Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

1 GHz and 1.2 GHz Upgrades

I hope they're those new 18 x multiplier G4s that work in a beige G3 :D

Seriously though, if these upgrades are reasonably priced a used quicksilver with a dual cpu upgrade card could be a good system for people on a budget, assuming the prices are reasonable.

Even though the new entry level G4 is overall a better mac, I could definately shop around for a used 733Mhz G4 as a tie over between buying a new mac if I knew I could upgrade it cheaply to a dual 1 or 1.2 Ghz later on.

Infact if these upgrade cards are cheap enough for people with 1 year old quicksliver G4s to afford, I can see a lot of people buying them instead of getting a new mac and then waiting for apple to bring out something with real muscle next year before they get a new mac.

I'm jumping the gun a bit here I know but any increase is the speed of cpu upgrades is good for every body really, especially those of us who can't afford a new mac every year.
 
Whoa, a dualie 1.2 in my 400 AGP would be killer a whole new machine inmy beloved sawtooth case. Now, If I jusr spring for the right superdrive, I'm set and good for awhile.

This could hurt apples sales on new machines, but they don't ususally let theupgraders get to much out that would compete. Might the next powermacs be a lot closer than we think? Probably not, but this is wierd. The 800 an 1ghz upgrades came out just a couple months ago, then bang, new powermacs. I wonder if the sigle processor upgrades will get real cheap now?
 
Cheap??Would be nice,but I think the single ones will stay at that pricelevel and dual will be much more expensive,everything else would be a miracle...
Anyway,if the single upgrades get cheaper,I might get a decent speed boost for my 350 Mhz AGP G4,which can not be upgraded to dual.Anyway,the 100 MHZ Bus speed would be a big bottleneck for dual.:(
 
So I'm assuming that the articles say the big names, so Powerlogix or Sonnet I guess. And I myself was thinking of putting in a cpu upgrade in my g4/400/agp, especially since I just loaded it with a nice little ati 8500, a dual cpu now would be even better.

It will be interesting though if they do drop the prices a little. Speaking of, didn't Powerlogix just drop their prices like last week? Maybe to clear pricing room for these dual upgrades?

The only thing I know, is that when Sonnet released that dual 500 (550?) cpu upgrade, it wasn't compatible with my g4. Some uni-3 problem or something. Wonder if they'll have that sorted out with these cards?
 
Well,I have the same problem,too.Hope they fix that,though,as I said before,I think the 100 Mhz Bus will be far too slow for dual,even 1GHz single will not bring its full possible performance due to that fact.
 
For iMac G3 CRT?

Maybe those rumors on macosrumors about CPU upgrades for the iMac G3 are true afterall! Now I'll be able to put a dual-G4 into my iMac DV 400 :D

yeah right... well.. its always nice to dream :)
 
Originally posted by GetSome681

It will be interesting though if they do drop the prices a little. Speaking of, didn't Powerlogix just drop their prices like last week? Maybe to clear pricing room for these dual upgrades?

You're right, they are down by about a hundred bucks, now the 800 at four hundred bucks sounds pretty tasty.
Click to expand...
 
Left out of the party

If the past is any guide, these upgrades will be so spectacularly exepensive as to render them uneconomic. If they are not, then people should go for it as Quicksilver owners certainly have little to gain from the marginal 'Windtunnel" upgrade, what with the fake DDR and all...

I must admit my bitterness at having narrowly missed the AGP party..My decked out (768mb RAM, Twin U2W cheetahs, etc) Yosemite G3/400 lacks AGP (it shouldn't have) which excludes me (bitterly) from Quartz Extreme, and no-one has yet made a 745XX-based upgrade yet for my machine. For some reason, 745XX boards are available for 7XXX series Macs, which sounds a bit Frankensteinish to me, but not the Blue and White..Why is this? All I really want is an affordable (sub $400) 800mhz/1ghz single-CPU upgrade (OK, I would also be happy with a dual 500mhz in the same range) to give my machine a bit of new life until real-DDR based dual 7470 machines at worst, or IBM powered machines at best, appear...Do I ask for too much?
 
Dual 1.2?

How can anyone really expect dual 1.2's to roll out any time soon when nothing like it is even available (shipping) from Apple?

Anyone other than me notice that the "ultimate" PM config at the Apple store is back up to 6-8 weeks away from shipping?
 
Well the "fastest" config has been 4-6 weeks for a week or two, and I thought "ultimate" was as well but has bounced back up.

I strongly suspect the problem is with Moto having problems supplying chips that run at 1.25ghz. They probably are providing a trickle, but I bet Apple has more demand than supply for them.

I really do not expect any upgrade-card maker to offer a dual 1.2 for quite some time.
 
dude...

"I own a Dual 800 quicksliver and this upgrade would be really helpful. This will hold me over until the G5 comes out."

Can I ask what exactly you do that the dual 800 seems to be a just a bridge till the g5 comes out?
 
