[ronss]

hi, yesterday i bought a powermac 3, and it works okay, loaded, but is dreadfully slow. but at least i am in the mac world, but i don,t have the patience for such a slow rig, considering i have 2 custom built pc,s that are VERY fast. but i want to have a apple computer, but something somewhat faster that the g3.. i get a $1000 next month, but i am thinking i can get something maybe around the 300-400 dollar range that should be quick... should i get a quicksilver g4?????

[mduell]

Either a PowerMac G4 or an Intel mini, depending on what you want to do with it.

[Cold Warrior]

Save a bit longer to buy a Mac mini and KVM switch. Use it with one of your PC monitor's to toggle between the two computers. Or sell one PC and buy an iMac.

[Podolsky]

I know this is more than you want to spend but I just snapped up an Apple refurbed Mac Pro 2.66 for $2,200 and I am thrilled! It came with an extra gig of ram. I have bought refurbed belfore and like them very much. I saved $600 over what a similar BTO would have been. That paid for another 6 gigs of ram plus a 160gig Raptor drive plus Apple Care with $$ left over. Anyway, I think you get great value with refurbed and I would steer you over there (The Apple Store (U.S.)) to see what they have in your price range.

[Big Mac]

I'd pick up a MDD for the right price as a novelty because they're still very capable Macs today, but I bet someone in the market for an MDD as a main computer would be better served by a mini - either G4 or Intel.

[ronss]

okay, got some ideas....my g3 seems to run a bit better on a smalller resoluion, i was running it on 1650 x 1050, now on 1280 x 1024, seems a bit faster..maybe the video card was having trouble with the extra resolution..or maybe i am imagining things...i will not get a mac mini,,,no integrated graphics for me.. maybe a imac, or quicksilver mmd i quess..dual cpu,s.

[Big Mac]

I agree with you about int-degraded graphics, and I certainly don't want to see you get a Mactel over a Mac. With that said, I'm pretty sure an Intel mini would beat the dedicated graphics on your G3.

[ronss]

i found this g4 on ebay,,,its 800mhz..will it be quite a bit faster than my 450mhz g3...

Apple Power Mac G4 Quicksilver 800MHz, 384MB Ram, 40GB - (eBay item 320167844783 end time Oct-09-07 02:13:44 PDT)

[P]

Sure, but I'd bump the RAM beyond 512 MB since it has Tiger installed.

[OreoCookie]

You should consider a Mac mini or a used iMac (G5 or Intel-based) instead.
The Mac you've linked to is not really a good buy (it's a single-cpu stock machine with no dvd burner, little ram, expensive shipping, no keyboard, no mouse, no OS ...).

[AngelaBaby]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

You should consider a Mac mini or a used iMac (G5 or Intel-based) instead.
The Mac you've linked to is not really a good buy (it's a single-cpu stock machine with no dvd burner, little ram, expensive shipping, no keyboard, no mouse, no OS ...).

I agree with that recommendation OreoCookie.

I want to get rid of my huge PC tower, get a mac mini and dual boot with windows.

[Kenneth]

Looks like the OP just bought that G4 QS tower.

[Lateralus]

LOL. Nothing nicer than seeing somebody create a thread only to ignore the responses they get.

The most awesome part of that machine is that it doesn't even come with the original GeForce. It's been downgraded to a Rage 128...

[ronss]

well, i allready bought it, so i have to deal with it... i was thinking that that it shoud be faster than my g3, hopefully it will be...quess i could get another one later,, or find a better video card.

this is my feelings on the mac mini.,,it has no video card, integrated graphics...would that not hinder the performance????

[SierraDragon]

Originally Posted by ronss 

...this is my feelings on the mac mini.,,it has no video card, integrated graphics...would that not hinder the performance????

Yes, when compared to other MacIntel computers. But a Mini is still stronger than a G3 or lower end G4. The performance improvement that occurs with each new generation (G3 to G4 to G5 to MacIntel) is very significant.

