Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

chatam · Apr 10, 2004, 12:30 PM

I am about to upgrade the RAM in my Quicksilver G4/733, and was wondering whether a substantial difference - in multitasking and overall performance - is to be expected by switching from the actual 768 to the maximum allowed of 1536 MB.

I'm triyng to get the most possible juice from the rig, and any word from experience would be welcome.

Also, whether or not the speed of the memory is critical: I presently have PC 133 SDRAM but PC 100 only sticks more handy for convenience.

Thanks all for the help.

Nivag · Apr 10, 2004, 03:36 PM

Well, i have the 933Mhz with 1.25Gb of ram, which used to have 768Mb before i added another chip and i noticed the difference. I'm running 10.3.3 and it's sweeet!

i would stick to PC133 if you have already got them, otherwise the RAM speed will drop to the lower speed if you add PC100. More speed and RAM are always a good thing!

bartman00 · Apr 10, 2004, 09:33 PM

not exactly.. if you try and use pc100 the thing won't boot. you have to use pc133..

Bart

D'Espice · Apr 11, 2004, 10:59 AM

Exactly. Given that you have a 133 MHz FSB you also need 133 MHz RAM - aka PC133

Yoshi · Apr 11, 2004, 12:35 PM

Hey D', you need t come back to IRC

.

Anyway thats incorrect, in Panther, the MC (Memory Controller) is set to run ALL RAM at PC100 CL2 (2-2-2), to be honest, I saw a bigger performance boost from a faster Hard Drive and CPU Upgrades personally.

PC133 CL2/3 RAM is perferred, but since Panther runs all memory at PC100 I don't see the conclusive evidence that PC100 makes a difference over PC133 anyway.

~Yoshi|s1

D'Espice · Apr 11, 2004, 12:58 PM

The OS cannot set the RAM to run at 100 MHz if the FSB is 133 MHz. The chipset is what decides whether to run the RAM at 100 or 133 MHz. And the Macs are synchronous, 100 FSB = 100 RAM and 133 FSB = 133 RAM.

That is definitely NOT for the OS to decide, that'd be too easy

Plus, it'd be rather stupid for Apple to slow their computers down just for fun, don't you think?

Scotttheking · Apr 11, 2004, 01:09 PM

Originally posted by Yoshi:
Hey D', you need t come back to IRC .

Anyway thats incorrect, in Panther, the MC (Memory Controller) is set to run ALL RAM at PC100 CL2 (2-2-2), to be honest, I saw a bigger performance boost from a faster Hard Drive and CPU Upgrades personally.

PC133 CL2/3 RAM is perferred, but since Panther runs all memory at PC100 I don't see the conclusive evidence that PC100 makes a difference over PC133 anyway.

~Yoshi|s1

That's a software bug. It'll show it as PC100 no matter what it actually is.

chatam · Apr 11, 2004, 01:09 PM

I am a bit confused here: where I could obtain more information on the subject?

The block diagram of the G4 QS 2001 published by Apple clearly indicaates the SDRAM memory bus as running at 133 MHz.

Have tried to mount borrowed 100 MHz sticks, but performance appears to be gone down notwithstanding the increased RAM.

D'Espice · Apr 13, 2004, 06:37 AM

Originally posted by chatam:
Have tried to mount borrowed 100 MHz sticks, but performance appears to be gone down notwithstanding the increased RAM.

Dude, are you even reading our answers or you just like "WTF I know better!"?

chatam · Apr 13, 2004, 07:08 AM

Sorry, no offence intended, really.

I'm quite convinced that the PC 133 RAM should be used, as more appropriate to the memory bus declared speed. But, having the PC 100 stich at hand, I thought they were worth a try.

What I wanted to point out, for the benefit of other forum users, is that the mismatch of RAM speed is killing performance even doubling the amount of installed RAM.

CIA · Apr 13, 2004, 08:59 PM

PC133 ONLY, do not use PC100, if it will even work.
I maxed out my QS DP800 to 1.5GB and never looked back. Ram is so cheap these days you might as well. It will only increase the resale value when you buy your new G6 8-)
You will notice the difference.

jeronimo · Oct 10, 2004, 07:50 PM

I have a 533 DP, I know it's 133 RAM, but, can I use any faster chips? 133 are hard to find where I am, those 2400 or somthing are cheaper and easier to find... will it work?

Lateralus · Oct 10, 2004, 07:52 PM

They're DDR RAM. Your system uses SDRAM. Different physical size. Incompatible.

glideslope · Oct 10, 2004, 08:17 PM

So nice to see a post on the beloved 733 QS. I've been running 1.5g of 133 since I brought her home on 8/10/01. I find running PS CS to be productive. She is faster than the G5 1.8 iMac with 256mb at the Apple Store! Put all the ram you can afford in her.

I've upgraded video 2X and run 2 80g Seagate HD's. She is the workhorse for my Digital Photos.

Is she a little slow, and grey? Of course. But the 733 QS IMO will go down in Mac History as one of the best machines Apple ever built.

Sorry for the length. I get carried away when it comes to the 733 QS.

Lateralus · Oct 10, 2004, 08:48 PM

Actually, the 733 QS is seen as one of the worst Power Macs in recent years. It lacked L3 cache so it performed rather badly and ended up not being much faster than the 533MHz Digital Audio because of it.

Not to burst your bubble.

Anyways, I agree that in general QuickSilvers are fantastic machines. You might want to look into a nice procesor upgrade with 2MBs of L3 cache, single or dual you'll see a massive performance boost.

glideslope · Oct 10, 2004, 09:22 PM

Geeze, you could have let me down a little easier than that

It will always have a special place 2" off my floor, and 4" from my wall.

Besides, revision C will be here for the G5 in the spring. I'll take the plunge then!

Lateralus · Oct 10, 2004, 09:24 PM

Originally posted by glideslope:
Geeze, you could have let me down a little easier than that

*Hugs*