[mustangsandmadras]

hello,
i'm going to be getting a little bonus this week from work and i'm having a hard time deciding what to do with it. I've got about five hundred set aside for computer use, here are the options i'm considering.

1. i have a rev1 b&w g3. i could upgrade the processor, HD and memory pretty well with $500, but i've heard some bad things about upgrading the HD's on rev1's

2. i could get a new mac mini, but i'm not sure about them. i think i want something i can upgrade later down the road instead of having to buy a new machine

3. i could buy a used g4, preferrably a quicksilver. a quicksilver wouldn't need much upgrading right away, just the processor eventually. a sawtooth/digital audio would be cheaper at first, but i'd definitely have to do some upgrades sooner.

i'm just looking for some advice, please share some if you can.
thanks,
-tom

[OreoCookie]

For $500 you could buy a Mac mini which would be a lot faster than a Quicksilver, let alone an upgraded bw g3. With your budget, I think it's the best thing to do.

[CanadaRAM]

> rev1 b&w g3 worth upgrading?

Nope.

[mustangsandmadras]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

For $500 you could buy a Mac mini which would be a lot faster than a Quicksilver, let alone an upgraded bw g3. With your budget, I think it's the best thing to do.

yeah, the mac mini would be faster now, but can i upgrade the processor later?

[OreoCookie]

No, but ask yourself this: can you upgrade a Quicksilver efficiently so it is faster than a MacMini? The answer is no. And it will stay that way as the G4 isn't going to get any faster.

So with your slim budget, the answer is and will remain that the Quicksilver is not the better choice. If you want to buy a Quicksilver and upgrade it later, it'll cost you definitely a lot more. If you would want a cpu upgrade which is significantly faster than a mini, for instance, then you would have to get a dual cpu upgrade. Those are already in the same ballpark as a Mac mini -- and you can expect the Mac mini to be upgraded when you buy the upgrade!

[mustangsandmadras]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

No, but ask yourself this: can you upgrade a Quicksilver efficiently so it is faster than a MacMini? The answer is no. And it will stay that way as the G4 isn't going to get any faster.

So with your slim budget, the answer is and will remain that the Quicksilver is not the better choice. If you want to buy a Quicksilver and upgrade it later, it'll cost you definitely a lot more. If you would want a cpu upgrade which is significantly faster than a mini, for instance, then you would have to get a dual cpu upgrade. Those are already in the same ballpark as a Mac mini -- and you can expect the Mac mini to be upgraded when you buy the upgrade!

thanks for the advice!

[Mac Write]

Specs on the B&W G3?. Rev A has bad IDE so adding an IDE card will solve that problem.

I agree get the Mac Mini and use the B&W as a file server/web server,low key apps etc. Put a bigger HD in it using the new IDE card, put in like a 300GB HD and you have a nice file server to complement your Mac Mini.

[iDaver]

Originally Posted by mustangsandmadras

yeah, the mac mini would be faster now, but can i upgrade the processor later?

I've never thought upgrades were the way to go. I'll side with those who say get the mini instead. If you feel like the mini needs an upgrade later, sell it and buy a new mini or whatever has replaced it by then.

[mustangsandmadras]

Originally Posted by Mac Write

Specs on the B&W G3?. Rev A has bad IDE so adding an IDE card will solve that problem.

I agree get the Mac Mini and use the B&W as a file server/web server,low key apps etc. Put a bigger HD in it using the new IDE card, put in like a 300GB HD and you have a nice file server to complement your Mac Mini.

g3 300mhz 6gb.
i'm not very tech savy, so i don't know how to use it as a server for the mini

[iDaver]

I doubt you need a file server. Besides you'd be wasting money on a pretty obsolete Mac. It's probably not worth more than $50 on eBay.

That said, the B&W G3 is still a very usable machine. We have one at our office that's used every day for everything from web surfing to feeding the office with tunes (internet radio) to low end graphic design. Nothing wrong with it at all and except for memory and OS, it hasn't been upgraded.

[Lateralus]

Eh, I'm going to have to disagree with everyone on this.

