[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by Lateralus:
Eh, 1.87GHz didn't quite work for me. The processors can handle it, but my case can't handle the heat that the processors produce at that speed. After about 30 minutes of 100% use, they overheat and I lock up.

So my 223 is at 1.8GHz.

Hmmm... So, you're running at only 4% less than your lockup speed? That's pretty risky. Given your results and considering my experiences in the past with overclocked chips, I'd be running at 1.73 GHz.

It sounds like Giga might still be pushing their chips a little too hard, if they're marketing these things as 1.8 GHz upgrades.

[chris v]

Originally posted by Tyler McAdams:
Gigadesigns gives you a way to overclock your G4's?

They come with multiple pin settings. The 1.2 I put in my Sawtooth came with instructions for about 4 diff. speeds, if I recall correctly. I left it stock, though.

[MORT A POTTY]

Originally posted by Tyler McAdams:
Gigadesigns gives you a way to overclock your G4's?

yeah, and it doesn't void the warranty either they only included settings for up to 1.8Ghz, but I called and got the 1.87Ghz and 1.995Ghz (there is no 1.93, sadly) but it wont' void the warranty! now, messing with the voltage settings WILL void the warranty, but they do give you the dip switches to do it anyway. they are the one CPU upgrade maker that actually caters to the overclockers.

1.87 works when I have my case open... I had a big fan there too, but I moved it and it still worked for the duration of me having my case open, and a while after I shut it even (this is all at full load)

but the good thing is that it's definitely due to cooling at 1.87


Lateralus is right though, it's rock-solid at 1.8Ghz, which is good cause that's what they sell 'em at.

it's a fantastic upgrade though, man, everything is just so much faster and snappier! boot feels instant almost, especially compared to my single 867Mhz.

DOOM 3 results: 640x480, low detail, all effects off -

pre-dual: 23.9 frames per second

post-dual: 31.4 frames per second

iTunes framerates more than doubled. I now get nearly constantly above 60 frames/sec without having to check the "Faster but rougher display" option. before, with the same settings, I would get about 25. full-screen, use OpenGL, NOT faster but rougher display, and NOT cap framerate at 30


now, Cinebench 2003:

Pre-dual:

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
************************************************** **

Tester : Stephen Mortensen

Processor : PowerPC 7450
MHz : 867
Number of CPUs : 1
Operating System : Mac OS X 10.4 (8A420)

Graphics Card : ATI Radeon 9800 Pro
Resolution : 1280x1024
Color Depth : 32-bit

************************************************** **

Rendering (Single CPU): 80 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): --- CB-CPU


Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 102 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 283 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 657 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 6.43

************************************************** **

POST:

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
************************************************** **

Tester : Stephen Mortensen

Processor : PowerPC 7447A
MHz : 1800
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System :Mac OS X 10.4 (8A420)

Graphics Card : ATI Radeon 9800 Pro
Resolution : 1280x1024
Color Depth : 32-bit

************************************************** **

Rendering (Single CPU): 162 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 262 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.61

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 178 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 483 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 799 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 4.49

************************************************** **

meh, not bad. remember, the 7447A has 512MB of L2 cache per processor whereas the 7450 has 256K per processor (one...heh), but the 7447A has zero L3 cache where the 7450 has 2MB


Next up, Unreal Tournament 2004:

pre-dual:

DM-Asbestos botmatch 640x480, min detail

Score = 31.596012

DOM-Suntemple botmatch 640x480, min detail

Score = 36.035599

and post-dual:

DM-Asbestos botmatch 640x480, min detail

Score = 43.735527

DOM-Suntemple botmatch 640x480, min detail

Score = 49.675144

[brucejy]

Thank you for taking the time to be a pioneer. I've been reading this thread for the last couple of months and want to thank you for doing this.

[MORT A POTTY]

Lateralus got his upgrade first

but yeah, no prob. I needed a CPU upgrade though...

[Lateralus]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
Hmmm... So, you're running at only 4% less than your lockup speed? That's pretty risky. Given your results and considering my experiences in the past with overclocked chips, I'd be running at 1.73 GHz.

It sounds like Giga might still be pushing their chips a little too hard, if they're marketing these things as 1.8 GHz upgrades.

