Dual Processor Powermac G4 Performance VS. Single CPU?

Appleuser201

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Oct 12, 2018
359
187
I'm confused about dual processors... How much extra performance do you get? (Single 1.25 MDD vs dual 1.25 MDD powerMac G4) would a dual 1.25 power Mac equal or compare to the performance of a single 2ghz G4 or even a 1.6ghz G5?
Lastly, could you say a dual 1.42 GHz power mac with both processors over clocked to 1.67 GHz could give performance similar to single processor G5 systems?
I am a dual processor newbie and some help would be appreciated. What will I get from a dual processor G4 system?
 

davisdelo

macrumors newbie
Jul 7, 2019
13
23
Fort Worth, TX
A big factor is if you’re running OS 9 or X. OS 9 only has multiprocessing benefits for specific apps and processes, where as X takes full advantage of the dual processors.

I would likely favor a dual 1.25 or higher G4 over a single 1.6 G5, all else being equal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Raging Dufus

z970mp

macrumors 68020
Jun 2, 2017
2,249
1,824
zgxSystems
I've heard that DP systems about equal the performance of SP systems clocked 400mhz higher.

(Ex., 2x 1.42 G4 = 1x 1.8 G4)

Hypothetically, a DP 1.67 G4 should yield similar performance to a 2.0 G5, maybe even outperform it. People have said that the 1.42 eMac only feels marginally slower than the 1.6 iMac G5, and I'd have to agree on that front.

As for fact, here's what I do know:

What will I get from a dual processor G4 system?
A real kickass machine. Clockspeed be damned, PowerPC is powerful. :cool:
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TheShortTimer

XaPHER

macrumors regular
Oct 13, 2010
237
137
Nowhere to be found
Dual processors in OS X significantly improve responsiveness and increase performance at places like video playback, but direct comparison with an SP system is kind of complicated.

My 2x1.5ghz MDD feels smoother in usage than the 1.8ghz iMac G5 I had before, and the (second model) DP2.0ghz PowerMac G5 I also no longer have was faster, but at someplaces the G4 might have had the edge.

If you're going for a dual cpu board, I recommend you go with a 7455 or something that has an L3 cache (though that's what you're asking about anyway). Something with higher clockrates and 7447s that lack an L3 cache need resources from main memory more often and that might degrade performance especially on a multiprocessor context. I own a dual 1.6ghz 7447 board and altough it's fairly good I'd choose my DP1.5ghz MDD anytime over it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dextructor

Dronecatcher

macrumors 68040
Jun 17, 2014
3,271
2,773
Lincolnshire, UK
Some thoughts when I got a Dual 1.42 MDD.....
 
  • Like
Reactions: amagichnich

Hrududu

macrumors 68020
Jul 25, 2008
2,199
481
Central US
I don't have a single MDD, but I have benchmarked my single 1.25GHz iMac against my dual 1.25GHz MDD. Some dismiss GeekBench, but I think it show pretty fair comparison between systems.
MDD vs iMac
 
  • Like
Reactions: Appleuser201

TheShortTimer

macrumors regular
Mar 27, 2017
193
161
London, UK
Clockspeed be damned, PowerPC is powerful. :cool:
Yep and I had to laugh at how overhyped the initial transition to Intel was when I saw that my PM G5 outguns my Core Duo Mac when tasked with many identical challenges. Shades of The Emperor's New Clothes.

On a side note, the NGC, Wii, Wii-U, PS3 and Xbox 360 all use versions of PPC CPU's and it's only recently that Sony, Nintendo and MS abandoned the platform.
 
  • Like
Reactions: z970mp

z970mp

macrumors 68020
Jun 2, 2017
2,249
1,824
zgxSystems
On a side note, the NGC, Wii, Wii-U, PS3 and Xbox 360 all use versions of PPC CPU's and it's only recently that Sony, Nintendo and MS abandoned the platform.
I love my Wii U. A tri-core (triforce!) PowerPC 750CXe at 1.25ghz, topped with delicious Radeon graphics to boot... Plus, a whole 2 GB of RAM, no less...

I really hope this project progresses along. Once they gain SMP support and accelerated graphics, this sucker turns into a full, modern POWER-based computer.


