Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Hardware - Troubleshooting and Discussion > Mac Desktops > mini PowerPC G4 1.42GHz or 1.5GHz Intel Core Solo?

mini PowerPC G4 1.42GHz or 1.5GHz Intel Core Solo?
Thread Tools
drewfus
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jun 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2006, 02:11 PM
 
I am in need of a Mac for the office. We need to test websites out. I want wireless for our network, and I don't want to fork out extra cash for more RAM. Essentially all this will be used for is a board room machine giving access to the web (and the aforementioned Mac testing). That's it.

Only one local store has the Intel minis now, and they don't have a return policy. I am hesitant to get it there because I am not certain of performance. A local Best Buy has the PowerPC unit and I picked it up. It has 512 MB and the Radeon 9200 with 32 MB. I set it up and it worked well integrating into the Windows network (really fast WiFi actaully). Only problem is the PowerPC mini is sluggish when browsing any Flash intensive websites (not a great sign).

The Intel mini is $30 more (insignificant...), but as the store that actually has them in stock does not have a return policy, I don't want to pick one up to find it even more sluggish than the one I already bought (as it has even less memory than the PowerPC one). That being said, I'm sure we could throw some more RAM in it and it would be much faster, but I wasn't picking up the machine to upgrade it. All I want is for it to come out of a box, integrate into our network, and actually run websites fast.

Opinions?
     
power142
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Apr 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2006, 02:43 PM
 
From a processor perspective, I'd be surprised if you found the Core Solo @ 1.5GHz slower than a G4 @ 1.42GHz as most reports mention the Intel mini is faster in that respect.

So long as you're not intending to play FPS games at high resolutions, which it doesn't sound like you are (neither mini is a good solution for that), you should be OK.

However, one thing to note is that if the sluggish performance is due to a lack of memory, then buying the Intel mini will make things worse, since the integrated graphics steals main memory whereas the G4 mini has dedicated graphics memory. In any event, upgrading to 1GB should do the trick
     
SSharon
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Teaneck, NJ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2006, 03:27 PM
 
I hate to say it but sites with flash will bring down any mac. Even with 1gb don't be surprised when a pc with 256mb runs flash sites better.
AT&T iPhone 5S and 6; 13" MBP; MDD G4.
     
drewfus  (op)
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jun 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2006, 04:15 PM
 
So where does that leave us? Are we slow because of the RAM (which will be less on the Intel), or slow because of the PowerPC, or are we slow because Flash and Macs are just slow in combo?
     
volcano
Senior User
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Austin, Texas
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2006, 04:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by Heboil
Are we slow because of the RAM (which will be less on the Intel)
Intel Mac Minis and PPC Mac Minis will both come with a standard 512MB of RAM.

I'm going to guess that you're referring to the shared video RAM on the Intel Model - which could set you back 80MB at the most.

For what you're doing, I would get the Intel. You don't need to worry about the shared video memory because you're not playing games - and as far as I know, video memory doesn't affect Flash playback, or any internet-related playback in a web browser. The machine will last you longer and for the most part, programs will only become faster with more and more Universal Binary applications coming out. Buy the Intel model and return the PPC machine you have.
     
MDiddy
Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2006, 10:55 PM
 
As of Flash Player 8, Flash does use the Mac's video card for it's graphics capabilities.
"Litter is my most treacherous foe. I would like to eat its children."
-Drederick Tatum
     
SSharon
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Teaneck, NJ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2006, 11:53 PM
 
I went to the apple store today and the core duo imac with 1gb of ram used 50% cpu to display 2 open safari windows with a few flash ad banners. This is compared to 6-7% cpu when I was scrolled a bit down on the same pages so that the banners weren't visible. I think you will manage but the problem is with the apple software and not the hardware.
AT&T iPhone 5S and 6; 13" MBP; MDD G4.
     
Tuoder
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Here
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 23, 2006, 03:18 AM
 
The core solo should be faster, if not now, then later when you won't have to worry about rosetta anymore. A RAM upgrade would help things quite a bit on the Intel Mini, although I don't imagine it being much better at flash.


Is flash universal yet?
     
