[Cadaver]

Well, my trusty Blue & White G3 is no longer so trusty... one too many kernel panics, and I've had it (its already heavily upgraded).

So, I'm replacing it with a gigabit ethernet-based PowerMac G4. Now, I've got two processor choices - its original Dual 500MHz G4 (1MB L2 cache) or an OWC single 1.25GHz G4 (7455B, 2MB SDR cache). Personally, I'm strongly leaning towards the dual.

Before you ask, here's what I will be doing with the machine:
-Microsoft Word, PowerPoint
-Keynote
-Light Photoshop CS and InDesign
-EndNote
-Mail, web
-Viewing/converting medical DICOM images (the G3/900 could handle this just fine, BTW)
-Minor editing of small medical image video clips (motion DICOM and 320x240ish avi and QuickTime clips)
-24/7 web-hosting of small HTML and graphics files for myself and some associates (smallish images like what someone might post here on MacNN)
-Receiving said HTML/graphic files via SSH/SFTP

*no games*

The machine will be equipped with the following:
-MacOS X 10.3.x
-1GB RAM
-ATI Radeon 8500 Mac Edition
-Two 17" LCDs (1280x1024) or one 20" LCD (1600x1200) - haven't decided yet
-60GB Maxtor 7200 rpm (8MB cache) HD - main
-30GB 5200 rpm backup storage HD
-500GB network storage
-ACard UltraATA/133 PCI controller
-Apple DVD-RAM (internal), Sony CDRW (FireWire)
-Dedicated 100Mbit campus ethernet connection

What do you think? Dual 500MHz G4s or single 1.25GHz G4?
Submit your vote!

[Lateralus]

Eh... I'm a Dualie man myself, but in this case, gotta say the 1.25. If you were debating between a Dual 500 and an 800 or something, I would be firmly in Dual-land. But the raw clock speed advantage of the 1.25, the fact that it has 2MBs of L3 cache, and the fact that it is a 7455 which is much better with AltiVec than the 7400s of the Dualie... Plus, you could overclock the 1.25. My friend has the same upgrade in his QuickSilver and he has it running at 1.53GHz.

If the price difference is not that big, go 1.25. If it is... Well, it'll be up to you.

...and as far as the B&W: Have you checked to make sure that the kernel panics are not stemming from flakey or going-flakey RAM?

[Cadaver]

The single 1.25GHz'er would be a little bit extra (say $200).
Not sure if its worth it.
Guess I can always try to sell the Dual 500MHz CPU module on eBay to finance a faster single processor...

And I think the G3's crashes are the result of a dying processor. Its always run blazing hot, and I think its had it.

[BrunoBruin]

Originally posted by PowerMacMan:
Eh... I'm a Dualie man myself, but in this case, gotta say the 1.25.

What he said. My rule of thumb is to always go duals unless the single is at least 90 percent of the combined speed of the duals (in other words, a dual-450 over a single 733). Some people would say 75 percent, but I'm a big believer in duals. The fact that you're talking about an upgrade for an older (slower bus, etc.) machine complicates things, but I'd still take a single 1.25 over a dual 500.

FWIW, we have some dual-450s and some single 1GHz MDD Power Macs in my office, all running Panther, and the singles are much zippier.

If you don't already have the dual-500 in hand, have you considered picking up a refurb or used 1.25GHz MDD instead of upgrading? There are many other architectural improvements to these models beyond the processor speed.

[bartman00]

You've got almost the exact same machine I had/have.

I've got a AGP graphics, 1gig, ATI 8500, and it was upgraded to a dual 500. The dual was nice. It runs stuff great and I can't realy explain it but for a car analogy you can really feel the torque of the dual. I upgraded to a GigaDesigns 1ghz G4 that overclocks to 1.3ghz. I can say it is much faster and more than likely better for what you'll be using it for.

If we're talking the same price for ether card.. get the 1.25ghz card.. if you're going to have to lay out some cash and the dual 500 is free... go with it first. I don't think I would have payed the $400 for the 1.3ghz I have now again.. I think I would have stuck with the dual 500 even though the 1.3 is faster..it's not 400 clams faster. You're still stuck with the 100mhz bus now matter how you slice it.

My room mate just got a new 15" 1.33ghz PB..I can't believe how much smoother and faster this machin is that my power mac.. the only thing that is much faster on the PB is the system bus so this has to be a major factor in the smooth feeling.

All tests are seat of my pants so it's sort of objective..but when you're using you're mahcine isn't that what really matters? how it feels not what numbers it posts in some fake benchmark?

Bart

[Thain Esh Kelch]

Photoshop and most Mhz, 'nuff said.

[Cadaver]

Wow. So far clearly people are voting for MHz...

I suppose it would be a much closer race if I had suggested something like Dual 500MHz vs. Single 867 or 933MHz, eh?

Weren't the 500MHz 7400's more efficient Mhz-for-MHz than the G4 revision used in the 733/800/867MHz machines?

The reason I'm leaning towards a DP machine is because I tend to be a multitasker. I don't mind if a foreground window resizes a bit more slowly if what's happening in the background continues to hum along without interuption (burning a CD, moving files to/from network storage, etc). Duals have the advantage here.

Either way, this will be a secondary work machine (replacing a 900MHz G3). I think two 500MHz G4s should do pretty well against a 900MHz G3 (other things being equal).

Well, I suppose if I find the Dual 500 too slow for my work, I can always replace the processor and sell the dual G4 module to someone with a single 450 or 500... For word processing and PowerPoint/Keynote, I don't think a 100MHz (vs. 133MHz) bus will make too much of a real-world noticable difference. Again, no games on this machine.

[Lateralus]

Originally posted by Cadaver:
Weren't the 500MHz 7400's more efficient Mhz-for-MHz than the G4 revision used in the 733/800/867MHz machines?

Yes and no.

A 533MHz 7410 was about as fast as a 733MHz 7450 QuickSilver. The only reason for that is because without Level 3 cache, the 7450 is a total dog, and the 733MHz QuickSilver had none. Once Level 3 cache is added, the performance between the 7400-series and 7450-series evens out. In addition, the 7455 revision of the 7450 offered about a 10% performance jump clock-for-clock over the 7450, even without Level 3 cache.

[The Placid Casual]

1.25 G4 every time. I would usually say to always go dual, but in this case, the 1.25 offers mch more options. For example.

Some apps like VPC only use one available processor. On a Dual 500, although not down too far on the 1.25ghz machine in actual mhz, VPC would run like a dog as it would only be able to use a 500mhz G4. On a 1.25ghz machine it would be fine...

I speak from experience as I run a dual 450 next to my dual 1.8 G5 and also a Powerbook.

[ReggieX]

Go single. The new processor cards with the big L3 cache will rip apart the dual 500 you're proposing, especially with the apps you're using.

[Detrius]

If you haven't bought the machine yet, I'd vote for a Digital Audio G4 or later, as that's when Apple added firewire booting ability and other nifty netboot things.

The 533MHz G4 was on par with the 667MHz G4, and therefore, just barely beat by the 733MHz. The dual 533 therefore seriously trounced the single 733 when OS X finally came out. But in your case, you are talking about a dual 500MHz vs. a single 1.25GHz. Basically, single thread programs will run more than twice as fast on the 1.25GHz. Multithreaded programs will still run probably a good 25% faster on the 1.25GHz just because of raw speed and the fact that multiprocessing is not nearly 100% efficient on the G4s. The single 1.25GHz will be overall faster than the dual 500MHz.

[bartman00]

Fire Wire booting added first with digital audio??? Oh really? Someone tell my AGP graphics to quit booting from my firewire drive then!

Bart