[The Blue Meanie]

I have an iMac DV 400mhz (10gb HD, Rage 128 card) and I have recently been looking into (inexpensive) ways of upgrading it. I dont' want to buy a new model right now for financial reasons, because none have DVD drives and because the legendary LCD iMac is reportedly just a few months away now - nevertheless, the bottom-of-the-line indigo model is temptingly cheap, especially now that it comes with a 16 mg Rage Ultra card. On the other hand, I could get a refurbished iMac DV SE from last year and not sacrifice a DVD drive.....
The trouble is that both of these options would involve spending somewhere between �300 and �400 (roughly $400 to $550), and suddenly now that I look at the figures I not at all sure it's worth it. With the bottom of the range Indigo I'd get a marginally faster processor and video card and a larger hard drive, but lose a DVD drive and therefore have to buy an external one, and with the DV SE, I'd get a larger HD, a marginally faster processor and even more marginally faster video card.
With no processor or video upgrades available for the later iMacs would anyone care to venture an opinion on this - is it really worth it? What is the real world speed difference (say in fractions of a second) between a 400mhz and 500mhz G3, if both have plenty of memory? And what about the differences between the Rage 128, 128 Pro, and the 128 Ultra - is there any real world difference worth worrying about? Wouldn't I be better off fitting a larger hard drive and more memory to my existing Mac for the time being?

[xyber233]

Not worth it at all! Plus, that rage 128 ultra is a joke. There is no real difference in performance from te 8 mb card. I would save your money for a computer later on.

[joe]

Originally posted by The Blue Meanie:
<STRONG>I have an iMac DV 400mhz (10gb HD, Rage 128 card) and I have recently been looking into (inexpensive) ways of upgrading it. I dont' want to buy a new model right now for financial reasons, because none have DVD drives and because the legendary LCD iMac is reportedly just a few months away now - nevertheless, the bottom-of-the-line indigo model is temptingly cheap, especially now that it comes with a 16 mg Rage Ultra card. On the other hand, I could get a refurbished iMac DV SE from last year and not sacrifice a DVD drive.....</STRONG>

xyber123 is right. The 16MB Rage 128 Ultra in the latest iMacs is really no faster than the 8MB Rage 128 Pro in the previous iMacs. In fact, I'd go so far as to say it's actually a bit slower! And this is coming from someone that owned both with 1st hand experience running benchmarks. If you surf over to www.xlr8yourmac.com and check the video card/game database, you'll find speed results (by me) for both 500Mhz iMac SE (8MB Rage 128 Pro) and 600MHz iMac SE (16MB Rage 128 Ultra) with Quake3 Retail (v1.17). Yes, the 600MHz iMac is faster, but not by as much as it should be.

The iMac graphics chipset is in *dire* need of an update. The Pro line has had compeltely new graphics chipsets from Rage 128 -&gt; Radeon -&gt; GF2MX -&gt; GF3 while the iMac has been stuck with Rage 128 in the same time frame. Perhaps that's why iMac sales have dropped off recently (see Apple's financials) while the rest of the product line has picked up. I'm not suggesting an iMac should have identical graphics chips as the pro series. But &lt;snip expletives&gt;, how about a cut down 16MB GF2MX or 16MB Radeon. Something - ANYTHING - that can at least run the latest games at a decent clip! IMHO, a new graphics chipset is far more important than more MHz or an LCD screen in the next iMac........joe

[The Blue Meanie]

Originally posted by xyber233:
<STRONG>Not worth it at all! Plus, that rage 128 ultra is a joke. There is no real difference in performance from te 8 mb card. I would save your money for a computer later on.</STRONG>

That's what I suspected, but I needed some reassurance. Thanks v much for the input xyber233!

[The Blue Meanie]

Originally posted by joe:
<STRONG>

xyber123 is right. The 16MB Rage 128 Ultra in the latest iMacs is really no faster than the 8MB Rage 128 Pro in the previous iMacs. In fact, I'd go so far as to say it's actually a bit slower! And this is coming from someone that owned both with 1st hand experience running benchmarks. If you surf over to www.xlr8yourmac.com and check the video card/game database, you'll find speed results (by me) for both 500Mhz iMac SE (8MB Rage 128 Pro) and 600MHz iMac SE (16MB Rage 128 Ultra) with Quake3 Retail (v1.17). Yes, the 600MHz iMac is faster, but not by as much as it should be.