Sounds like somebody is a little upset that they can't overclock their card.

Sorry, but if Giga is willing to sell these as 1.8, I'll take their word over yours that they'll run fine.

And I have plenty of experience with overclocking as well, many of us do.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by Lateralus:
Sorry, but if Giga is willing to sell these as 1.8, I'll take their word over yours that they'll run fine.

Actually, dunno about the Power Mac, but Giga has a history of overspecing the CPUs on the Cube side. Lots of failures at the marketed speed. Fortunately though, it's easier to cool Power Mac CPUs.

And I have plenty of experience with overclocking as well, many of us do.

Well, YMMV. I'm just telling you my own experiences. 4% to failure is a little too close for my tastes. The worst is the situation where it works 99.9% of the time and then and then flakes out at the most inopportune time. But like I said, YMMV.

[danman]

4% is pretty close. But when you factor in the heat dissipation of these CPU's it is less.

[waxcrash]

Originally posted by MORT A POTTY:
oh, XBench on dual 1.87...

http://ladd.dyndns.org/xbench/merge....setCookie=true

174.37

Wow! I'm running the Giga Design Dual 1.4 GHz upgrade (7450 2MB L3 cache) and I got around 140. I thought the L3 cache would help.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by waxcrash:
Wow! I'm running the Giga Design Dual 1.4 GHz upgrade (7450 2MB L3 cache) and I got around 140. I thought the L3 cache would help.

L3 is irrevelant for Xbench's CPU test. ie. My 1.7 GHz 7447A with no L3 blows away the dual 1.4 GHz with L3. However, in real life, performance is in the same ballpark on average.

BTW, I think you mean 7457.

[waxcrash]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
L3 is irrevelant for Xbench's CPU test. ie. My 1.7 GHz 7447A with no L3 blows away the dual 1.4 GHz with L3. However, in real life, performance is in the same ballpark on average.

BTW, I think you mean 7457.

Thanks for the info. I was worried for a sec.

I think I have the 7455.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by waxcrash:
Thanks for the info. I was worried for a sec.

I think I have the 7455.

Ah yes. The GigaDesigns use the 7455. They've got the L3, but half the L2 of the 7457 that is used in the PowerLogix.

[crooner]

Originally posted by waxcrash:
Wow! I'm running the Giga Design Dual 1.4 GHz upgrade (7450 2MB L3 cache) and I got around 140. I thought the L3 cache would help.

While we�re comparing, let me re-raise the question that begs to be answered... how much real world performance boost do you guys think I would see upgrading from my dual 1Ghz QuickSilver to the Giga dual 1.8Ghz (keeping in mind that my current 1Ghz chips have the 2MB L3)?

I know one can only estimate (unless there is someone out there who upgraded a dual G4 with processor speeds near to 1Ghz), but I'd still appreciate and carefully consider your thoughts on this.

[David Thompson]

I have a Quicksilver dp800.

1. How much noisier is it likely to be with the fans on the Giga dual 1.8 adding THEIR noise to the mix?

2. Does my machine require a firmware patch? I'm kind of leary of doing that ...

[MORT A POTTY]

quite a bit louder, and yes it does require the firmware patch.

oh, I ran the bench after a reboot and now according to the XBench user submitted results, have the fastest Quicksilver on the planet

http://ladd.dyndns.org/xbench/compar...minVersion=all

[David Thompson]

Originally posted by MORT A POTTY:
quite a bit louder

Feh! I can already hear my machine downstairs (machines are upstairs in a loft). Maybe it's time for a G5 PM--though I don't really like the current models, especially being limited to only two HDs (at least internally).

[Eug Wanker]

GigaDesigns lists a 2 GHz upgrade now.

They also list a dual 1.6 for the Cube.

[Link]

Actually, I'd be wondering if it DID produce more heat -- the DP800s are 7450s, which had this thing about running hot.

[Weezer]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
GigaDesigns lists a 2 GHz upgrade now.

They also list a dual 1.6 for the Cube.

holy crap, dual 2.0 is $200 cheaper than the dual 1.8? what am I missing here...? might have to place my order now, glad I waited

edit: oops those are singles still, where is my dual 2.0?

[yikes600]

Originally posted by Weezer:
edit: oops those are singles still, where is my dual 2.0?

