Benchmark differences between G4 Quicksilver and Digial Audio

Discussion in 'PowerPC Macs' started by desantii, Aug 12, 2014.

  1. desantii macrumors 6502

    desantii

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2006
    Location:
    Aurora, IL
    #1
    I was testing soem CPUs on both machines and the Digital Audio consistently scores about 10% than the quicksilver...is that normal? Used a clone of the same OS on both (10.5.8), both have 1.5gb ram.

    Geekbench 2:
    Dual 1.47ghz G4
    Digital Audio 1150
    Quicksilver 1069

    Dual 1.8ghz g4
    Digital Audio 1360
    Quicksilver 1250

    Any thoughts?
    thanks
     
  2. gavinstubbs09 macrumors 65816

    gavinstubbs09

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2013
    Location:
    NorCal boonies ~~~by Reno sorta
    #2
    The QuickSilver and Digital Audio machines share a very similar logic board. Not really answering your question but relates to it, my QS and MDD are both dual 1GHz and the QS always beats it out due to 4MB of L3 cache vs the 2MB in the MDD (about 100 points on geekbench).
     
  3. desantii thread starter macrumors 6502

    desantii

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2006
    Location:
    Aurora, IL
    #3
    In this case I am swapping out teh cpus and testing in each so should be teh same score?
     
  4. gavinstubbs09 macrumors 65816

    gavinstubbs09

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2013
    Location:
    NorCal boonies ~~~by Reno sorta
    #4
    What type of ram is in the DA and what type of ram is in the QS (100 or 133MHz)?
     
  5. eyoungren macrumors P6

    eyoungren

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2011
    Location:
    Phoenix • 85037
    #5
    I would wager it's down to ram.

    The DAs and the MDDs can take 2GB of ram. The Quicksilvers max out at 1.5GB ram.
     
  6. bunnspecial macrumors 603

    bunnspecial

    Joined:
    May 3, 2014
    Location:
    Kentucky
    #6
    DAs only have 3 slots for a max of 1.5gb also. The DA logic board probably has more in common with the QS than it does its Graphite-cased predecessors, although there are differences between it and the QS.
     
  7. eyoungren macrumors P6

    eyoungren

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2011
    Location:
    Phoenix • 85037
    #7
    Thanks! I did not realize that. I always just assumed that anything pre-Quicksilver was 2GB.
     
  8. gavinstubbs09 macrumors 65816

    gavinstubbs09

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2013
    Location:
    NorCal boonies ~~~by Reno sorta
    #8
    Just found this out, the AGP Graphics and Gigabit Ethernet G4s could handle 2GB then the DA/QS were 1.5GB.
     
  9. eyoungren macrumors P6

    eyoungren

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2011
    Location:
    Phoenix • 85037
    #9
    Yeah, this is why I assumed. I have a 350 G4 PCI and a 450 G4 AGP, both sitting about a foot and a half away from me. Both of them take 2GB.
     
  10. bunnspecial macrumors 603

    bunnspecial

    Joined:
    May 3, 2014
    Location:
    Kentucky
    #10
    The DA also has 4 PCI slots(plus AGP) as opposed to the 3 PCI slots(plus AGP) on the Sawtooth logic boards.
     
  11. Cox Orange, Aug 13, 2014
    Last edited: Aug 13, 2014

    Cox Orange macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2010
    #11
    To the OP:

    Some time ago I discovered that DAs and QSs with same specs (look for the 733MHz models) have different geekscore on everymac.com, when you use the comaprison feature there. The DA has better results.

    Also, I think I remember some barefeats benchmarks, where the DA did better, too.

    That said, I don't trust benchmark, you can get a HDD throughput of 80MB/s in some benchmark tools, where the Bus doesn't support more than 65MB/s. Therefore I use real life tests.

    Encode/compress a movie file with Handbrake or if you have an iMovie project use that. Stop the time it takes on both systems. (I would recommend Handbrake for encoding, since iMovie takes about 2-3 times longer with the same settings. I think Handbrake also has newer codecs. You will want to prepare a 5min. video clip, if it is DV material. Because a 45min. video might take you around 12 hours.)

    Or if you have a photoshop project try rendering an effect and stopp the time.

    The next is actually more a HDD test, but you can copy 8GB of files (make a folder) or a iMovie-project of about 8-20GB and count how long that takes.
     