The iMac graphics chipset is in *dire* need of an update. The Pro line has had compeltely new graphics chipsets from Rage 128 -&gt; Radeon -&gt; GF2MX -&gt; GF3 while the iMac has been stuck with Rage 128 in the same time frame. Perhaps that's why iMac sales have dropped off recently (see Apple's financials) while the rest of the product line has picked up. I'm not suggesting an iMac should have identical graphics chips as the pro series. But &lt;snip expletives&gt;, how about a cut down 16MB GF2MX or 16MB Radeon. Something - ANYTHING - that can at least run the latest games at a decent clip! IMHO, a new graphics chipset is far more important than more MHz or an LCD screen in the next iMac........joe</STRONG>

Hmmm, don't know whether to be pleased that my model isn't yet quite as obsolete as I'd feared or annoyed that these Ultra chipsets are apparently such cons � but many thanks for the info, joe.
I am in full agreement about the need for new video chips in iMacs. I did read a rumour at one point that the legendary LCD iMac is due to include a GeForce card of some kind, but rumours izz rumours. At the very least, Apple could include a PCI slot in iMacs - which would surely have a minimal effect on prices and would allow iMac users interested in better graphics performance to buy commercial cards.
But coming back to my original question, are they any noticeable differences between the Rage 128 and the Rage 128 Pro? And what about 400mhz and 500mhz processors - are we (as I suspect) talking a second or two here and there?

[xyber233]

I dont think the iMac can use PCI graphics cards (which are very slow anyways) because since the monitor is built in, the graphics card is soldered onto the motherboard. The differences between all the Rage128 chips are minimal. The same goes for the processor. You might see a second or two difference and maybe a few framerates but it isnt worth the money.

[joe]

Originally posted by The Blue Meanie:
<STRONG>
But coming back to my original question, are they any noticeable differences between the Rage 128 and the Rage 128 Pro? And what about 400mhz and 500mhz processors - are we (as I suspect) talking a second or two here and there?</STRONG>

I can only judge by the 3 iMacs I've used 1st hand. A 400MHz iMac DV which has the 8MB Rage 128 VR, 500Mhz iMac SE with 8MB Rage 128 Pro, and 600MHz iMac SE with 16MB Rage 128 Ultra. I've run Quake3 benchmarks on all 3 with the same settings. Basically, the VR is unplayable in 32bit mode. In 16bit 640*480 "Normal", the Quake3 benchmarks stack up like this:

400Mhz iMac/VR 30fps (cache overclocked from 160-200MHz)
500MHz iMac/Pro 40fps (cache overclocked from 200-250MHz)
600MHz iMac/Ultra 44fps

All 3 are configured with 196MB or more of CL2 RAM and running OS9.1. Scores are a bit higher under OS9.2.1. Quake3 is rev v1.17 with 128MB assigned in 16bit Normal mode with gibs off and VM on. For 32bit Normal mode I've benchmarked:

500MHz iMac/Pro 38fps (cache overclocked)
600MHz iMac/Ultra 41fps

So you can see why I mentioned previously that the Ultra version of the Rage 128 chipset seems a little slower than it should be. Maybe the Ultra is running off a slower clock. Or maybe the smaller cache of the 600Mhz G3 is a factor? In any case the iMac desparately needs a new graphics chipset. The 128 series has been milked for all it's worth......joe


Update - you can check out benchmarks for other games at xlr8yourmac.com by using the video card / games database and selecting iMac, MHz, and the game (Unreal Tournament, etc).

[ 10-26-2001: Message edited by: joe ]

[The Blue Meanie]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by joe:
<STRONG>

I can only judge by the 3 iMacs I've used 1st hand. A 400MHz iMac DV which has the 8MB Rage 128 VR, 500Mhz iMac SE with 8MB Rage 128 Pro, and 600MHz iMac SE with 16MB Rage 128 Ultra. I've run Quake3 benchmarks on all 3 with the same settings. Basically, the VR is unplayable in 32bit mode. In 16bit 640*480 "Normal", the Quake3 benchmarks stack up like this:

400Mhz iMac/VR 30fps (cache overclocked from 160-200MHz)
500MHz iMac/Pro 40fps (cache overclocked from 200-250MHz)
600MHz iMac/Ultra 44fps

All 3 are configured with 196MB or more of CL2 RAM and running OS9.1. Scores are a bit higher under OS9.2.1. Quake3 is rev v1.17 with 128MB assigned in 16bit Normal mode with gibs off and VM on. For 32bit Normal mode I've benchmarked:

500MHz iMac/Pro 38fps (cache overclocked)
600MHz iMac/Ultra 41fps

So you can see why I mentioned previously that the Ultra version of the Rage 128 chipset seems a little slower than it should be. Maybe the Ultra is running off a slower clock. Or maybe the smaller cache of the 600Mhz G3 is a factor? In any case the iMac desparately needs a new graphics chipset. The 128 series has been milked for all it's worth......joe


Update - you can check out benchmarks for other games at xlr8yourmac.com by using the video card / games database and selecting iMac, MHz, and the game (Unreal Tournament, etc).