Giga's said in the past that they won't put a product on the market that can't make it under the $700 pricepoint. Given the single 2.0GHz is $500, it's very likely a dual version would be outside their limit.

[Eriamjh]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
GigaDesigns lists a 2 GHz upgrade now.

They also list a dual 1.6 for the Cube.

This 2GHz processor cannot have L3 cache according to Giga. A shame, because 1MB of L3 would really make that sucker rock.

Any takers on the 2GHz willing to post their results?

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by Eriamjh:
This 2GHz processor has no L3 cache, correct? So it is still crippled...

Crippled? No 744x chip can support L3, by design.

Also, L3 support ended with the 7457. The next update to the G4 won't support L3 either. That's the 7448. Fortunately, the 7448 has 1 MB L2.

[Eriamjh]

Crippled by Freescale?

How well does it perform? I have a DP800 and I am contemplating an upgrade now or waiting another year for a dual G5 2.5GHz+. This could hold me off for two years...

[MORT A POTTY]

it's not crippled, that's just how it was designed, not to support L3 cache. I think they should have stuck wiht the 7457, but that wasn't my call.

anyway, just wait a bit for a PowerMac G5. it would provide a fairly large bump in performance from a dual 800, but enough to justify an upgrade you'll only use for one year? that's entirely up to you, but I wouldn't do it personally.

[Eug Wanker]

The 7448 will solve a bunch of problems.

1) No more need for L3 cache at all, since the L2 is 1 MB.
2) No more need for a separate 744x and 745x.
3) Lower power.

Of course, it's still hobbled by a slow bus, but FWIW, it's low latency, and it gets a bump to 200 MHz. Furthermore, Freescale will also release new chips with a different bus, as you know.

The 7448 is already sampling apparently.

[MORT A POTTY]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
The 7448 will solve a bunch of problems.

1) No more need for L3 cache at all, since the L2 is 1 MB.
2) No more need for a separate 744x and 745x.
3) Lower power.

Of course, it's still hobbled by a slow bus, but FWIW, it's low latency, and it gets a bump to 200 MHz. Furthermore, Freescale will also release new chips with a different bus, as you know.

The 7448 is already sampling apparently.

no, it could still use more cache. a processor can ALWAYS use more cache. This is especially true of the G4, or anything else with these FABULOUS system busses... 2MB of L2 cache would be stellar (but hella expensive)

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by MORT A POTTY:
no, it could still use more cache. a processor can ALWAYS use more cache. This is especially true of the G4, or anything else with these FABULOUS system busses... 2MB of L2 cache would be stellar (but hella expensive)

Agreed, but at some point one has to draw the line.

1 MB L2 is an excellent compromise between cost, die size, and performance.

[ksb729]

So I had posted this as a new but got pointed here instead. I read through and didn't see an answer to my question so here goes again...

I have a dual 500 G4, Gigabit Ethernet model and am looking at upgrading the processor. Everything else being equal, is it better to have a slightly older, faster processor with no L3 cache or a newer, slower processor with L3 cache?

In this case a dual G4-7457 @ 1.3GHz with 512K 1:1 On-Chip L2 & 2MB L3 Cache Per Processor or a dual G4-7447A @ 1.7GHz with 512K 1:1 On-Chip L2 Cache Per Processor. Both are Powerlogix.

[crooner]

Originally Posted by ksb729

So I had posted this as a new but got pointed here instead. I read through and didn't see an answer to my question so here goes again...

I have a dual 500 G4, Gigabit Ethernet model and am looking at upgrading the processor. Everything else being equal, is it better to have a slightly older, faster processor with no L3 cache or a newer, slower processor with L3 cache?

In this case a dual G4-7457 @ 1.3GHz with 512K 1:1 On-Chip L2 & 2MB L3 Cache Per Processor or a dual G4-7447A @ 1.7GHz with 512K 1:1 On-Chip L2 Cache Per Processor. Both are Powerlogix.

Lemme start off by qualifying that I, at the last minute, decided to get a new G5 rather than put more money into my dual 1GHz QuickSilver. This was done mainly as the QuickSilver had developed some hardware issues that had brought my possible "upgrade/repair" costs to half the cost of a new Mac. At that point, I thought it silly not to just go with a new one.

