Apple. With the removal of ADB, serial, and SCSI connections, Apple has eliminated all of the legacy ports on newer models. So you can keep your investment in peripherals as well.

[supernova777]

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/search?dir=desc&q=processor%3A%22powerpc+g3%22&sort=score

some other high benchmark results from powerpc g3 users

[Protools5LEGuy]

Dane D. has told us he have the fastest G3 on MacOS9Lives
 
http://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php?topic=569.msg1495#msg1495

[supernova777]

yep this is the same cpu that he has!
benchmark at 622 geekbench2.. nuts;)

[Dane D.]

One benefit overlooked by many is the amount of electric power used to run PowerPCs. At full throttle, 1.1GHz, my G3 uses about 9 watts. The is far lees than a Intel/AMD chip running the same speed. Plus, it never gets hot, even running UT for an hour it rarely exceeds 110F. The one thing about G3 chips is that the FPU is weak. G4 chips are much better with AltiVec, they can run circles around G3s and equivalent Intel/AMD.

Think about this, I'm running a 14 year old design and still it surfs the internet, does Adobe creative apps and costs little to operate. Sure it can't do modern video or Flash well, but it does all the things I need swiftly and without a hiccup.

[supernova777]

One benefit overlooked by many is the amount of electric power used to run PowerPCs. At full throttle, 1.1GHz, my G3 uses about 9 watts. The is far lees than a Intel/AMD chip running the same speed. Plus, it never gets hot, even running UT for an hour it rarely exceeds 110F. The one thing about G3 chips is that the FPU is weak. G4 chips are much better with AltiVec, they can run circles around G3s and equivalent Intel/AMD.

Think about this, I'm running a 14 year old design and still it surfs the internet, does Adobe creative apps and costs little to operate. Sure it can't do modern video or Flash well, but it does all the things I need swiftly and without a hiccup.

Im right with ya Dane, for me, these computers were a big part of a creativity that was unrivalled with any personal computer other for whatever reason... i cant quite put my finger on it.
modern flash is going to go the way of the dinosaur anyway. flash was always processor + power hungry, I loved it very much it was my bread and butter I was a flash designer + programmer from the years 1999-2005.. 

to be quite honest websites are NOT designed in the manner that i designed them in anymore and im kind of upset about it. When i designed a site, i tried to make ti load as fast as possible + to step the content so you never have to wait.. and u always hvae something being "Given"... sites now are just stupidly designed...theres no playfull interactivity..  theres no intelligence towards preloading content while your viewing something else.. all that sort of approach went out the window.. the javascript is hugely ineffecient.. most of the code execution is collecting your data not providing you any value.. things changed from being server side processed to being client side processed.. and the content went to shit. it used to be amazing to browse the web and find interesting sites.. now. its all the same crap... uninteresting corporate junk crammed down your throat... no interesting visual flare like back in the times of mac os 9... (1999-2002)
it was a really creative time! things have changed for the better technologically.. but things have lost a bit of magic.. i cant explain it other then this is what we get when they create schools to pump out "Creative Designers" instead of the 'first-wavers'.. pioneers of any new trends always have a radically diffeernt unique magical approach compared to cookie cutter unenthused people who come next, just in it to get paid so they can get drunk on their indulgences.

[Dane D.]

[table CELLPADDING=4 CELLSPACING=1 COLS=5 BORDER=0]
      