-Allen Wicks

[Catfish_Man]

Rage 128 vs. Intel integrated graphics? The Rage 128 will be destroyed. Probably by at least a factor of 10. I can play Halo on my MacBook, but my old Rage based machine got about 3fps in Rainbow 6, which is less complex.

[OreoCookie]

The GMA 950 is roughly as fast as a GeForce FX 5200 Go (in many benhmarks it is faster, in a few others it is slower). An Intel-based Mac mini is a lot, lot faster than any G4. Plus, you can upgrade the mini's cpu.

[ninahagen]

ronss,

Why don't you just sell the QS? Its a slow beast with problems (like the ancient lowend graphics card) and you will waste time and money trying to get it marginally workable. It would probably be cheaper, and certainly more satisfying to absorb the loss you will take selling it and using the advice you have gotten here on getting a mini.

nina

[P]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

The GMA 950 is roughly as fast as a GeForce FX 5200 Go (in many benhmarks it is faster, in a few others it is slower).

And in some benchmarks the GMA 950 won't even complete the test, even though a Geforce 256 from the freaking nineties will. It's better to say that the GMA 950 supports QE and Core Image and just about nothing else. There is no "real" (discrete) GPU that it is comparable with, no matter how old.

[OreoCookie]

When the GMA 950 doesn't sport a specific feature, it is emulated in software; on Windows, the 950's driver is DirectX 9-compliant, so that's quite a bit, way more than the GeForce 256.

[Lateralus]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

When the GMA 950 doesn't sport a specific feature, it is emulated in software; on Windows, the 950's driver is DirectX 9-compliant, so that's quite a bit, way more than the GeForce 256.

Regardless, the 950 is nothing more than a lip sticked pig.

[OreoCookie]

I think the GMA 950 is plenty for people who use office apps, browse the web and occasionally sort pics or so. There is a reason it's very popular with business notebook manufacturers.

[Lateralus]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I think the GMA 950 is plenty for people who use office apps, browse the web and occasionally sort pics or so. There is a reason it's very popular with business notebook manufacturers.

Because Intel makes using it very cheap for manufacturers as part of their monopolistic, anti-competitive business strategies?

Whether you're keen on the 950 or not is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that there are more capable solutions from AMD/ATI and nVidia that could be included in a system for only slightly more manufacturing cost.

[ronss]

thanks for the info,,, well, i will test the qs, and see how it runs...the g3 i have runs okay, only if it was a bit faster..hopefully the qs will be somewhat faster... i am not looking for lightning quick,,,like my two custom built pcs with 8800gts in them... i have seem some g5 power macks,,,,1.6ghz go for around $600..maybe i will take a look at them..

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Lateralus 

Because Intel makes using it very cheap for manufacturers as part of their monopolistic, anti-competitive business strategies?

That's part of it, yes. But honestly, the graphics power is more than sufficient for said uses. My sister's HP notebook (15" business-class notebook, 1100 Euro) has one and it runs just fine. She doesn't play any games, obviously.

[Lateralus]

I think you're missing the point Oreo.

[MindFad]

No, I think that's pretty much the point: people buying the Mac minis don't care and don't notice (i.e., they're not buying Doom 3 and Prey with their Mac mini purchase, I wouldn't imagine). Not that I like it, but it unfortunately has its place in a business context. I've always thought of the Mac mini as "grandma's Mac." I still think MacBooks should lose the lame-ass Intel graphics. And don't get me started on the iMacs.

[Catfish_Man]

Originally Posted by Lateralus 

Because Intel makes using it very cheap for manufacturers as part of their monopolistic, anti-competitive business strategies?

Whether you're keen on the 950 or not is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that there are more capable solutions from AMD/ATI and nVidia that could be included in a system for only slightly more manufacturing cost.

Making things cheaply to fill a niche sounds like a fine business practice to me. The anticompetitive stuff I'm aware of is more along the lines of secret deals with large manufacturers, and penalizing review sites that review competing products favorably.