The Mac Mini is targeted toward people who, for the most part, are looking for a computer that can do basic tasks and then be disposed of in a few years for another machine that can do the same. The fact that you're even contemplating things like processor upgrades, in my opinion, takes your out of Apple's target demographic for the Mini.

As to Oreo's claims; How can the QuickSilver not be upgraded 'efficiently' to be faster than the Mini? The subsystem of every G4 machine is pretty much the same. 100-167MHz SDR bus, comparably spec'd IDE busses, no Core Image graphics support (excluding the current eMac).

Looking at it in that way shows you exactly how level the playing field is when comparing all G4-based desktops shipped since the G4's inception. So what possible reason would there be for looking down upon a machine that can actually be upgraded beyond its basic (in the world of Tiger) equipment package?

Yes, upgrading a G4 does cost a bit, but it's not like there isn't a pay off. A well upgraded G4 tower makes a Mac Mini look like a toy. Dual 1.8GHz G4 upgrades are now $499, and getting cheaper. You cannot compare any Dual 1.8GHz upgraded machine to a 1.25GHz Mini. Completely different performance realm.

As to your claim that the G4 isn't going to get any faster, I don't see how that holds any water. Freescale's 7448 G4 is already heading into the channel. It offers speeds up to 1.8GHz and a doubling of the L2 cache to 1MB, and you can be sure the upgrade manufacturers will be overclocking them for all they're worth and probably shipping them in the 2.2GHz range.

My advice; Buy a used G4 on eBay. 400-450MHz machines with AGP are becoming common for around $150, sometimes with a good bit of RAM. Then, pick one area at a time to concentrate on with upgrades. You can already get Dual G4 upgrades for $350-400. Then, concentrate on graphics or storage... etc.

It will take you longer to assemble a machine that is really tailored to your liking, but it will be far faster and more versatile than a Mini, and it will last you a lot longer too.

IMO; The only reason to go for a Mini over a used G4 is if you have an attachment to the 'new smell' of electronics. And depending on your cleanliness, that's usually gone within a day or so.

[iDaver]

Mustangandmadras has stated that he's not very tech savvy. Not to be condescending, I wonder what software he might use that could take advantage of dual processors. The advantage of buying a new mini every couple of years as I suggest and you refer to is that you get a new warranty and a new operating system, among other things. An upgraded G4 tower leaves you with an old used upgraded system that is probably less reliable, noisier and won't do much that a mini won't do. I just don't like the idea of throwing money into old equipment.

[Lateralus]

Originally Posted by iDaver

...I wonder what software he might use that could take advantage of dual processors.

Mac OS X.

The advantage of buying a new mini every couple of years as I suggest and you refer to is that you get a new warranty and a new operating system, among other things. An upgraded G4 tower leaves you with an old used upgraded system that is probably less reliable, noisier and won't do much that a mini won't do. I just don't like the idea of throwing money into old equipment.

I don't question the reliability of upgraded Macs. I've never had a problem with any Mac I've owned, stock or upgraded to the teeth.

As for the warranty, I really can't say that I see that as a good reason to pick a new machine. Especially when you weigh the 3+ year warranties provided with the upgrade parts by their manufacturers vs Apple's 1 year warranty.

[iDaver]

Lateralus,

What, in particular about OS X benefits from dual processors? The Finder? How much time do we really spend in the Finder? Perhaps iPhoto makes use of duals, I really don't know. Please enlighten me.

You make some good points about reliability, but problems I've had with old Macs were typically with the power supply or the hard disk. The older they get, the less I trust them.

I don't want to sound argumentative. It's just a difference of opinion on older stuff. For instance, I don't believe in spending money on old cars. Six or eight years is about the maximum before I trade them in. (Computer years go faster than car years.)

[Lateralus]

There is not a single aspect of Mac OS X that is not threaded for multiple processors. Everything you do, from copying files in the Finder, to launching applications, to importing CDs in iTunes (or doing most things in most of Apple's iApps), to running multiple applications is broken up over the two processors automatically by Mac OS X.

