Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Eug · Mar 23, 2007, 09:57 PM

G4 7448 review

1 MB L2 cache <-- Faster per clock
90 nm & Improved power saving features <-- Cooler running

Up to 2.0 GHz or dual 1.8

Nice, but I'm glad I didn't wait for the 7448 for my Cube.

Note that there is no Cube specific 7448 upgrade card anyway.

Lateralus · Mar 23, 2007, 10:27 PM

I was going to mention this a few days ago but I had a feeling nobody besides me would care.

Also don't forget that the 7448 includes the first revision to the AltiVec engine since the G4+ hit back in '01. From what I've heard, it boasts a performance improvement of around 15%, which is nothing to sneeze at.

If anybody releases a 7448 Dualie for the MDD, I'll be all over it. Don't really care about the cost.

I'd expect to see Sonnet do it first since they're currently the only ones who've bothered to make an MDD upgrade based on the 7447A. And with the similarities between the 7447A and the 7448, they've already got a solid template.

BigBadBiologist · Mar 23, 2007, 11:04 PM

Man, I wish I had an extra $400 to blow.

wei · Mar 24, 2007, 05:25 AM

lol... now a better reason for older cards to go for sales??

Eug · Mar 24, 2007, 04:41 PM

It's hard to justify these cards to very many people, given the cost of the Intel dual-core Macs.

That said, a Photoshop box could benefit greatly, considering that the only way to make Photoshop fast nowadays (or next week) on a currently shipping Mac (excluding refurbs) is to buy CS3.

SSharon · Mar 24, 2007, 11:36 PM

I feel like I am an ideal candidate for this since I have a relatively slow dual 1ghz MDD. I just don't see how it is worth $680 for a dual 1.8ghz upgrade. Sure it will be faster but I can buy a mac mini for that price.
If someone with a dual 1.4 plans on upgrading and wants to get rid of their old processor for cheap, that would be another story.

imitchellg5 · Mar 25, 2007, 11:58 AM

How would the dual 1.8 GHz G4 compare to a dual 1.8 GHz G5?

Lateralus · 02:00 PM

It'd stomp the G5 in overall performance.

I went from a Dual 1.8GHz G5 to a Dual 1.8GHz 7447A upgraded Digital Audio. There were plenty of tasks where the 7447A actually pulled ahead of the G5.

imitchellg5 · Mar 25, 2007, 02:40 PM

Hmm. Good to know. I've been thinking about upgrading my DA to 1.8 GHz Dual.

Eug · Mar 25, 2007, 08:58 PM

Originally Posted by Lateralus

It'd stomp the G5 in overall performance.

No it wouldn't. It would beat it in some tests, but the G4 7448's floating point performance would still be total crap. Because of that, some would still consider the G5 a superior chip overall.

Kinda moot though, since even a current Mac mini would be faster than a dual 1.8 PPC anything in most tests on average.

Lateralus · Mar 25, 2007, 09:32 PM

Heh... Yeah, you're right. I wouldn't know. It's not like I thorougly benched my Dual 7447A vs my Dual G5...

imitchellg5 · Mar 25, 2007, 09:59 PM

I'd still take the G4 just because I hate listening to my parent's iMac G5 constantly changing fans.

Eug · 12:26 AM

Originally Posted by Lateralus

Heh... Yeah, you're right. I wouldn't know. It's not like I thorougly benched my Dual 7447A vs my Dual G5...

I've done enough benching too. Plus, it's been reported about a bazillion times over that the G4 is terrible at floating point. It's not even in the same league as the G5.

Your repeating how great the G4 is over and over in these types of threads isn't going to change that.

Lateralus · Mar 26, 2007, 12:43 AM

Like I said, having owned just about every possibly Mac configuration under the sun must mean I have no clue what I'm talking about.

But hey, feel free to link to a few more charts that show results from specialized, synthetic benchmarks. I really couldn't care less. I stand by my statement that in general computing, the G4 is faster.

centerchannel68 · Mar 26, 2007, 01:08 AM

Too bad this took so long, or they'd have probably had another sale. The real problem, however, is that apart from spending a bunch of money and MAYBE getting a working GPU, graphics cards have LONG since been discontinued for the G4 systems.... modern ones can't even be flashed, because nobody makes AGP 4x cards anymore.

Eug · Mar 26, 2007, 01:19 AM

Originally Posted by Lateralus

Like I said, having owned just about every possibly Mac configuration under the sun must mean I have no clue what I'm talking about.

But hey, feel free to link to a few more charts that show results from specialized, synthetic benchmarks. I really couldn't care less. I stand by my statement that in general computing, the G4 is faster.

Will do.

Simon · Mar 26, 2007, 03:40 AM

Regarding the 7448 upgrade cards I'll loosely quote HardMac: Too little, too late.

centerchannel68 · Mar 26, 2007, 08:38 AM

I'm kinda with lateralus. My dual 1.33ghz G4 felt 'snappier' while using the OS, in comparison to any G5 system I've EVER used. I'm not sure why, either.