[ninahagen]

Originally Posted by ronss 

i have seem some g5 power macs,,,,1.6ghz go for around $600..maybe i will take a look at them.

That is your best idea yet, but try to find the sweet spot... there is a place in the Power Mac line that will give you the most for the least buying used. Since I use a G5 quad 2.5, I don't know exactly which model would be the best value... (probably not the very first ones) Can anyone else answer that and help deliver this guy from misbegotten early QS adventure?

The dual 1.8~2.0 range seems pretty sweet and rather cheap on ebay. Check this link:

Power Mac G5-Dual 1.8 ghz, 3 GB DDR SDRAM - (eBay item 260169138432 end time Oct-13-07 18:25:35 PDT)

If you could get this for $600 (maybe make the guy an offer) and find a used ATI Radeon 1900XT for $100 or so, you might be really happy.

[ronss]

thankd for the ebay link,,it does look like a nice rig...see what i can do...

[P]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

When the GMA 950 doesn't sport a specific feature, it is emulated in software; on Windows, the 950's driver is DirectX 9-compliant, so that's quite a bit, way more than the GeForce 256.

What I wrote is still true. DirectX 9-compliance means almost nothing, because there is a large number of optional features to the standard. You can be compliant without supporting any of them.

I definitely understand why the GMA 950 is so common - the manufacturing oncost for adding it to an existing chipset is about $2, and it works well enough for office tasks. Adding a discrete GPU is much more expensive. The comparable ATi and nVidia integrated GPUs mean that you have to use a chipset from them, which brings other problems.

But don't compare GMA 950 with a discrete GPU, no matter how old, because you risk making people very disappointed. Even games that aren't very graphics intensive, like Civ 4 (which runs well enough on a GF 5200), won't even start on a GMA 950.

[OreoCookie]

DirectX 9-compatibility implies that the graphics chip contains a certain feature subset. Civ IV requires a DirectX 9c-compatible graphics card, so the GMA 950 won't do the trick, you're right. But it's not because integrated graphics chips are `different' or `generally worse', it's because features are either present or missing. You should definitely compare them to any other graphics chip as is, it's just a cheap graphics card.

People are only going to be disappointed when their expectations exceed what integrated graphics cards (= just a cheap graphics card) are supposed to be for (yes, that may include some gaming). It's certainly quite an upgrade compared to a Rage 128 or a GeForce 4MX (= the graphics cards/chips in question here).

Disclaimer: I have a Radeon X1600 with 256 MB

[SierraDragon]

ronss-

When considering G5s verify how much RAM a box will accept, which IMO is more important than pure clock speed. The lowest end was I believe limited to 4 slots and 4 GB maximum RAM or something like that, which IMO is unacceptable. You want one that has 8 slots and will accept up to at least 8 GB RAM even if you do not today intend to use that much.

Also (again) note that new MPs are due soon. The value - and presumably the market prices as well - of all existing Mac towers will fall after new MPs are announced. If at all possible, Mac tower purchases should be postponed until after that event. In particular I know for a fact that a lot of folks using dual processor G4s & G5s for graphics have been waiting for this next Mac Pro iteration to upgrade to MacIntel. [Like I am]

-Allen Wicks

[ronss]

sierradragon

interesting stuff,,,do you have any idea when the new powermacs will arrive, befoe chrismas maybe...??? i quess the reason for now is buying something that is fairly quick, but not super fast...i like to watch dvd,s,, do some photography printing,,,that sort of thing...light,,,sort of a hobby. i was thinking that maybe the quicksilver i bought would do the trick, then i read somewhere that i believe the quicks g4,s are the mirrored ones, with pc 2700 and dma ata 100...that is the firewire 400 and 800,s i believe...they seem to go for a good price,,,,

[P]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

DirectX 9-compatibility implies that the graphics chip contains a certain feature subset. Civ IV requires a DirectX 9c-compatible graphics card, so the GMA 950 won't do the trick, you're right. But it's not because integrated graphics chips are `different' or `generally worse', it's because features are either present or missing. You should definitely compare them to any other graphics chip as is, it's just a cheap graphics card.