[ 10-26-2001: Message edited by: joe ]</STRONG>[/QUOTE

Hey Joe, thanks for the information! I know it's been a week or so but I've been real busy at work. I had a couple of quick questions if that's okay:
What is CL2 RAM? Cache level 2?
And do you mean overclocking the processor cache � as opposed to the video card cache (if there is such a thing)? And how do you do that?

[darcybaston]

Ack, I just hit the numlock/clear button by accident and lost this post . That's what that button does!

What I was going to say was that I'm upgrading my user experience on my iMac DV SE 400mhz in order to compensate for lack of core hardware options. With 256MB ram and an upcoming 19" monitor (put the iMac on the bottom shelf of this workstation), and OS X, I feel as if I am using a new machine. I'll be good with that for another year. I may put in a bigger HD (40 Gigs would be nice) but the point is that the new HD or new monitor will carry forward to whatever future tower solution I get.

The Apple 15" flat monitors are over $1000 in Canadian dollars ($929 + 15% sales tax), so a nice cheap $400 19" will be economical for a while still.

Unless they abandon VGA and IDE interconnectivity next year hehe.

Darcy

[gto47]

Yeah, they've just gotta put better graphics cards in the imacs. A radeon would be fine with me, or even the 16mb ati card they were putting in the g4 until MW July (which is by the way at least twice as fast as the card in the imac). I think apple is still pissed at ati for the radeon disaster. They just refuse to use that card in any machine now. Geforce 2 isn't gonna happen, though i wish it would. The imac has a great processor, but has always been plagued by crappy graphics acceleration.
You're not going to notice all that much difference in speed.
Somebody was asking about the 512 backside cache and the 256. I wouldn't worry about that. The newer chipsets are built differently from the old ones, so they use the caching faster. I mean you could probably look at a 500mhz with 256 and a 500mhz 512, and not notice any difference whatsoever. The bottom line is, it doesn't mean anything on the imacs. Basically what apple did was find a way to make a cheaper chip by better using (& speeding up) the onboard cache, and still have a faster chip.
It's hard to say how much faster the new imacs are. I mean they're just about the same in all ways. They haven't changed anything but the graphics and the chipset, and also the usual (HD+RAM.) You wont' reap much benefit out of a new imac right now. If you need the dvd drive, you can buy internal as well as external ones. I think shrevesystems sells the internals if you're interested. HArd drives can also be installed (repaced) for next to nothing.
I hate to say it, but the imac hans't really progressed enough since your model for you to need to buy a new one. But hey, at least you're not out of date yet.

I'm just curious, why do you want a new machine. Does it feel slow? What exactly are you doing with it that you need to be faster? Is it OSX? Ram will definitely make that faster. A new imac will not though, osx is just slow for the time being. Ram is good for 9 too. How much do you have? If it's 64, you'll notice a huge difference in performance. I'd recommend getting 256 chips now since they've gotten in high demand and have become so cheap. You could do that for 30-40 USD @ www.crucial.com. THat would make a large difference, if you're only currently using a minimal amount of ram.

[ 11-06-2001: Message edited by: gto47 ]

[sniffer]

A basic finger rule in the PC world when considering a "cpu" upgrade is that the new cpu got to have twice as much mhz power than the old one. A cpu speed boost alone doesn't give equal overall performance boost on any system, since there are many bottlenecks. Since all new iMacs is basicly the same as their older counterparts, and they haven't reached the 800 mhz barrier yet, I'll say that it would be wise of you to stick with your old iMac as long as you can. Perhaps boost it up with extra ram, and bigger/faster HD. It will help.

Just my two nok..

[cdhostage]

You can't get a G3 upgrade card fast enough to warrant replacing your iMac's G3 at 400 MHz. I think Motorola has G3 chips available at higher clock speeds, but Apple won't allow them to be released due to Megahartz Envy.