Having owned more Macs than I can count during the reign of OS X, I refuse to buy a single processor machine. I honestly think they're a waste of money when going dual usually costs on the order of 20% more and lands you with a far more capable machine.

You can almost look at running a dual processor system with a dual-optimized OS as having more RAM. Simply put, you can do more simultaneously with less slowdown.

I'm honestly surprised people still seem to think that dual processor machines only offer an advantage to pro-level customers. Most Power Macs since 2000 have been dual-processor. The trend of dual-optimizing caught on with programmers a long time ago.

[iDaver]

Originally Posted by Lateralus

There is not a single aspect of Mac OS X that is not threaded for multiple processors. Everything you do, from copying files in the Finder, to launching applications, to importing CDs in iTunes (or doing most things in most of Apple's iApps), to running multiple applications is broken up over the two processors automatically by Mac OS X.

Thanks for that. I've almost always used single processor Macs. At work, I sometimes use a dual 1.25 Power Mac G4. While it's faster than my mini at home, it really doesn't seem wicked fast to me. I'm usually not trying to do multiple things at once, just some basic graphic design (mostly mechanicals, not high end stuff). My needs are minimal so I guess that's why I have a hard time understanding the benefits of duals.

I didn't mean to take the thread off-topic. Perhaps mustangandmadras has more to consider now!

[danman]

By the time he adds a new proc, IDE card, bigger HD, faster video card, more RAM, he's well past the return on investment stage.

And that B&W is probabably not AGP so throw core image out of the mix.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Lateralus

As to Oreo's claims; How can the QuickSilver not be upgraded 'efficiently' to be faster than the Mini? The subsystem of every G4 machine is pretty much the same. 100-167MHz SDR bus, comparably spec'd IDE busses, no Core Image graphics support (excluding the current eMac).

Looking at it in that way shows you exactly how level the playing field is when comparing all G4-based desktops shipped since the G4's inception. So what possible reason would there be for looking down upon a machine that can actually be upgraded beyond its basic (in the world of Tiger) equipment package?

Yes, upgrading a G4 does cost a bit, but it's not like there isn't a pay off. A well upgraded G4 tower makes a Mac Mini look like a toy. Dual 1.8GHz G4 upgrades are now $499, and getting cheaper. You cannot compare any Dual 1.8GHz upgraded machine to a 1.25GHz Mini. Completely different performance realm.

As to your claim that the G4 isn't going to get any faster, I don't see how that holds any water. Freescale's 7448 G4 is already heading into the channel. It offers speeds up to 1.8GHz and a doubling of the L2 cache to 1MB, and you can be sure the upgrade manufacturers will be overclocking them for all they're worth and probably shipping them in the 2.2GHz range.

My advice; Buy a used G4 on eBay. 400-450MHz machines with AGP are becoming common for around $150, sometimes with a good bit of RAM. Then, pick one area at a time to concentrate on with upgrades. You can already get Dual G4 upgrades for $350-400. Then, concentrate on graphics or storage... etc.

If you buy such an old machine, there is more to upgrading than just replacing the CPU. If you want a new (large) harddrive, you probably have to buy an ATA controller, if you want a graphics card (you should have a Quartz Extreme-capable graphics card -- again, that depends on which G4 you purchase), you need to replace it.

Also, you need to purchase an operating system, which sets you back another $150 or so.

And about the G4: I wasn't comparing them to a Mac mini, but to a Mac you could buy for all these upgrades. A single G5 beats most dual G4s in terms of speed.

With all these costs adding up, I agree that you can't upgrade a mini, but on the other hand, if the budget is $500, then it is $500. With a larger budget, I would tend to agree with you, though. Although personally, I would get a used G5 by then

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by danman

By the time he adds a new proc, IDE card, bigger HD, faster video card, more RAM, he's well past the return on investment stage.

And that B&W is probabably not AGP so throw core image out of the mix.

No, it doesn't have AGP. So it can't even do Quartz Extreme (without a hack).

If he gets a first-gen/second-gen G4, he also needs to replace the graphics card with a QE graphics card which further decreases his budget.