People are only going to be disappointed when their expectations exceed what integrated graphics cards (= just a cheap graphics card) are supposed to be for (yes, that may include some gaming). It's certainly quite an upgrade compared to a Rage 128 or a GeForce 4MX (= the graphics cards/chips in question here).

Disclaimer: I have a Radeon X1600 with 256 MB

Well, I have a 7950 GT, a 5200 Ultra and a GMA 950 in computers that I regularly use. The 5200U starts creaking when I do something that's taxing it, but decreasing the resolution or - even better - using lower quality textures will always make it work. The game will run at a playable fps eventually - at 640*480 and lowest quality 16 bit textures, maybe, but it will work. If it's a good game, it will be fun with lower quality graphics. If the game sucks, graphics can't save it anyway. IMHO, of course, but still - a four year old low-end GPU will run it. The 7950 GT runs more or less the same games (well, it's on a PC, so there a few more - like Oblivion) with the settings all turned the other way. Sure it's prettier, but it's the same gameplay.

The GMA 950 is hit and miss. It runs as good as or better than the 5200U in regular work, but on occasion it's a slideshow or a game won't launch. The reason is latency - because some features are emulated, they have to be farmed out to the CPU. No big deal in CPU time, usually, but the latency of sending the data there and getting it back is what kills performance. This is exactly the reason real GPUs were developed - this is the revolutionary step. Instead of sharing the workload between two chips with each doing what it does best, one chip did it all because that got rid of the latency. For this reason, the GMA 950 isn't really a GPU. The reason it still works in some cases is that the circuitry is integrated into the Northbridge, which means a much shorter path to the CPU - one jump instead of graphics -> Southbridge -> Northbridge -> CPU.

So if you want to compare the GMA 950 to anything, compare it to the Rage 128 - that was the last chip used in any Mac that was not a complete GPU. Better yet, say that the GMA 950 doesn't let people game at all - that's a better description.

This is not a dig at integrated graphics in general, by the way - it is a dig at Intel integrated graphics, at least prior to GMA X3000 which may change things. I don't know if it does: I don't have one and early reports were clouded by the lack of a decent driver. Integrated graphics from ATi and nVidia really do act like older models of discrete GPUs, so the comparision is fair, but the GMA 950 does not.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by P 

The GMA 950 is hit and miss. It runs as good as or better than the 5200U in regular work, but on occasion it's a slideshow or a game won't launch. The reason is latency - because some features are emulated, they have to be farmed out to the CPU. No big deal in CPU time, usually, but the latency of sending the data there and getting it back is what kills performance. This is exactly the reason real GPUs were developed - this is the revolutionary step. Instead of sharing the workload between two chips with each doing what it does best, one chip did it all because that got rid of the latency. For this reason, the GMA 950 isn't really a GPU.

`Real' gpus started out as 2d `graphics accelerators' (I had one of the first on the market back in 1994), the second revolution started when gpus learned how to accelerate 3d games. It has always been the case that cpus had to take on the tasks that gpus couldn't -- T&L is one example. For this reason, the 950 contains a real gpu, it's just not a very good one (Intel doesn't have a state-of-the-art gpu in its portfolio). It's accurate that the 950's hardware is only DirectX 6-compliant as there is no hardware T&L (DirectX 7) nor are there any vertex shaders (DirectX 8).

Originally Posted by P 

The reason it still works in some cases is that the circuitry is integrated into the Northbridge, which means a much shorter path to the CPU - one jump instead of graphics -> Southbridge -> Northbridge -> CPU.

This is false: the graphics card is connected directly to the northbridge (although with the upcoming cpu designs, it may be increasingly difficult to distinguish north and south bridge). The southbridge is traditionally the home of SATA, USB, Ethernet, etc.