[The Blue Meanie]

Originally posted by gto47:
<STRONG>Yeah, they've just gotta put better graphics cards in the imacs. A radeon would be fine with me, or even the 16mb ati card they were putting in the g4 until MW July (which is by the way at least twice as fast as the card in the imac). I think apple is still pissed at ati for the radeon disaster. They just refuse to use that card in any machine now. Geforce 2 isn't gonna happen, though i wish it would. The imac has a great processor, but has always been plagued by crappy graphics acceleration.
You're not going to notice all that much difference in speed.
Somebody was asking about the 512 backside cache and the 256. I wouldn't worry about that. The newer chipsets are built differently from the old ones, so they use the caching faster. I mean you could probably look at a 500mhz with 256 and a 500mhz 512, and not notice any difference whatsoever. The bottom line is, it doesn't mean anything on the imacs. Basically what apple did was find a way to make a cheaper chip by better using (& speeding up) the onboard cache, and still have a faster chip.
It's hard to say how much faster the new imacs are. I mean they're just about the same in all ways. They haven't changed anything but the graphics and the chipset, and also the usual (HD+RAM.) You wont' reap much benefit out of a new imac right now. If you need the dvd drive, you can buy internal as well as external ones. I think shrevesystems sells the internals if you're interested. HArd drives can also be installed (repaced) for next to nothing.
I hate to say it, but the imac hans't really progressed enough since your model for you to need to buy a new one. But hey, at least you're not out of date yet.

I'm just curious, why do you want a new machine. Does it feel slow? What exactly are you doing with it that you need to be faster? Is it OSX? Ram will definitely make that faster. A new imac will not though, osx is just slow for the time being. Ram is good for 9 too. How much do you have? If it's 64, you'll notice a huge difference in performance. I'd recommend getting 256 chips now since they've gotten in high demand and have become so cheap. You could do that for 30-40 USD @ www.crucial.com. THat would make a large difference, if you're only currently using a minimal amount of ram.

[ 11-06-2001: Message edited by: gto47 ]</STRONG>

Some interesting feedback there - thanks. The answer to your question is that I didn't have any particular reason for wanting to upgrade. It didn't feel particularly slow (except when running the later builds of Quake III, when it struggled painfully or just froze altogether). I just kind of felt that I ought to explore upgrade options now that it's two years old (even though Apple amazingly only stopped making 400mhz Macs this Summer). With no CPU or video card upgrades available for post-333mhz iMacs for reasons I'm not entirely clear about, my only options were an expensive trade-in for the uninspiring current models, or sticking with my present machine for a while longer and contenting myself with extra RAM and a new hard drive.
I was very reluctant to splash out on the former, and I'm happy, after all the feedback in this column, to able to feel confident about choosing the latter option (Meanwhile, the fabled next-generation iMac waits somewhere over the horizon.....)
I had in fact already discovered the benefits of extra RAM. After recently reading in (the UK) MacWorld (streets better than the US version) that that 256mg chips are currently on sale for the jaw-droppingly low price of �20 ($30), I have now upgraded to the one-time fantasy figure of 320mg RAM - and yes, the latest build Quake III now runs happily at high quality setting [Enters reminiscence mode] Back in 1999, you were looking at �100+ (roughly $135) for 64mg chips..!

[ 11-09-2001: Message edited by: The Blue Meanie ]

[ 11-09-2001: Message edited by: The Blue Meanie ]

[ 11-09-2001: Message edited by: The Blue Meanie ]

[The Blue Meanie]

Originally posted by sniffer:
<STRONG>A basic finger rule in the PC world when considering a "cpu" upgrade is that the new cpu got to have twice as much mhz power than the old one. A cpu speed boost alone doesn't give equal overall performance boost on any system, since there are many bottlenecks. Since all new iMacs is basicly the same as their older counterparts, and they haven't reached the 800 mhz barrier yet, I'll say that it would be wise of you to stick with your old iMac as long as you can. Perhaps boost it up with extra ram, and bigger/faster HD. It will help.

Just my two nok..</STRONG>

Wise advice and that's the option I've taken. Cheers

[The Blue Meanie]

Originally posted by cdhostage:
<STRONG>You can't get a G3 upgrade card fast enough to warrant replacing your iMac's G3 at 400 MHz. I think Motorola has G3 chips available at higher clock speeds, but Apple won't allow them to be released due to Megahartz Envy.</STRONG>

It's true that there is nothing particularly speedier on the G3, but you can, for instance, get (admittedly expensive) G4 ugprades for some iMac models -just not, frustratingly, for the post-333mhz models