Maybe they will do what apple did, and just tell us about them but not release them until 4-6 weeks later. That would suck if you really wanted to upgrade now, but I could see it happen.
 
chewbaccapits:

I own a dual 800 G4 too, and lemme tell ya it doesn't go nearly fast enough for me. Drives me nuts in games. Gets is rear handed to it on all the programs I write by my dual 700 Xeon with an inferior video card, plus a smaller amount of slower RAM.

I have to boot into freaking OS9 to play WC3 compeditively, and even then my PC pals get better framerates.

I haven't upgraded to 10.2 yet, perhaps it will help.
 
Originally posted by ddtlm
chewbaccapits:

I own a dual 800 G4 too, and lemme tell ya it doesn't go nearly fast enough for me. Drives me nuts in games. Gets is rear handed to it on all the programs I write by my dual 700 Xeon with an inferior video card, plus a smaller amount of slower RAM.

I have to boot into freaking OS9 to play WC3 compeditively, and even then my PC pals get better framerates.

I haven't upgraded to 10.2 yet, perhaps it will help.
Click to expand...

I strongly recommend 10.2 - couldnt tell you whether your WC fiasco would be solved, but I hear people get better Frame Rates on Jag. It is worth the money. It is really cool you should get it.
 
scem0:

I mean to get 10.2 but have been putting off ordering it as I have been deciding what my overall plan is, possibly including a dual 1.25 or perhaps the next generation of PBook (but that paint... ug).

I think the problem with WC3 on OSX is less about framerate than it is about the OS sticking its big ol nose in there and interupting things all the time. There are distinct chops at semi-regular intervals but I think it is marginally ok between them. (Course I haven't bothered try it on OSX recently.)

The problems really begin in large battles of course, but OS9 played nicely in a 5 way FFA last night and does OK in arranged 3v3 games (with 4v4 I better hope the other team sucks cause mircomanagement is impaired when the massive armies collide).

You probably would guess as much, but those 4v4 battles very rarely disturb my Athlon 1.53 and GF4Ti on PC133 RAM.
 
Originally posted by ddtlm
chewbaccapits:

I own a dual 800 G4 too, and lemme tell ya it doesn't go nearly fast enough for me. Drives me nuts in games. Gets is rear handed to it on all the programs I write by my dual 700 Xeon with an inferior video card, plus a smaller amount of slower RAM.

I have to boot into freaking OS9 to play WC3 compeditively, and even then my PC pals get better framerates.

I haven't upgraded to 10.2 yet, perhaps it will help.
Click to expand...
how do u display framerates in WC3? Im running a 933 and it flys on WC3, only time its slow as when their total chaos going on (6 armies fighting at 90/90) other than that its sweet. I know that i have a faster single chip...but you have TWO chips, shouldn't you be seeing close if not better results???
btw...doesnt the dual 800 have an ati 7500??? i bet thats your problem. I have a geforce4 mx (p.o.s. i know) but am waiting for the 9700 (should be sweet)
 
BongHits:

Warcraft3 does not take advantage of two processors as far as I know, so my having an extra one around doing pretty much nothing really doesn't help. In fact, OSX juggles WC3 between the CPU's endlessly which interrupts computation and requires that the game data is sent to the caches of the new CPU from the old one.

My video card is only a GF2MX, but all that effects is what resolution I can run at. Multiplayer games are essentaily unplayable at the default settings but are better at my customized settings. I'm thinking about getting a Radeon 9000 Pro (nice price point and it's better than a GF4MX) when they are available (two weeks?). I probably won't increase my settings much; just try to keep the big battles playable.

I do not know of any way to display the framerate in WC3, however when it hits the dirt I have no trouble noticing. In fact, sometimes I have a hard time controlling my units when it does that.
 
Originally posted by ddtlm

Warcraft3 does not take advantage of two processors as far as I know, so my having an extra one around doing pretty much nothing really doesn't help. In fact, OSX juggles WC3 between the CPU's endlessly which interrupts computation and requires that the game data is sent to the caches of the new CPU from the old one.
Click to expand...

Actually - you're saying two things.

If it doesn't in fact take advantage of two processors, then it does NOT split it between two processors.... that would be called taking advantage of the two processors.

Under OS X:

If an Application is multi-threaded, it will take advantage of two processors. This does NOT incur a performance hit... as by the nature of threads, they are designed to be self sufficient.

If an application is NOT multithreaded... having multiple processors should help... because while WC3 or whateever will run on a single processor... the other processes including osx sound code will run on the second processor... giving you still an advantage.

arn
 
arn:

I meant that WC3 only uses one processor, but is juggled between them constantly. From watching Apple's little CPU monitor, I'm sure it spends significantly less than a second on each chip before jumping again, but I don't know how to accurately measure it.

This contrasts with Linux where the OS is smart enough to make the task stick to a chip for substantial amounts of time, depending on priority.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back