PDA

View Full Version : Powermac g4 sawtooth dual 500 or Quicksilver 933mhz?




raysfan81
Mar 23, 2010, 05:46 PM
They are both dirt cheap and I have some random components laying around which is better.



JoeG4
Mar 23, 2010, 05:58 PM
The dual 500 has a 100mhz bus, no? That would make it a deal killer to me, but sawtooths can take 2gb ram (IIRC, 4 ram slots). The QS can only take 1.5gb (3 ram slots).

If you plan to upgrade I'd almost say go with the QS, they're much better looking anyway. lol. Or go find a dual... 1.42ghz MDD ;) with 9700! Best PPC machine ever..

disconap
Mar 23, 2010, 08:12 PM
Depends on what you need it for. The previous poster is correct, but the Sawtooth is also a workhorse, never had a problem in the ten years almost that I've owned mine...

jodorowsky00
Mar 24, 2010, 01:45 AM
They are both dirt cheap and I have some random components laying around which is better.

theres no question the 933 is way more powerful!
The dual 400 doesnt even run Leopard.
The question is will you use tiger or leopard thats a much harder question. the 933mhz is lighting fast in tiger and a bit slow in leopard. but leopard gives you more compatibility with new programs.

drewsof07
Mar 24, 2010, 09:47 AM
I have a dual 800 QS, it runs 24/7 as my torrentbox and print server. Best $100 I ever spent! Got it running Leopard using target disk to my powerbook. Maxed out the ram, installed a 2nd HD, bought a USB2 card and put a DVD burner in it.

You can get unsupported machines <867mhz to run Leopard just fine by installing over target disk. In fact, I compared my dual 800 with leopard benchmarks against a single 933 online and mine scored higher than the 933 (10.5).

I'm sure I read of someone running it with maxed ram on a dual sawtooth.

4JNA
Mar 24, 2010, 10:28 AM
both decent, i'd say it matters more what you plan to do with it.

i'd use the dual if this is going to be a server (more ram, dual cpu) and the QS if this is going to be a light use system (faster bus/cpu).

velocityg4
Mar 24, 2010, 01:16 PM
I'd go with the QS as it trounces the other G4 in most respects 4x AGP vs 2x, 133mhz Bus vs 100Mhz, ATA 133 vs 100 (supporting drives larger than 128GB), 4 PCI Slots vs 3. Though it only supports 1.5GB of RAM vs 2.0GB it should not matter as PC100/133 RAM is insanely expensive and you should be looking at a low end G5 1.6Ghz or 1.8Ghz with 2GB included rather than what it would cost to max these out. Each 512MB module is over $50.:eek:

Is it an upgraded Sawtooth? As I thought the Gigabit Ethernet models were the first DP G4's.

666sheep
Mar 24, 2010, 02:51 PM
With dual 500 MHz CPU it should be Gigabit Ethernet (aka Mystic).

both decent, i'd say it matters more what you plan to do with it.

i'd use the dual if this is going to be a server (more ram, dual cpu) and the QS if this is going to be a light use system (faster bus/cpu).

+1
With a little soldering skills, it's possible to get from that Mystic (or Sawtooth), quiet dual 600 MHz @ FSB 120MHz server.

QS 933 easily would run @1067 MHz, (with a little soldering ofc). 2MB L3 makes it decent machine to light usage.

raysfan81
Mar 24, 2010, 07:23 PM
Or go find a dual... 1.42ghz MDD ;) with 9700! Best PPC machine ever..

I really wish I had one of those but for my backup to my backup to my good computer its a little pricey :)

I honestly would probably use them mainly for file storage and maybe some light Internet use or word processing. I just cant resist them because they are so awesome.

raysfan81
Mar 24, 2010, 07:31 PM
Is it an upgraded Sawtooth? As I thought the Gigabit Ethernet models were the first DP G4's.

Thanks for the correction it is a Gigabit Ethernet not a Sawtooth..... oops....I think the GBE were the first DP models and this one has gigabit Ethernet I believe so therefore it must not be a sawtooth. :)

velocityg4
Mar 24, 2010, 10:17 PM
I really wish I had one of those but for my backup to my backup to my good computer its a little pricey :)

I honestly would probably use them mainly for file storage and maybe some light Internet use or word processing. I just cant resist them because they are so awesome.

In this case I would definitely get a QS since it can handle much larger hard drives. You can also get the 4 port Syba SY-PCI40010 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16816124028) SATA controller for the much larger SATA drives and it would work in either computer. In which case I would prefer the QS as well since the single CPU should draw less power leaving more from the PSU to the hard drives. As I recall the QS PSU has a higher wattage rating as well.

Though you would have to fashion a mount from some sheet metal to hold so many hard drives. I would also mount an extra cooling fan to the custom drive mount if you run so many in the case.

300D
Mar 28, 2010, 01:21 AM
No question, the QS is better in pretty much every way.

raysfan81
Mar 28, 2010, 02:40 PM
No question, the QS is better in pretty much every way.

Alright, that is probably the one I'll go with unless I find a good MDD. Which one of the Quicksilvers have gigabit ethernet?

Eric S.
Mar 28, 2010, 06:46 PM
Which one of the Quicksilvers have gigabit ethernet?

I believe all of them have it. GE came in with the Mystic (http://lowendmac.com/ppc/mystic-powermac-g4-gigabit.html), which preceded the Quicksilver by a year or so.

velocityg4
Mar 29, 2010, 10:41 AM
Alright, that is probably the one I'll go with unless I find a good MDD. Which one of the Quicksilvers have gigabit ethernet?

If you are not getting the specific unit you mentioned be sure to get a 2002 Quicksilver as the 2001 model still had the 128GB limitation. The MDD models you mentioned are much better given that they use much cheaper DDR memory and have a 2GB limit.

2001 Models
Single 733Mhz
Single 867Mhz
Dual 800Mhz

2002 Models
Single 800Mhz
Single 933Mhz
Dual 1.0 Ghz