[Lateralus]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

If you buy such an old machine, there is more to upgrading than just replacing the CPU. If you want a new (large) harddrive, you probably have to buy an ATA controller, if you want a graphics card (you should have a Quartz Extreme-capable graphics card -- again, that depends on which G4 you purchase), you need to replace it.

Also, you need to purchase an operating system, which sets you back another $150 or so.

And about the G4: I wasn't comparing them to a Mac mini, but to a Mac you could buy for all these upgrades. A single G5 beats most dual G4s in terms of speed.

With all these costs adding up, I agree that you can't upgrade a mini, but on the other hand, if the budget is $500, then it is $500. With a larger budget, I would tend to agree with you, though. Although personally, I would get a used G5 by then

I don't see why the IDE controller would need to be upgraded. There is little to no performance difference between ATA-66 and ATA-133.

Mac OS X is $129, retail. Most places have it for $100. And most machines on eBay come with the latest OS pre-installed or with backup copies included.

No, a single G5 does not beat most dual G4s in terms of speed. Not unless there is a very large gap in the clock speed. The G4 in and G5 perform very similarly at the same clock speed, and the G4 is actually faster when it has a large cache.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Lateralus

I don't see why the IDE controller would need to be upgraded. There is little to no performance difference between ATA-66 and ATA-133.

I would upgrade to ATA-133 to be able to use larger drives, not for performance reasons. According to the `official' Power Mac Storage FAQs (your posts), only QuickSilver 2002 and later models can handle large drives properly.

Originally Posted by Lateralus

Mac OS X is $129, retail. Most places have it for $100. And most machines on eBay come with the latest OS pre-installed or with backup copies included.

A pre-installed OS with a `backup copy' doesn't mean you have a licence to run the OS. The costs should be added. Whether you add money for a copy of iLife is a matter of taste.

Originally Posted by Lateralus

No, a single G5 does not beat most dual G4s in terms of speed. Not unless there is a very large gap in the clock speed. The G4 in and G5 perform very similarly at the same clock speed, and the G4 is actually faster when it has a large cache.

That's pretty much a matter of debate, and I think we shouldn't head down that road. However to make an old G4 about as fast in everyday use, you have to update the CPU and the graphics card (I assume, the bare-bone comes with the stock card, a Rage 128 for a Sawtooth G4 or a Gigabit Ethernet model).

Maybe you mistake my argument for `a Mac mini is better suited than an upgraded PowerMac'. I don't argue that in general. For his budget, it is. Granted that he gets a machine off ebay for 100 bucks with enough RAM to run OS X (512 MB, I would say). Then add somewhere around $400 for a nice CPU upgrade. Say, he stays with a harddrive smaller than 127 GB, 120 for arguments sake, in Europe they sell for around 60-65 € a pop (you could take a smaller one, saving some 20 € or so). Then, to really match a mini, he would need a Quartz Extreme graphics card (that makes a big difference, especially when you are addicted to Exposé ).

He could get a Mac mini on ebay for far less and invest the rest in other things. Unless the budget is kicked up a few notches

[Lateralus]

I'm not bringing an ATA card into the picture because I don't see it as being necessary for the Power Mac to provide an advantage over the Mini in storage. It has an advantage by default by being able to use much faster, larger and cheaper desktop IDE drives whereas the Mini is limited to slow, small and expensive notebook drives, none of which exceed the 128GB limit that you'd see on the Power Mac. So any way you slice it, the Power Mac provides a better solution for storage options; Faster, cheaper drives in the immediate. Faster, cheaper, larger drives down the road with the addition of an ATA card.

I understand that his budget is $500 in the immediate, but he will come into funds further down the road, most people do.

Which is why I specifically said to target one or two areas at a time to upgrade with the G4.

The reason I consider the Mini to be out of the picture is because it is handicapped out of the box. 512MBs of RAM is barely sufficient for OS X. And *any* AGP video card that is Quartz Extreme capable that can be purchased for a G4 Power Mac is better than the 32MB Radeon 9200 in the Mini.