Geekbench Score	755	731	622	333
Version	Geekbench 2.0.16	Geekbench 2.0.16	Geekbench 2.0.17	Geekbench 2.0.16
Platform	Mac OS X PPC (32-bit)	Mac OS X PPC (32-bit)	Mac OS X PPC (32-bit)	Mac OS X PPC (32-bit)
Operating System	Mac OS X 10.4.11 (Build 8S165)	Mac OS X 10.4.11 (Build 8S165)	Mac OS X 10.4.6 (Build 8I128)	Mac OS X 10.4.11 (Build 8S165)
Processor	PowerPC G4 (7445/7455) 2x 867MHz	PowerPC G4 (7447A) @ 1.25 GHz	PowerPC G3 (750GX) @ 1.1GHz	PowerPC G4 (7400)@ 450MHz
Model	Power Mac G4 (Mirrored Drive Doors)	eMac G4 (USB 2.0)	Power Mac G3 (Blue and White)	Power Mac G4 (Digital Audio)
Memory	1.75 GB PC2100U-25330 DDR SDRAM	768 MB PC2700U-25330 DDR SDRAM	1.00 GB PC100	1.00 GB PC133
Integer Score	982 - Rank 1	867 - Rank 2	804 - Rank 3	352 - Rank 4
Blowfish	899 - Rank 3	1252 - Rank 1	994 - Rank 2	438 - Rank 4
single-threaded scalar	39.5 MB/sec	55.0 MB/sec	43.7 MB/sec	19.3 MB/sec
Blowfish	1857 - Rank 1	1252 - Rank 2	1037 - Rank 3	432 - Rank 4
multi-threaded scalar	76.1 MB/sec	51.3 MB/sec	42.5 MB/sec	17.7 MB/sec
Text Compress	623 - Rank 3	683 - Rank 2	744 - Rank 1	342 - Rank 4
single-threaded scalar	1.99 MB/sec	2.19 MB/sec	2.38 MB/sec	1.09 MB/sec
Text Compress	997 - Rank 1	636 - Rank 2	585 - Rank 3	323 - Rank 4
multi-threaded scalar	3.27 MB/sec	2.09 MB/sec	1.92 MB/sec	1.06 MB/sec
Text Decompress	698 - Rank 3	845 - Rank 2	898 - Rank 1	364 - Rank 4
single-threaded scalar	2.87 MB/sec	3.48 MB/sec	3.69 MB/sec	1.50 MB/sec
Text Decompress	1290 - Rank 1	833 - Rank 3	876 - Rank 2	356 - Rank 4
multi-threaded scalar	5.14 MB/sec	3.32 MB/sec	3.49 MB/sec	1.42 MB/sec
Image Compress	772 - Rank 3	981 - Rank 1	871 - Rank 2	389 - Rank 4
single-threaded scalar	6.38 Mpixels/sec	8.11 Mpixels/sec	7.20 Mpixels/sec	3.22 Mpixels/sec
Image Compress	1445 - Rank 1	929 - Rank 2	882 - Rank 3	381 - Rank 4
multi-threaded scalar	12.2 Mpixels/sec	7.82 Mpixels/sec	7.43 Mpixels/sec	3.21 Mpixels/sec
Image Decompress	581 - Rank 3	740 - Rank 1	632 - Rank 2	290 - Rank 4
single-threaded scalar	9.76 Mpixels/sec	12.4 Mpixels/sec	10.6 Mpixels/sec	4.87 Mpixels/sec
Image Decompress	974 - Rank 1	752 - Rank 2	663 - Rank 3	295 - Rank 4
multi-threaded scalar	15.9 Mpixels/sec	12.3 Mpixels/sec	10.8 Mpixels/sec	4.81 Mpixels/sec
Crafty Chess	619 - Rank 3	765 - Rank 1	676 - Rank 2	303 - Rank 4
single-threaded scalar	313.0 Knodes/sec	386.9 Knodes/sec	341.7 Knodes/sec	153.2 Knodes/sec
Crafty Chess	1058 - Rank 1	780 - Rank 2	706 - Rank 3	304 - Rank 4
multi-threaded scalar	513.3 Knodes/sec	378.8 Knodes/sec	343.0 Knodes/sec	147.7 Knodes/sec
Lua	669 - Rank 3	855 - Rank 1	852 - Rank 2	361 - Rank 4
single-threaded scalar	257.9 Knodes/sec	329.6 Knodes/sec	328.1 Knodes/sec	139.3 Knodes/sec
Lua	1273 - Rank 1	848 - Rank 3	849 - Rank 2	359 - Rank 4
multi-threaded scalar	489.8 Knodes/sec	326.4 Knodes/sec	326.8 Knodes/sec	138.3 Knodes/sec
Floating Point Score	868 - Rank 1	806 - Rank 3	810 - Rank 2	385 - Rank 4
Mandelbrot	436 - Rank 3	579 - Rank 2	708 - Rank 1	347 - Rank 4
single-threaded scalar	290.4 Mflops	385.2 Mflops	471.3 Mflops	231.1 Mflops
Mandelbrot	856 - Rank 1	584 - Rank 3	717 - Rank 2	348 - Rank 4
multi-threaded scalar	560.7 Mflops	382.3 Mflops	469.5 Mflops	228.2 Mflops
Dot Product	655 - Rank 3	956 - Rank 2	1047 - Rank 1	494 - Rank 4
single-threaded scalar	316.6 Mflops	462.3 Mflops	505.9 Mflops	239.0 Mflops