CheesePuff
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 23, 2006, 10:24 AM
 
Flash is not Universal... yet. But when it is, it will be faster on the new Intel Mac mini. And if you end up getting the Intel version just make sure you get at least 1 GB of RAM (and make sure its two 512 chips) because Rosetta eats up the RAM.
     
jasong
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Allston, MA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 23, 2006, 10:34 PM
 
Really? Because if the Flash plugin wasn't universal, Safari would be unable to display Flash content without running in Rosetta. This doesn't sound like it is the case.
-- Jason
     
drewfus  (op)
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jun 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 23, 2006, 10:47 PM
 
As a new Mac user, how does one upgrade the RAM in a mini? The price of this PowerPC just dropped another $130 since I bought it, and that would more than cover the RAM...so for roughly $100 less, I would have the PowerPC 1.42 with 1 GB of RAM, vs. the Intel Solo Core with 512 MB. Is the 1GB of RAM in the PowerPC mini responsive enough to use in a meeting room for display purposes?

Thanks.
     
iREZ
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Los Angeles of the East
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 23, 2006, 11:49 PM
 
go with the intel, especially if youre gonna be using it for buisness presentations. go look what keynote and the new apple remote can do together, talk about cool.
NOW YOU SEE ME! 2.4 MBP and 2.0 MBP (running ubuntu)
     
Tuoder
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Here
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2006, 06:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by Heboil
As a new Mac user, how does one upgrade the RAM in a mini? The price of this PowerPC just dropped another $130 since I bought it, and that would more than cover the RAM...so for roughly $100 less, I would have the PowerPC 1.42 with 1 GB of RAM, vs. the Intel Solo Core with 512 MB. Is the 1GB of RAM in the PowerPC mini responsive enough to use in a meeting room for display purposes?

Thanks.
Upgrading the RAM in the PPC Mini is not hard. All you have to do is pop the cover off with a putty knife and take the old RAM out. Then you put the new RAM in and snap the top back on. Upgrading the RAM in the Intel Mini is far more difficult. Be aware though, they were reccommending alot of RAM in the Intel Mini. You would not need quite as much in the PPC Mini, but alot would be nice. For the purpose of displaying web sites, the PPC mini should be just fine.
     
Rainy Day
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Oregon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2006, 10:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by Heboil
Only problem is the PowerPC mini is sluggish when browsing any Flash intensive websites (not a great sign).
Use SafariBlock to weed out flash content!
     
Titom
Junior Member
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2006, 11:33 PM
 
I am starting to read bad things about airport on the new Intels. Hope it's not the new airport chip.
     
jasong
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Allston, MA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 25, 2006, 03:09 PM
 
Just remember, you only read about the bad things, almost no one posts to say nothing is wrong.
-- Jason
     
drewfus  (op)
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jun 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 27, 2006, 05:39 PM
 
I have a stick of PC-3200 DDR (400MHZ) 1024MB W/O ECC in another machine. Can I pull it and use it in this machine?
     
CheesePuff
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 28, 2006, 10:27 AM
 
The Mac mini uses PC2-5300 DDR (667 MHz) SO-DIMM chip.
     
drewfus  (op)
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jun 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 28, 2006, 11:44 AM
 
The PowerPC mini uses PC2-5300? I don't think so...at least not what the website from Best Buy was saying.
     
plastiqueusa
Forum Regular
Join Date: Sep 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 28, 2006, 12:26 PM
 
Intel Mini uses the PC2-5300 RAM.
     
iREZ
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Los Angeles of the East
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 28, 2006, 01:51 PM
 
PC2-5300 is correct, although many users have stated how using 4200 ram is working in their machines just as well, but i would think it would run slower.
NOW YOU SEE ME! 2.4 MBP and 2.0 MBP (running ubuntu)
     
dowNNshift
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Nov 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 28, 2006, 04:41 PM
 
I just setup a 1.42 PPC Mac Mini here at our office as a server... upgraded the memory to a 1GB using PC2700 DIMM (runs at 333 MHz). Because we run OS X 10.4.5 Server on it, I replaced the HDD using a 7200RPM 2.5" Seagate Momentus 7200.1 ATA100, and that upgraded ram.

This baby flies now, runs with the best of the single PPC G4 PowerMacs now.

I'd recommend you upgrade the crap 5400 RPM stock hard drive to a 7200RPM, and upgrade to a 1GB chip -- oh, and HOLD ON TO YOUR PPC Mac Mini!! its gonna be awhile before any worthy business apps are ready to run natively on the MacTels.

here is the apple link for the exact memory you need for your PPC mac mini: http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=300572
     
Dr.Michael
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 28, 2006, 04:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by Heboil
Only problem is the PowerPC mini is sluggish when browsing any Flash intensive websites (not a great sign).
...
Opinions?
The mini with a 1.42 GHz ppc is a low end machine, but with more than enough power for web browsing.