Originally Posted by P 

So if you want to compare the GMA 950 to anything, compare it to the Rage 128 - that was the last chip used in any Mac that was not a complete GPU. Better yet, say that the GMA 950 doesn't let people game at all - that's a better description.

[P]

Graphics accelerators existed long before 1994. They were 2D accelerators designed to accelerate specific system calls from 2D graphics system - Quickdraw, for Macs. This was big business when the Mac IIs were all the rage, when companies like Radius and Supermac made big money selling very expensive boards.

3D acceleration came later as you say, but the paradigm shift I'm talking about is the shift that happened with TNT2 -> Geforce 256 and Rage 128 -> Radeon (yes, they are not from the same time frame. nVidia moved before ATi, and there were many others involved as well, 3dfx and ArtX etc. They represent the same shift, is what I'm saying). Instead of picking out specific functions and calls to accelerate, the newer type of graphics accelerators moved the entire rendering operation onto the graphics card, with a large texture memory on the card (earlier graphics cards had RAM, but only as a backing store for the actual display. 768K was enough for an XGA display). The gain was that you lose the latency towards main memory and CPU, the loss is the cost of duplicating hardware. nVidia called this a GPU, mostly as a marketing thing, but the description had some merit and stuck.

The graphics boards were connected to the Southbridge before AGP. AGP was a backdoor directly to memory, invented as a way to try to increase the bandwidth between the two halves of the system - mainly for texture transport. Someone looked at the design of the Playstation and got scared. The borderline between Northbridge and Southbridge has also shifted over the years, as you say.

My point about all of this remains the same: Low-end GPUs, integrated or not, from nVidia or ATi perform more or less like older (midrange) GPUs. The GMA 950 does not, because it's heritage is so different. I do think that game manufacturers should take more care to make sure that their games work with the most common graphics accelerator in current production, but the fact is that they don't.

[ronss]

just recieved it

Apple Power Mac G4 Quicksilver 800MHz, 384MB Ram, 40GB - (eBay item 320167844783 end time Oct-09-07 02:13:44 PDT)

my initial oberservations is that it is quicker than my g3,,but sort of still having the same problem..slow web page loading..i am starting to think its the low down video card-128mg ati rage...i bought a nvidia mx2 32mg,,hopefull that will help

i cannot play dvd movies on it..or don,t know how to ...cannot find a way to open the dvd drive-....it has imovie hd, idvd,...one other thing i found out, i cannot burn dvds.....but how do i get the movie going on this rig...

[xtremelyyellow]

f12 will open your drive

[goMac]

Video card won't really help you with web pages. That's going to be a processor issue.

[0157988944]

A 128 MB video card is way better than a 32.

[nonhuman]

You want more RAM. In my experience, 1 GB is a good minimum to have for running OS X smoothly. Especially on an older machine like that. With only 384 MB, it's not wonder that it's feeling a little sluggish.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by adamfishercox 

A 128 MB video card is way better than a 32.

It's a Rage128. Not a 128 meg video card.

[Sherman Homan]

The QuickSilver will take three 512 meg ram chips, feed it! They shipped with all kinds of different CD and DVD drives, some read only, some read/write. Go up to the Apple icon, down to About This Mac, More Info and it will tell you what you have. The F12 key will eject a CD/DVD on a laptop keyboard, but you want to press the funny looking key in the far right, top corner to open your tray.

[imitchellg5]

More RAM is needed. A video card does help with the internet a bit. The NVIDIA card is pretty bad too, it'd get a Radeon 9800. That's what I've got in my 533 MHz G4 and it makes Tiger run much more smoothly. My G4 ran Tiger decently with 384 Mb of RAM, but it purrs with 1.25 Gb.

[Lateralus]

All three of your threads could have been one. I just merged them.

Please don't create a new thread every time there's a new development with your machine.