  12. MysticCow, Aug 14, 2014
    Last edited: Aug 14, 2014

    MysticCow macrumors 6502a

    MysticCow

    Joined:
    May 27, 2013
    #12
    It's because of the cache on the DA model (which was then high end) being a lot more than the same processor speed model in the QS (which was then low end). That's why the 733 DA is going to be better than the 733 QS.

    Now if you're going to upgrade the processor, the two systems are similar enough that getting one over the other is a moot point.

    If you're not going to upgrade the processor, then my heavily biased recommendations for a G4 remain:

    Now if I want to have the most horsepower, meaning I'm going to get every upgrade I want or can get? Then my priorities change.

    But, of course, those are my heavily biased opinions.
     
  13. Cox Orange macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2010
    #13
    I once thought that 2GB is better than 1,5GB RAM, but in what I do I noticed, that RAM usage goes never over 768MB or 900MB at max. I thought that it would help in buffering data, when encoding videos, but there is no difference running my Mac with 768MB or 1,5GB or 2GB. (I had no or similar to none page-outs/ins. I had to open several new applications and windows, to get it do page-outs. But that always just showed a quick and short rise, that didn't persist)

    I guess people that use Photoshop heavily may have some good experience about what more RAM does. (OK and music production). But for everything other as long as you have 768MB you are good. (People say that TenFourFox is a memory hog, I never looked for that, so maybe this could be another area, where it could help, when using 10+ tabs or so).

    On the different models, they all have adavantages and disadvantages (for example heat modding), of course.
    On the Dual 1GHz QS, I think, most people will get a Single core Sonnet upgrade, since they are the most common on Ebay, so a Dual 1GHz QS will still be cost effective against a CPU upgrade.

    Just for fun, here is an article that links benchmarks to upgrades http://beta.ivc.no/wiki/index.php/PowerMac_G4_Upgrades (I didn't find the article I was actually searching for, though... but it is still interesting)
     
  14. gavinstubbs09 macrumors 65816

    gavinstubbs09

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2013
    Location:
    NorCal boonies ~~~by Reno sorta
    #14
    Nice little read! The DA in my closet will be my future low power server to replace a Dimension 3000 with a Pentium 4HT, and someday I would like to get a CPU upgrade for the DA and make it TOL with a 1.42+ cpu upgrade. My QuickSilver will stay the dual 1GHz, and my MDD will be sold.
     
  15. Cox Orange macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2010
    #15
    Ah, I forgot to comment on this. That's interesting. That's good to know. But I would still like to know, what the difference in the OP's G4s is, since he used the same CPU in both DA and QS. Sure that there is no difference between QS and DA Logicboards? Or maybe the Benchmark tools are inadequate. I could also imagine that Apple used leftover DA logicboards in the first QS production until they were sold out. So maybe there are even differences between two QS with 733MHz.

    Interestingly the 1GHz DP QS came with different CPUs, some with 7450 and some with 7455 according to the *marks here http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/powermac_g4/index-powermac-g4.html
    If you want to use the DA as a server you probably would want to keep the old CPU or replace it with a low clocked 7447 Sonnet CPU, because the 500MHz Apple stock CPU of my G4 used 50-70Watts (I assume that the DA CPU will be equal), my 1,2GHz Sonnet (which is a 7455) uses 70-120W, my Dual 1,8GHz 7447 Sonnet uses around 70W-150W.

    For a server you might want to add additional storage, get this card http://cgi.ebay.de/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=271571378732 I recommended that to two other users here and they are satisfied. You just have to donload a free driver. You can only use these for data Drives, not for a boot drive, but for booting you will keep the HDD on the ATA-port anyway. :)
     
  16. bunnspecial macrumors 603

    bunnspecial

    Joined:
    May 3, 2014
    Location:
    Kentucky
    #16
    Although the DA and QS logic boards are very similar, I'm not sure that they're similar enough that this would necessarily be possible.

    The biggest difference I'm aware of is that the QS has a fourth screw mounting post for the processor card. This is significant, as this post provides +12V to the processor. I think that there are also additional wires on the power supply side of the QS logic board to supply this extra +12V.

    My DA and my QS are in different physical locations and the moment, so I can't do a side-by-side comparision.

    Of course, my QS is also the 2002 model and I've never examined an "early" one. Based on what I've seen and read, though, I'm not sure that I'd count on this being the case.
     
  17. Cox Orange macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2010
    #17
    Oh, this is a good hint with the PSU. You are right, the PSU is different (according to atxg4.com), so the logicboard should be different, but on the other hand, maybe they use the same basic board an resoldered additonal pathways/wires to put the other PSU connector on it.
     

Share This Page