Although more RAM would be good for your performance, it is very likely that the problem is your flash site. If it does not run well on a mini it will not run well on your average customers computer.

I develop software since ever and from my experience it is essentiell to have a low end test machine. If the software (and also your flash site) does not run on a slow machine, fix your code or your clients will hate you!
     
Bob_Barker
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Gainesville, FL
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 28, 2006, 04:53 PM
 
My Core solo does fine with web pages with just the included RAM. For your purposes, the RAM is not as much of an issue because you probably won't have a lot of apps running and switching between them. I had a 1.5GHZ G4 mini and the Core solo is noticably zippier in everything except PPC apps.
     
drewfus  (op)
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jun 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 28, 2006, 05:20 PM
 
Dr. Michael -

I'd have to disagree with you on this one. Our sites run fine on our windows or linux ofice machines, our home machines...and most importantly our clients' machines. Without attempting to cause much of a stir, the older Mac Mini is pretty slow altogether...just highlited by slow flash websites.
     
Titom
Junior Member
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 28, 2006, 07:06 PM
 
"Mac Mini is pretty slow altogether" -Heboil

Well ok then.
I'm still using a g4 400, and it's just fine for web surfing.
Too bad many sites still use the mico-soft video, the mac just does not like em.

"If it does not run well on a mini it will not run well on your average customers computer." TRUE.
     
drewfus  (op)
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jun 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 28, 2006, 10:29 PM
 
Titom -

I don't know how this is escalating into something silly, but your last remark, "TRUE", is plainly false. Mac penetration is low...and if our mini speaks for the average mac machine...then fine, these sites will be slow on the average mac machine. However, the average windows machine (which obviously has just a little more market penetration) does not run these sites slowly...so FALSE.

Can't you just accept that these sites aren't running smoothly on these machines? They run fine on P2 and P3 with 512 MB of RAM. They even run as fast on an AMD K62/400 with 384 MB of RAM running Ubuntu (maybe a 6 year old machine). Those are below average machines in the biz community now. All I was looking for was some advice as to whether or not we could improve by making a change.

My question is how can a brand new machine (2005/2006) run these slowly? That is it really. This shouldn't be an offensive thread to lovers of all things mac. It is just a simple question and statement. And even if it is treading on offensive to you because you might have thin skin, it is only an opinion. If you don't share it, fine. It is a free world (at least where I live). Funny thing is, even with the sluggish performance in general, I like the simplicity and clean GUI (haven't used a mac in over 4 years...and then it was only occasional usage). If it was speedier, I'd say it was a steal. Right now, it just looks like a good/fair buy.
     
Dr.Michael
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2006, 02:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by Heboil

They run fine on P2 and P3 with 512 MB of RAM. They even run as fast on an AMD K62/400 with 384 MB of RAM running Ubuntu (maybe a 6 year old machine). Those are below average machines in the biz community now. All I was looking for was some advice as to whether or not we could improve by making a change.
Hi Heboil,

this sounds ok to me. The two mentioned machines are indeed low end enough as a good test environment.

If RAM in the ppc mini does not help, then a intel mini might not help either. The intel minis have integrated graphics and share their graphics memory with the RAM. Their graphics performance is low (I assume for flash you need mainly graphics performance not cpu).

Please find tests on barefeats.com.

Generally I don't find flash being unbearably slow on macs (at least not slower than it is anyway on all machines ). I use a 3 year old powerbook and although I did never explicitely test flash, I never had the feeling flash performance is significantly slower than on my Thinkpad, PM 1.6 under suse.

But as my general experience, as soon as it comes to graphics output, OS X can be very slow. This can be easily seen with game performance. Even the fastest powermac lags significantly behind an average intel box. - I know, reasons are complex, but facts are like this. And more: OS X is a memory eater by design.

You can check that. The Activity monitor tells you how much memory flash needs, how much pageing is done or how your cpu performs. You can also use a freeware like doINeedMoreMemory that will tell you if RAM is a problem.

Did you perform your tests with a variety of browsers, all with the same flash plugin version and the same result?
According to Macromedia, flash performance and memory usage should be comparable on mac and windows platforms. But only with flash player 8. Before version 8 flash was not optimized for OS Xs graphics system (but for windows). And flash 7 was a terrible memory eater because of sub-optimal garbage collection. This has effects on a system that uses RAM like a V12 uses gas.

Michael
( Last edited by Dr.Michael; Mar 29, 2006 at 01:03 PM. )
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:01 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,