Eug · Mar 26, 2007, 09:37 AM

Well, if you're going to talk snappiness, IMO the iMac Core 2 Duo feels snappier than any dual Power Mac (G4 or G5) for basic OS usage.

imitchellg5 · Mar 26, 2007, 10:26 AM

Originally Posted by Eug

Well, if you're going to talk snappiness, IMO the iMac Core 2 Duo feels snappier than any dual Power Mac (G4 or G5) for basic OS usage.

Really? The Intel systems I've used (all of the Core 2 Duo and Xeon stuff) really seemed slower to me than our 1.8 GHz G5.

Eug · Mar 26, 2007, 10:34 AM

Originally Posted by imitchellg5

Really? The Intel systems I've used (all of the Core 2 Duo and Xeon stuff) really seemed slower to me than our 1.8 GHz G5.

Well, FWIW, my Intel Core 2 Duo 2.33 iMac feels faster than my friend's dual G5 2.0. I do have a better GPU than he does though, but then again my MacBook even feels pretty peppy (although when the drive is accessed it feels slower, since it is only a laptop drive).

I'm just talking about basic OS usage though. For MS Office 2004, the intelMac feels like it's caught in a time warp. Same goes for Photoshop CS2. (Both of those are running under Rosetta.)

P · Mar 27, 2007, 07:50 AM

The G4 can feel faster because the memory latency is so low. The G5 has a high memory latency and really needs that bigger L2 cache from the dualcore models (where it went from 512 K for one core to 1 MB per core for a total of 2 MB). The Core 2 Duo feels faster than either, running native code, because of it's even bigger (and more intelligently designed) L2 cache. In general, the G4 can be slightly faster at certain tasks, but it will never crush the G5 at anything. The G5 will crush, obliterate and annihilate the G4 if you tilt the workload towards memory bandwidth and floating point performance.

Also note that if you're comparing a dual 1.8 GHz G4 to a dual 1.8 GHz G5, you're comparing a brand new CPU to one that's several years old by now. You can't isolate clockspeed from the rest of the design - a CPU can be fast because it permits a higher clockspeed than its competitors. The G4 was also always a much more expensive processor than the G5 (although the G5 required more expensive motherboard parts).

Eug · 09:14 AM

Originally Posted by P

The G4 can feel faster because the memory latency is so low. The G5 has a high memory latency and really needs that bigger L2 cache from the dualcore models (where it went from 512 K for one core to 1 MB per core for a total of 2 MB). The Core 2 Duo feels faster than either, running native code, because of it's even bigger (and more intelligently designed) L2 cache. In general, the G4 can be slightly faster at certain tasks, but it will never crush the G5 at anything. The G5 will crush, obliterate and annihilate the G4 if you tilt the workload towards memory bandwidth and floating point performance.

That sounds like a fair assessment to me. The 512 KB cache in the original PPC 970 was a bit anemic.

Also note that if you're comparing a dual 1.8 GHz G4 to a dual 1.8 GHz G5, you're comparing a brand new CPU to one that's several years old by now.

Yup. Since buying my 1.7 GHz G4 7447A (in 2004!), I've already bought a 2.0 GHz G5, used it for almost 2 years, and then sold it... and now the 1.8-2.0 GHz G4 7448 finally comes out. As many have said, too little, too late.

Aron Peterson · Mar 27, 2007, 12:04 PM

G4's FPU is sh!t.

Don Pickett · Mar 28, 2007, 12:24 AM

Originally Posted by P

The G4 can feel faster because the memory latency is so low. The G5 has a high memory latency and really needs that bigger L2 cache from the dualcore models (where it went from 512 K for one core to 1 MB per core for a total of 2 MB). The Core 2 Duo feels faster than either, running native code, because of it's even bigger (and more intelligently designed) L2 cache. In general, the G4 can be slightly faster at certain tasks, but it will never crush the G5 at anything. The G5 will crush, obliterate and annihilate the G4 if you tilt the workload towards memory bandwidth and floating point performance.

Also note that if you're comparing a dual 1.8 GHz G4 to a dual 1.8 GHz G5, you're comparing a brand new CPU to one that's several years old by now. You can't isolate clockspeed from the rest of the design - a CPU can be fast because it permits a higher clockspeed than its competitors. The G4 was also always a much more expensive processor than the G5 (although the G5 required more expensive motherboard parts).

I'm working on an upgraded dual G4 at the moment and even my single 1.8 G5 beats it when working with large files. The G4's Achilles heel, for me, has always been its anemic front side bus. Working with big Photoshop or Illustrator files is a real pain.

skilled2k1 · Mar 28, 2007, 10:47 AM

Well heres my direct comparison.
Up until last fall I was using a 2001 Quicksilver. Over time I had pretty much maxed it out. Gigadesigns Dual 1.8ghz upgrade, Radeon 9800 128mb, SIIG SATA controller with a Western Digital 250gb 16mb drive, 1.5gb RAM, Samsung 16x DVD+-R drive. Compared to its stock config, the upgraded system screamed. But some things still werent perfect. It couldnt play 720p HD movies without a decent amount of frame drop, moving around FinalCut Pro and Motion was tedious at best, and overall it just didnt feel snappy.