That being said, I would strongly recommend two things:

FORGET PowerLogix. You'll regret it. Go with Giga Designs or even Sonnet. Both are fine.

Also, a dual 1.3x with L3 is gonna be better for you than a dual 1.7 or 1.8 with no L3.

Just one guy talkin', but methinks others will agree.

As an aside, I haven't gotten rid of my QuickSilver... At some point I'll have it looked at by this great, independently owned Mac shop back east (The Computer Loft, in Allston, MA) and see if I can find a cheap way to get it running (maybe a used mobo or something). At that point, I may very well slap a CPU replacement in and make it into a backup or music server. I have no plans on tossing it or selling it for parts.

Good luck!

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by ksb729

So I had posted this as a new but got pointed here instead. I read through and didn't see an answer to my question so here goes again...

I have a dual 500 G4, Gigabit Ethernet model and am looking at upgrading the processor. Everything else being equal, is it better to have a slightly older, faster processor with no L3 cache or a newer, slower processor with L3 cache?

In this case a dual G4-7457 @ 1.3GHz with 512K 1:1 On-Chip L2 & 2MB L3 Cache Per Processor or a dual G4-7447A @ 1.7GHz with 512K 1:1 On-Chip L2 Cache Per Processor. Both are Powerlogix.

It depends on the software, but I'd probably just get whatever's cheaper. However, if the price is relatively close, I'd probably get the dual 1.7. Actually, in truth, I'd get neither... I'd sell the dual 500, and get a refurb dual 1.8 G5 for $1499.

If you do get one of the processor upgrades, just hope PowerLogix has improved its customer support...

Originally Posted by crooner

Also, a dual 1.3x with L3 is gonna be better for you than a dual 1.7 or 1.8 with no L3.

Just one guy talkin', but methinks others will agree.

Well, I disagree. In some apps, the 1.3 + L3 will be slightly faster than the 1.7 no L3. OTOH, in other apps, the 1.7 may be much faster. Remember, the 1.7 has a 31% clockspeed advantage, and some apps don't really benefit much from gobs of cache.

[crooner]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

<snip>

Well, I disagree. In some apps, the 1.3 + L3 will be slightly faster than the 1.7 no L3. OTOH, in other apps, the 1.7 may be much faster. Remember, the 1.7 has a 31% clockspeed advantage, and some apps don't really benefit much from gobs of cache.

I'll defer to Eug and MORT on this issue as these guys are CPU animals.

[booboo]

Originally Posted by MORT A POTTY

I'm testing at 1.87Ghz. so far works fine, but we'll see.

the CPUs are already damn hot cause I've been running at 1.8 for hours, and tried 1.995 just before and it KPd on boot. unfortunately there is no 1.93 setting, which has me very dismayed, but hey, 1.87, if I can get that to be stable, I'll definitely be overjoyed with this purchase which I'm already VERY happy with.

oh, XBench on dual 1.87...

http://ladd.dyndns.org/xbench/merge....setCookie=true

174.37
. . . . .

Can someone please explain to me what's going on with these XBench scores, and why the G4 would appear to be trouncing the G5 in the CPU tests . . .

Go on, s p e l l it out for me . . .

[Cadaver]

Originally Posted by booboo

Can someone please explain to me what's going on with these XBench scores, and why the G4 would appear to be trouncing the G5 in the CPU tests . . .

Go on, s p e l l it out for me . . .

Because XBench sucks.

[Todd Madson]

Were you using the G5 specific version of that benchmarking utility?
If not, I'm not sure if you're realizing the best possible results.

[QuadG5Man]

The Giga Designs 7447 1.6 and 1.8 GHz upgrades are out of stock everywhere.

[Lateralus]

*Crosses fingers for 7448...*

[iGeek]

Originally Posted by booboo

Can someone please explain to me what's going on with these XBench scores, and why the G4 would appear to be trouncing the G5 in the CPU tests . . .

Go on, s p e l l it out for me . . .

I've noticed that, too. I've seen machines that completely dominate others in all tests when the numbers are side by side, yet the faster machine gets a lower number. It's FUBAR.

[baw]

1.92GHz for the FP iMacs.
http://daystartechnology.com/Daystar...acFP_1920.html