So, in my mind, I look at the cost as:

G4 Power Mac from eBay: $150 (Probably with some RAM)
1.8GHz 7447A upgrade: $320 (Or a Dual 1.6/1.73GHz for $420)
Radeon 9000 64MB from eBay: $50
120GB hard drive: $50, or less.

That's $570 for a 1.8GHz machine or $670 for a Dual 1.6/1.73GHz machine. Either way, you've got two machines that outclass the Mini. One by a good bit, one by a great deal. And each with far more options for future expandability, at not too much more money.

[waxcrash]

mustangsandmadras,

At work I have an upgraded G3 B&W.

Originally: 350MHz, 6GB hard drive, 128MB RAM, and ATI Rage 128.

Currently: Sonnet 900MHz G3, 40GB hard drive, 1GB RAM, and 2 ATI Rage 128 for two displays.

I installed 10.3.9 on it. It is used daily with multiple apps running - Quark, Photoshop, Illustrator, mail, iTunes, Word, Excel, etc. I've never had any problems and it runs great. I was thinking of putting an ATI 9200 PCI card in, but the 2 Rage cards work fine for what I need.

You can upgrade to a 1GHz G3 for around $200. Add a minimum of 1GB RAM and a bigger hard drive and you should be good to go.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Lateralus

I'm not bringing an ATA card into the picture because I don't see it as being necessary for the Power Mac to provide an advantage over the Mini in storage. It has an advantage by default by being able to use much faster, larger and cheaper desktop IDE drives whereas the Mini is limited to slow, small and expensive notebook drives, none of which exceed the 128GB limit that you'd see on the Power Mac. So any way you slice it, the Power Mac provides a better solution for storage options; Faster, cheaper drives in the immediate. Faster, cheaper, larger drives down the road with the addition of an ATA card.

I understand that his budget is $500 in the immediate, but he will come into funds further down the road, most people do.

Which is why I specifically said to target one or two areas at a time to upgrade with the G4.

The reason I consider the Mini to be out of the picture is because it is handicapped out of the box. 512MBs of RAM is barely sufficient for OS X. And *any* AGP video card that is Quartz Extreme capable that can be purchased for a G4 Power Mac is better than the 32MB Radeon 9200 in the Mini.

So, in my mind, I look at the cost as:

G4 Power Mac from eBay: $150 (Probably with some RAM)
1.8GHz 7447A upgrade: $320 (Or a Dual 1.6/1.73GHz for $420)
Radeon 9000 64MB from eBay: $50
120GB hard drive: $50, or less.

That's $570 for a 1.8GHz machine or $670 for a Dual 1.6/1.73GHz machine. Either way, you've got two machines that outclass the Mini. One by a good bit, one by a great deal. And each with far more options for future expandability, at not too much more money.

For roughly $1000 you could get either a used iMac G5 or a 1st gen PowerMac G5 (in the case of the iMac, you'd already have a nice 17" lcd ). But then, you'd already spend twice as much as originally planned

[Lateralus]

And either of them would be far slower than a Dual 1.7GHz Power Mac G4. So I don't see your point, considering any G5 option would cost several hundred dollars more.

[mustangsandmadras]

maybe i should mention that i plan on building a small home recording studio around my computer purchase. other than that it will only be used for internet and iTunes, no gaming or anything. would i still need to update the graphics card in a used g4?
thanks to everyone for their input on this, i've got a lot to consider here, but i'm leaning towards a used g4.
i wish i would have chosen a differnet title for this thread.

[Lateralus]

If you're looking to make your machine a center for a recording studio, even a small one, you've pretty much decided on a Power Mac. The versatility is a must.

As for the graphics card, you do and you don't need to upgrade it. Mac OS X puts a lot weight on the graphics card when you have a Quartz Extreme capable card. Weight that would otherwise be put on the processor. So, the consensus is that a Quartz Extreme graphics card is a must for any OS X system. But I wouldn't recommend anything too extravagant, such as a 9800 Pro. A basic Radeon 9000 with 64MBs of RAM would do you fine.

If you happen to land a G4 with a basic 32MB Radeon or GeForce, I'd ride with it for a while and concentrate on other areas first with upgrades.