Dot Product	1320 - Rank 1	964 - Rank 3	1053 - Rank 2	491 - Rank 4
multi-threaded scalar	601.5 Mflops	439.5 Mflops	480.3 Mflops	223.8 Mflops
LU Decomposition	278 - Rank 3	397 - Rank 1	335 - Rank 2	161 - Rank 4
single-threaded scalar	247.8 Mflops	353.3 Mflops	298.6 Mflops	144.0 Mflops
LU Decomposition	559 - Rank 1	335 - Rank 2	325 - Rank 3	161 - Rank 4
multi-threaded scalar	491.0 Mflops	294.0 Mflops	285.1 Mflops	141.7 Mflops
Primality Test	858 - Rank 3	975 - Rank 1	899 - Rank 2	387 - Rank 4
single-threaded scalar	128.3 Mflops	145.6 Mflops	134.3 Mflops	57.9 Mflops
Primality Test	1196 - Rank 1	733 - Rank 2	579 - Rank 3	296 - Rank 4
multi-threaded scalar	222.1 Mflops	136.1 Mflops	107.5 Mflops	55.0 Mflops
Sharpen Image	516 - Rank 3	665 - Rank 2	873 - Rank 1	355 - Rank 4
single-threaded scalar	1.20 Mpixels/sec	1.55 Mpixels/sec	2.04 Mpixels/sec	828.9 Kpixels/sec
Sharpen Image	972 - Rank 1	662 - Rank 3	881 - Rank 2	360 - Rank 4
multi-threaded scalar	2.24 Mpixels/sec	1.53 Mpixels/sec	2.03 Mpixels/sec	830.1 Kpixels/sec
Blur Image	607 - Rank 3	774 - Rank 2	1154 - Rank 1	452 - Rank 4
single-threaded scalar	480.4 Kpixels/sec	613.0 Kpixels/sec	913.6 Kpixels/sec	358.3 Kpixels/sec
Blur Image	1143 - Rank 2	776 - Rank 3	1159 - Rank 1	455 - Rank 4
multi-threaded scalar	899.2 Kpixels/sec	610.8 Kpixels/sec	911.5 Kpixels/sec	357.9 Kpixels/sec
Memory Score	395 - Rank 2	548 - Rank 1	242 - Rank 4	280 - Rank 3
Read Sequential	243 - Rank 2	268 - Rank 1	158 - Rank 4	170 - Rank 3
single-threaded scalar	305.2 MB/sec	336.1 MB/sec	199.3 MB/sec	214.0 MB/sec
Write Sequential	741 - Rank 2	995 - Rank 1	171 - Rank 4	424 - Rank 3
single-threaded scalar	519.4 MB/sec	697.2 MB/sec	120.3 MB/sec	297.2 MB/sec
Stdlib Allocate	456 - Rank 3	757 - Rank 1	694 - Rank 2	300 - Rank 4
single-threaded scalar	1.70 Mallocs/sec	2.83 Mallocs/sec	2.59 Mallocs/sec	1.12 Mallocs/sec
Stdlib Write	247 - Rank 2	347 - Rank 1	116 - Rank 4	246 - Rank 3
single-threaded scalar	523.6 MB/sec	736.8 MB/sec	246.9 MB/sec	523.0 MB/sec
Stdlib Copy	288 - Rank 2	373 - Rank 1	74 - Rank 4	261 - Rank 3
single-threaded scalar	304.4 MB/sec	394.1 MB/sec	78.3 MB/sec	275.6 MB/sec
Stream Score	295 - Rank 2	364 - Rank 1	89 - Rank 4	198 - Rank 3
Stream Copy	248 - Rank 2	358 - Rank 1	89 - Rank 4	176 - Rank 3
single-threaded scalar	348.5 MB/sec	502.4 MB/sec	125.5 MB/sec	246.8 MB/sec
Stream Copy	285 - Rank 2	380 - Rank 1	0 - Rank 4	241 - Rank 3
single-threaded vector	379.3 MB/sec	505.9 MB/sec	0	320.8 MB/sec
Stream Scale	270 - Rank 2	331 - Rank 1	94 - Rank 4	173 - Rank 3
single-threaded scalar	359.0 MB/sec	440.9 MB/sec	125.9 MB/sec	230.5 MB/sec
Stream Scale	283 - Rank 2	378 - Rank 1	0 - Rank 4	184 - Rank 3
single-threaded vector	392.2 MB/sec	523.7 MB/sec	0	255.5 MB/sec
Stream Add	287 - Rank 2	343 - Rank 1	84 - Rank 4	194 - Rank 3
single-threaded scalar	443.9 MB/sec	530.8 MB/sec	131.3 MB/sec	300.5 MB/sec
Stream Add	343 - Rank 2	387 - Rank 1	0 - Rank 4	205 - Rank 3
single-threaded vector	488.6 MB/sec	551.4 MB/sec	0	292.5 MB/sec
Stream Triad	345 - Rank 2	395 - Rank 1	91 - Rank 4	198 - Rank 3
single-threaded scalar	488.3 MB/sec	559.4 MB/sec	129.6 MB/sec	280.2 MB/sec
Stream Triad	304 - Rank 2	343 - Rank 1	0 - Rank 4	216 - Rank 3
single-threaded vector	582.9 MB/sec	657.6 MB/sec	0	415.6 MB/sec