[ronss]

sorry about not adding to this thread, will try to watch it more closely

the g4 runs noticebly better than the g3 i have,, yes, rage128, not 128 mg video card.. if i get the 9800 pro, and then add a dual 1.2 cpu,,but the one problem , i will have $400 more invested in this rig, plus the cost of the ram...will any pc133 ram work,...or is it mac specific.

[ninahagen]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

You should consider a Mac mini or a used iMac (G5 or Intel-based) instead. The Mac you've linked to is not really a good buy (it's a single-cpu stock machine with no dvd burner, little ram, expensive shipping, no keyboard, no mouse, no OS ...).

Originally Posted by AngelaBaby 

I agree with that recommendation OreoCookie.

Originally Posted by Kenneth 

Looks like the OP just bought that G4 QS tower.

Originally Posted by Lateralus 

LOL. Nothing nicer than seeing somebody create a thread only to ignore the responses they get. The most awesome part of that machine is that it doesn't even come with the original GeForce. It's been downgraded to a Rage 128...

Originally Posted by SierraDragon 

a Mini is still stronger than a G3 or lower end G4.

Originally Posted by ninahagen 

Why don't you just sell the QS? Its a slow beast with problems (like the ancient lowend graphics card) and you will waste time and money trying to get it marginally workable. It would probably be cheaper, and certainly more satisfying to absorb the loss you will take selling it and using the advice you have gotten here on getting a mini.

Originally Posted by ninahagen 

The dual 1.8~2.0 range seems pretty sweet and rather cheap on ebay. Check this link:

Power Mac G5-Dual 1.8 ghz, 3 GB DDR SDRAM - (eBay item 260169138432 end time Oct-13-07 18:25:35 PDT)

If you could get this for $600 (maybe make the guy an offer) and find a used ATI Radeon 1900XT for $100 or so, you might be really happy.

Originally Posted by SierraDragon 

Also (again) note that new MPs are due soon. The value - and presumably the market prices as well - of all existing Mac towers will fall after new MPs are announced. If at all possible, Mac tower purchases should be postponed until after that event.

Your response:

just received it (can't believe you went ahead)

— my initial oberservations is that it is quicker than my g3 (wow, really?)
— sort of still having the same problem... slow web page loading (that's a big surprise)
— starting to think its the low down video card-128mg ati rage (too bad nobody gave you a heads up)
— i bought a nvidia mx2 32mg, hopefull that will help (that sucking sound is the money pit)

— i cannot play dvd movies on it..or don't know how to
— cannot find a way to open the dvd drive
— one other thing i found out, i cannot burn dvds
— but how do i get the movie going on this rig?

Yeah, small wonder, your "rig" is in fact weak, slow, troublesome, time-consuming and needs myriad upgrades. With your level of knowledge, you should take, or at least consider, the advice you ask for, especially in a chorus like this.

Dude, you are just not listening.

[ronss]

i quess my feelings on the mini-mac, is still don,t like the 950 intergrated video..i have never liked any kind of intergrated video...if i spend that much, then i could just as well get a imac ,,,with a ati 2400xt, i think i would be whole lot happier with the imac. the 2 ghz imac with a 2400xt should run better than a mac mini.......but actually, a quicksilver with a 1.25 or 1.45, and a 9800 pro out to be really quick is my thinking, and something i believe i would enjoy more than a mac mini or imac,,,though the new aluminum imacs are nice.

[OreoCookie]

Any recent iMac (iMac G5 and but especially Intel-based iMacs) will run circles around your system. A Mac mini, even though it does have an integrated graphics card, will still run circles around the system you have now, even when you upgrade it. If you were into games, my advice might change, but you obviously aren't. Just because it `feels' slower because it's not a `pro machine' doesn't make it true. Even if you insist on a Tower, a used (dual!) G5 is a much better buy (any dual/two-core G5). Upgrading the machine you have bought now is IMHO a waste of money you should rather spend on one of the proposed alternatives.