[P]

A bunch of comments on all of this:

If I were you, I'd go for a Mac mini. Made to be thrown out in a few years? Yes, perhaps - but by then all of Apple's machines are going to be Intel-based. You're never going to upgrade that G4 with an Intel CPU, and it's likely that the Mac-Intels are cheaper than today's Macs anyway. Use it for now - it's great value today - and relegate it to a second computer in a few years, replacing it with a Mac-Intel. With what we know of the internal OS X design, an ABI more suited for x86 than for PPC etc and underperforming compilers, Mac-Intels have a good chance out distancing our old PPC-based Macs quite soon.

Don't put too much faith in future G4s of great speeds. What the G4 needs, and has needed for some time, is a better FSB. You can't put a G4 with a new FSB design on an old motherboard. Also consider that with Apple leaving the G4, there is little incentive to develop the personal computing aspects of it. Of course there is development for the embedded space, but it doesn't really apply. You can take an early G4 and upgrade to 4 times the original clockspeed. That's remarkable, but don't expect to see it happening again.

Mac OS X indeed makes use of dual CPUs. Because there is always some background task running - check Activity Monitor after boot to see exactly how much is started - that task can be moved to the other CPU, freeing up the main one for what you're working on. The limitation is in the kernel. Basically, pre-Tiger versions allowed only one CPU in each half of the kernel. If both tasks running wanted to use the same half, one had to wait. Tiger improves this by making the areas under each lock smaller, so the risk is lessened. If you're going dual, get Tiger.

The G4 can outperform a G5 when running integer code with random memory accesses of a large dataset (= larger than the L2 cache). The G5 will always win when memory bandwidth is important, or when running floating point code. The difference is that G4 might squeze ahead by a few percentage points in the areas it wins, but the G5 will win by a huge percentage on its home turf. Note that the slowest G5 ever released, the 1.6 GHz iMac G5, has more than 3 times the memory bandwidth on its single core than the combined bandwidth, both cores, of any G4 ever released. Now compare it with that 2.7 GHz dual G5...

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Lateralus

And either of them would be far slower than a Dual 1.7GHz Power Mac G4. So I don't see your point, considering any G5 option would cost several hundred dollars more.

Well, in terms of specmarks, the G5 wins hands down. A 1 GHz G4 has a specfp mark of around 182. Add 70 % to account for improvements in compiler technology and the increase in clockspeed (although I'm generous here, except for the G5, I know of no architecture which scales better than 50 % for each increase in clock speed), that'll amount to roughly specfp 317. Multiply by two and you end up around 640. Old figures of the 2.0 GHz G5 place it at 840 specfp marks, although gcc 4.0 should improve performance.

The two machines would be closer with their specint marks, but I don't see your claim supported, that a dual G4 wins `hands down' against a single G5. Also, the appeal of an iMac is that it already includes a screen.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by mustangsandmadras

maybe i should mention that i plan on building a small home recording studio around my computer purchase. other than that it will only be used for internet and iTunes, no gaming or anything. would i still need to update the graphics card in a used g4?
thanks to everyone for their input on this, i've got a lot to consider here, but i'm leaning towards a used g4.
i wish i would have chosen a differnet title for this thread.

With a Quartz Extreme-capabale graphics card, you improve your workflow. I used to have an old TiBook at work with 32 MB video RAM. As soon as I used a second monitor, Quartz Extreme switched off and things like Exposé and various other OS X effects were a lot choppier.

[Lateralus]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

Well, in terms of specmarks, the G5 wins hands down. A 1 GHz G4 has a specfp mark of around 182. Add 70 % to account for improvements in compiler technology and the increase in clockspeed (although I'm generous here, except for the G5, I know of no architecture which scales better than 50 % for each increase in clock speed), that'll amount to roughly specfp 317. Multiply by two and you end up around 640. Old figures of the 2.0 GHz G5 place it at 840 specfp marks, although gcc 4.0 should improve performance.

The two machines would be closer with their specint marks, but I don't see your claim supported, that a dual G4 wins `hands down' against a single G5. Also, the appeal of an iMac is that it already includes a screen.