The processor holds its' own till FPU intense functions are needed. Compares favorably to a 1.25GHz G4. Beats a dual 867 Mirror Drive Door unit. The 450MHz G4 is last till FPU functions are in play. This cpu kicks ass in OS 9.2.2, holds its own in 10.4.6.

[supernova777]

hey dane how did u insert all that html code above? does the forum convert html <> tags' to [] on the fly like that?

[Dane D.]

hey dane how did u insert all that html code above? does the forum convert html <> tags' to [] on the fly like that?

First off, I've been away because of personal issues, leave it at that, thanks. No, the response was hand-coded and pasted in. I hand-code in a plain text editor or Dreamweaver, if feeling lazy. Most forums support basic html or filtered html, sometimes the forums will support more advanced html but it is always better to keep things simple.

[IIO]

At full throttle, 1.1GHz, my G3 uses about 9 watts.

plus all the overhead of the power unit, the disks, PCI, firewire and so on.

a modern mini PC uses around 10-20 watts in total, where a G3 uses some 200.

and btw, i dont think that these 9 watts are when the processor is in use. 9 watts sounds more like when in sleep mode. a g3 processor requires around 50 watts when fully in use, which is about as much as a G4 eats, too.

[Dane D.]

At full throttle, 1.1GHz, my G3 uses about 9 watts.

and btw, i dont think that these 9 watts are when the processor is in use. 9 watts sounds more like when in sleep mode. a g3 processor requires around 50 watts when fully in use, which is about as much as a G4 eats, too.

I am talking about the cpu, not the whole rig. The following table is taken from IBM's Datasheet for the 750GX RISC Microprocessor. I was 5 Watts off at full load.

Mode	1.0GHz	Unit
Core Voltage	1.5	Volt
Max. Power	14.0	Watts

Typical Power	8.3	Watts
Sleep	6.0	Watts

[MacTron]

For reference only and for those fans of G3
 The following table is taken from Freescale's Datasheet for the G4 7448 RISC Microprocessor.

Mode	1.0 GHz	Unit
Core Voltage	1.0	Volt
Max. Power	13.9	Watts

Typical Power	9.5	Watts
Sleep	6.0	Watts

The 1.0 Ghz speed is for reference only, because this chip usually appears at 1.6/1.8/2.0 Ghz and there is reports of 2.2 Ghz working stable. At this speed the power consumption increases at 2X or 3X ratio.
Further more, this chip (as all of the G4's) have the powerful Velocity Engine and can work in Dual CPU Mode.

So G3 is good chip but G4 is better!

Another important thing to take into account is that G4 motherboard are far better than G3 Motherboards. (The Yikes G4 motherboard it is really a G3 motherboard...)