I was watching a Dual 1.8ghz G5 Powermac on ebay. Due to the bidders low feedback no one was bidding on it so I won the auction a great price. It ended up being a Rev C G5 (so it only has 4 RAM slots).
Its spec's:
Dual 1.8ghz G5
2gb RAM (4x 512mb)
Radeon 9800XT 256mb
Western Digital 250gb 16mb (pulled from the quicksilver)

I was nervous before the machine arrived that I was going to be disappointed, considering they are so close in specification and that I wasted my money. But the G5 has been awesome. Firefox is worlds smoother (esp with scrolling), window resizing is a good deal more responsive as are finalcut and motion. In areas where my Quicksilver might have begun to stutter, the G5 runs like a champ. And it does while being nearly whisper quiet. I suspect the Dual 2.0ghz G5 would have been a better choice in the end, but I couldnt pass on the price of this Dual 1.8ghz. I ended up parting the G4 off, and actually broke even on the upgrade.

I know this isnt the most scientific comparison between two systems, but its my subjective review. The one thing I miss about the Quicksilver though was just the fun in finding new ways to improve it

Eug · Mar 28, 2007, 10:55 AM

Well, the problem with the Quicksilver is its lousy 133 MHz bus. Matched with a 200 MHz bus, the 7448 would do much better.

OTOH, 200 MHz is still damn slow by today's standards.

skilled2k1 · Mar 28, 2007, 02:24 PM

Yeah 133mhz vs. 900mhz. I always wondered how a dual 1.42ghz 7445 based upgrade would do playing 720p content, if the extra 2mb L3 would help make up for the slow FSB, given the high bitrate, might have more benefit than the higher clockspeeds of the 7447a upgrades

imitchellg5 · Mar 28, 2007, 02:46 PM

Originally Posted by skilled2k1

Yeah 133mhz vs. 900mhz. I always wondered how a dual 1.42ghz 7445 based upgrade would do playing 720p content, if the extra 2mb L3 would help make up for the slow FSB, given the high bitrate, might have more benefit than the higher clockspeeds of the 7447a upgrades

It is wierd that my 533 MHz Digital Audio can play 1080i videos smoothly? I get the feeling that Macs like that can't.

Eug · Mar 28, 2007, 02:59 PM

Originally Posted by imitchellg5

It is wierd that my 533 MHz Digital Audio can play 1080i videos smoothly? I get the feeling that Macs like that can't.

MPEG2 is easy to decode.
H.264 is difficult to decode.

newtech · Mar 28, 2007, 07:20 PM

7448 YAAAAWN! Freescale get a clue, do a 7458 ( on a 65 nM process ) . The L3 cache is vital given low bus speeds

chris v · Mar 28, 2007, 09:52 PM

Originally Posted by Eug

Well, the problem with the Quicksilver is its lousy 133 MHz bus. Matched with a 200 MHz bus, the 7448 would do much better.

The other problem with a QS is the measly # of RAM slots. I'd seriously consider one of these for my QS if it didn't top out at 1.5 gb of RAM. No way I'd be able to run Quark 7, Illustrator & Photoshop CS3 with 1.5 gb, happiy, anyway. The fancy CPUs would be sitting there waiting for applications to be retrieved from VM.

While I don't really want to go Intel at this point, (I need Illustrator 10 because of the postscript language my thermal film printer speaks, and my staff artisit likes Freehand, which Adobe has basically cast adrift) I do need to upgrade soon to some machines that'll hold 3-4 gb of RAM, so because of that, I'm going with used G5s as soon as I can afford to.

DrBoar · Mar 30, 2007, 12:12 PM

The G4 upgrade needs to get cheaper and cooler not faster!
A 100 dollar 1.5 to 2 GHz G4 may be useful but what is the point of a dual 4 GHz G4 for many hundred of dollars?
he bus would starve the CPU and as a gaming rig it is limited that the only decent option is the ATI 9800, a low end card performance wise but still very expensive.

P · Mar 30, 2007, 05:59 PM

Originally Posted by DrBoar

The G4 upgrade needs to get cheaper and cooler not faster!

Not a problem - just make a cheaper cooler G4 for the upgrade manufacturers to use.

The G4 is primarily focused on the embedded market (as it was for the end of its life in Macs). For those applications, it doesn't need 2 GHz. It barely needs 1 GHz speeds, but at 1 GHz, it's not an upgrade for most people. To get a good upgrade chip, manufacturers buy the highest rated, highest clockspeed chips and overvolt them to squeeze out every bit of performance. As a result, they run hot and are expensive. Life's a bitch and then you die.