Sorry, but you lost me when you started quoting specfp.

In the past year, I've owned a Dual 1.8GHz G4, a Dual 1.8GHz G5 and a 2GHz iMac. I put them all through their paces during the months that I owned them. And I've said it before, I'll say it again; There are as many things that I find to be faster with a G4 as I find to be faster with a G5.

And until you've owned, benchmarked and paced G4 and G5 machines or similar spec, I don't see your grounds for refuting that.

[OreoCookie]

To be honest, I have never worked with G4 with cpu upgrades, but I've tested things on machines from a lowly bondi blue iMac to a Dual G5 2.0. Although I didn't own any of them, I have used quite a few different machines (no time to benchmark them in detail either )

If you want to find areas where the speed difference is minimal, then this is Altivec. Both, the G4 and the G5 have only one Altivec unit (and according arstechnica reports, the G5s Altivec unit is supposed to be slightly more primitive), they should be, per clock, approximately as fast as the other.

SPECmarks are the best platform-wide comparison of cpu architectures and compilers I know of (everything from Itanium, Power5, to Opteron and G5). I just wanted to refute your claim, the Dual G4 was a lot, lot faster than the G5s. Certainly there are benchmarks for anything, but this is the best cross-platform benchmark out there. It is strictly a single-cpu benchmarks (to measure the gain by a second cpu, there are different specmarks, spec rate) so you won't see the benefit of a second cpu in this `number'.

[danman]

Buying a used G4 and spending the money to upgrade it is an investment in the future. You are probably planning on having this upgraded box for the next 2 years after the money spent bringing it up to speed.

I think it would be a better investment buying a mini and using it for a year or two then buying one of the new Intel Macs. The mini would be a wash as it is pretty cheap, you could sell it on ebay for a few hundered bucks and not lose any money in the long run. If you upgraded your old G4 with everything that has been suggested above, in a few years it would be worth a little more than the mini. A lot more lost in the long run.

Buy a new G5 or a mini. Forget the G4 upgrade.

I previously had a Quicksilver G4. Put in a dual 1.8ghz CPU, SATA card, new HD, 1.5 GB's of RAM, and a 9800 pro. I parted it off and bought a new dual 2.0ghz G5. The G5 is light years faster and just as important - QUIETER. The G4 upgrade cards can add tons of noise to the case. The G4 1.8's are so frickin loud it's not even funny. And my G5 is cooler as well.

[P]

Originally Posted by Lateralus

Sorry, but you lost me when you started quoting specfp.

In the past year, I've owned a Dual 1.8GHz G4, a Dual 1.8GHz G5 and a 2GHz iMac. I put them all through their paces during the months that I owned them. And I've said it before, I'll say it again; There are as many things that I find to be faster with a G4 as I find to be faster with a G5.

And until you've owned, benchmarked and paced G4 and G5 machines or similar spec, I don't see your grounds for refuting that.

Would you mind spcing those machines out a bit more for us? I have noticed recently that the G5 seems to require a bit more RAM ot get off the ground and start pulling ahead (see thread in the iMac forum) and that while 512 or even 384 is enough for a G3 or G4, the G5 needs more.

[Lateralus]

In order of ownership*;

Dual 1.8GHz G4 / 1.5GBs / Radeon 9800 Pro / Serial-ATA
Dual 1.8GHz G5 / 2GBs / X800 XT, 9800 Pro SE
iMac G5 2GHz / 1GB / Radeon 9600
Dual 1.8GHz G4 / 1.5GBs / GeForce FX 5200 / Serial-ATA

[P]

And you think the (top) Dual G4 is faster than the Dual G5? Doing what? I really can't imagine a situation where that would happen. Lower memory latency yes, but with a system bandwidth of 167 MHz@64 bits vs. 2*900 Mhz@64 bits... I just can't see it.

[OreoCookie]

Well, there's another Dual 1.8 GHz G4 on the bottom, the only difference seems to be the graphics card (from the specs posted), so I don't think it's ordered.