[IIO]

I am talking about the cpu, not the whole rig.

yeah i guess i wasnt very clear.

well the power consumption of the CPU is not so relevant for ones economic values, because at higher CPU usage all other parts of the computer are using so much more energy.

so you can see it best at powerbooks where the difference is dramatic:

http://support.apple.com/kb/TA24638?viewlocale=en_US

you could say that it does not really matter if a g3/g4 processor uses 7, 9, or 12 watts, whata seems more interetsing is a proper energy saving mode and that you dont run apps all night long when you dont need them (typically games or "screensavers")

the real interest in power saving CPU has come with multi processor systems IMO.
 
but i dont really understand why you prefer the g3 over a g4 ... their power requriement is identically but the g4 is faster? or what did i miss?
 

[supernova777]

if the thread was about what is technically "better"
intel i7 cpu + motherboard is alot better then a g4 

the whole point of the thread is that
this cpu upgrade 'wipes the floor' with alot of g4 cpus
scoring higher then the quicksilver 933mhz..
ranking in 7th from "best" (best from the os9 originally booting cpus)
thats quite the accomplishment for a g3 built in 1999



big thank you to dane D for sharing his positive experience with this cpu

[MacTron]

First things first, Geekbench can't run in Mac Os 9, so its results are not trusted for Mac Os 9 users. Second, it is very easy to fake Geekbench results: set the disk to check to a RAM disk and the overall system performance is increased.

Even I don't like the Geekbench results, let's take some of then that you have posted above:

PowerPC G3 (750GX) @ 1.1GHz

Integer Score:   804
Floating Point Score:  810
Memory Score: 242


PowerPC G4 (7455) @ 1.25 GHz

Integer Score:   888
Floating Point Score:  926
Memory Score: 549

The G3 results are what we can expect. There isn't a huge difference between a G3 and a G4. But the G4 can go further in to clock speed and overall system performance, plus Altivec and dual processors configurations...

[MacTron]

if the thread was about what is technically "better"
intel i7 cpu...

LOL
intel i7 cpu !
LOL

faster, doesn't means better...

A dozen of 286 together with 22nm fabrication process and auto-overclock can't be called "better", just fast.
Better can be called some ARM based chips especially Apple ( A8).

Chis,even this is going off topic you have the right to reply if you wish, but I don't going to lose a second explaining about Intel CPUs...

[supernova777]

yes noone is saying a g3 is better then a g4...
the whole point of the thread was to look, for a moment, at the g3 powerlogix cpu that was made..
in limited edition, not everyone can have one..
but the thread, was just to know that it exists
there is no argument of what is better
we arent saying a g3 is better then a g4
we are looking at this chip and saying wow
look how far they pushed the g3. to the max..
its still not better then the best g4 OF COURSE
we all know this
no point in measuring

and your opinion about geekbench2 is just your opinion
i am happy to use it as as standard for all my computers as u know
i have had it on my signature for over a year and i am a registered user
and i paid for this program and im quite happy with it
im not so worried that it runs in mac os x..
it measures the processing power of the cpu..
u see i use many different os.
i use windows
i use linux
i use mac
i use geekbench on my pcs + my macs
a good number of people use this program
it is a standard.. im sorry that you dont like it
but your opinion will not change the fact that
i use this standard and so do alot of other people

i enjoy using different os..
i dont care to decide whats better
or force other people to believe what i believe

my interest of this chip was that i had a chance to buy one
and i didnt go through with it thinking a g3 1ghz was too weak
but to see that it outperforms a 933mhz quicksilver cpu.
i should have bought it.. ! there is a powerbook version of it aswell.
but, this was a limited edition cpu, available for a short time from a 3rd party

anyways.. enough;)
on to new topics

[supernova777]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuCYHrSig94[/youtube]

27:00 is where hes introducing the g3 b&W specs

29:30 he mentioned gigabit ethernet as a BTO for the B&W?? i guess this was accomplished via a pci card because ive never heard of a b&w g3 with gigabit ethernet.. i wonder which make+model pci card they used?

40:00 is where the machine shows up

[Protools5LEGuy]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuCYHrSig94[/youtube]

At 55:00 demonstrates a G3 B&W server with MacOSX server serving OS9 and video to 50 iMacs! At 995$ the OS! NetBootin!

[supernova777]

*MUST* have been a gigabit ethernet on the server.. wtf .. i want built in gigabit ethernet on my g3!