[pathman]

Hi,

Just wondering what the main difference between these two set-ups would be?

What difference does the 2 MB L3 cache per processor make vs. the 1 MB L3 cache per processor on the FW800 machines?

Also, does anybody know what the other major differences are? I think the 2 MB L3 cache Dual is OS9 bootable, but the other isn't, right?

TIA.

[BrunoBruin]

More cache is always better, but I don't know that the performance difference would be great enough that you would notice it in everyday use.

You're correct that the "new" (no FW800) machines can boot in System 9, while the previous-generation models will not. The "new" models support the older AirPort rather than AirPort Extreme, if that's a consideration. Other than that, I can't think of any other differences, apart from the fact that the "new" models can be configured as you like (SuperDrive, GPU, etc.) where the old models are just whatever you happen to find in stock at the resellers.

[pathman]

I forgot to mention that I heard of one of the online retailers having stock of refurbished G4 Dual 1.25 with the 1 MB L3 per processor for $1400 (no tax). I'm trying to see if the Apple Store's configuration is worth the extra $200 + tax ($130 in Texas).

Thanks.

[BrettOZ]

Originally posted by pathman:
Hi,

Just wondering what the main difference between these two set-ups would be?

What difference does the 2 MB L3 cache per processor make vs. the 1 MB L3 cache per processor on the FW800 machines?

Also, does anybody know what the other major differences are? I think the 2 MB L3 cache Dual is OS9 bootable, but the other isn't, right?

TIA.

Here is some information from Macworld.com on the 2MB vs 1MB cache - 3% in it...

The Speed
The Speedmark test suite showed the new dual-1.25GHz Power Mac to be 18 percent faster than the single-processor 1GHz model. The same dual-1.25GHz Power Mac was a little more than 10 percent faster than the older dual-1GHz model and, because it has only 1MB of L3 cache per chip, slightly less than 3 percent slower than the older dual-1.25GHz model.

When we tested the Macs with applications that take advantage of dual processors, the difference between these two new Power Macs became much clearer. Compared with the 1GHz model, the dual-1.25GHz model pumped out 50.5 more frames per second in Quake III, completed our Photoshop 7.0.1 test suite 38 percent faster, rendered a Cinema 4D XL scene in less than half the time, and encoded our iTunes 3 MP3 test file about 37 percent more briskly. We performed the same tests using the new and older dual-1.25GHz Power Mac G4s, and the results were virtually indistinguishable.

[SciFrog]

Me happy with my new "old" dual 1.25
Plenty fast! Can't beat the <$1,500 price mark.

As much as I can afford to pay $3,000 for a new dual G5 2Ghz, I can't justify it for non pro users.

[Tarcat]

My 533 dual 640/140 offers me all i need but that won't stop me from getting a dual 3 ghz G5 when it comes out.

[BrettOZ]

Originally posted by Tarcat:
My 533 dual 640/140 offers me all i need but that won't stop me from getting a dual 3 ghz G5 when it comes out.

That is why I went for the Dual 1.25 now (and the price was cool)- won't be long before the dual G5 3GHz, should still get a good trade on my Dual G4