In the meantime, the Internet Browser will have to do...
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheShortTimer

bunnspecial

macrumors 604
May 3, 2014
6,852
3,466
Kentucky
Looking at my systems where I can compare like-for-like:

Dual 500mhz Gig E vs. 500mhz Cube
Dual 533mhz DA vs. single
Dual 800mhz Quicksilver vs. single
Single vs. dual 1ghz MDD
Single vs. dual 1.25ghz MDD

The bottom line is-for me-when booting into the OS and just doing general tasks, above a certain CPU threshold(I'd say in the 1ghz-1.67ghz range for Leopard, a bit slower for Tiger) there doesn't seem to be a huge difference between single and dual. A dual will generally beach ball less, especially with a lot of background tasks going on, but that's about it.

Where the rubber really meets the road is when you start doing CPU intensive stuff, which these days pretty much means even web browsing. The dual will almost universally smoke a comparable single.

To me, a dual 1 ghz tower with a CI capable GPU is about like using a 1.42ghz eMac.
 

TheShortTimer

macrumors regular
Mar 27, 2017
193
161
London, UK
I love my Wii U. A tri-core (triforce!) PowerPC 750CXe at 1.25ghz, topped with delicious Radeon graphics to boot... Plus, a whole 2 GB of RAM, no less...
I own all of the machines that I listed and I too love my Wii U. Its fortunes would have been quite different if only Nintendo hadn't been so stubborn in a few areas that also hindered the Wii, despite its runaway success. When I showed off my Wii running under Homebrew and the possibilities it made available, people were shocked and they repeated the uniform response: "I didn't know that the Wii could do all that."

On that note...

I really hope this project progresses along. Once they gain SMP support and accelerated graphics, this sucker turns into a full, modern POWER-based computer.


In the meantime, the Internet Browser will have to do...
Count me in. I'd love to see this reach fruition. With any luck, unlike Nintendo and the gaming industry, it will be the Homebrew scene that unlocks the Wii-U's unfulfilled potential.
 

flyproductions

macrumors regular
Jan 17, 2014
147
31
Lastly, could you say a dual 1.42 GHz power mac with both processors over clocked to 1.67 GHz could give performance similar to single processor G5 systems?
In my experience it’s a question to answer "per task". Example: I have a 1.8GHz Single G5 (900MHz bus version) as well as a G4 Cube equipped with a dual 1.6GHz 7447a upgrade. Both machines get identical results in Geekbench 2, while the Cube finishes a Cinebench 10 run over two minutes faster than the G5 but, even equipped with the absolute best GPU you can get for the machine and an SSD, is unable to run full HD in Quicktime Player, which the G5 handles smoothly without any problems. So seems like for some tasks the frontside bus is bit of a question too.
 

Appleuser201

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Oct 12, 2018
359
187
In my experience it’s a question to answer "per task". Example: I have a 1.8GHz Single G5 (900MHz bus version) as well as a G4 Cube equipped with a dual 1.6GHz 7447a upgrade. Both machines get identical results in Geekbench 2, while the Cube finishes a Cinebench 10 run over two minutes faster than the G5 but, even equipped with the absolute best GPU you can get for the machine and an SSD, is unable to run full HD in Quicktime Player, which the G5 handles smoothly without any problems. So seems like for some tasks the frontside bus is bit of a question too.
I don't use QuickTime player... CorePlayer and Mplayer are so much better and I imagine a dual G4 1.25/1.42 could handle
1080p video like a G5 using these players. A G5 quad is past 1080p anyways, I've seen these things manage even 4K. With the right OS and browser a G5 quad can play 1080p full desktop YouTube in the browser.
A G5 is more powerful
Than a G4 but why can't a dual G4 play full HD if other users here have mentioned playing full HD on there PowerBook G4s with only minor glitches and frame drops?
Never underestimate the potential of the beloved G4
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheShortTimer

Appleuser201

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Oct 12, 2018
359
187
I love the case and design of the power Mac G4. I will certainly be happy to own a dual cpu power Mac, running leopard and Linux and use it as a daily driver as I can with just a single cpu iBook G4 1.33ghz
Thanks for the helpful replies, i want low end G5 performance but I love the classic G4 case design.
I'll be on the lookout for a dual MDD
 
  • Like
Reactions: z970mp

flyproductions

macrumors regular
Jan 17, 2014
147
31
I don't use QuickTime player... CorePlayer and Mplayer are so much better and I imagine a dual G4 1.25/1.42 could handle
Yes, i know these work better. But in this case it was only for comparing the performance. But even with core player HD has framedrops with the dual G4 Cube.

I think the limiting factor is just the 100MHz bus speed as the machine has 1.5 gigs of ram and a GeForce 6200 with high overclocking potential running at 430 for the core and 450 for the memory.
 

TheShortTimer

macrumors regular
Mar 27, 2017
193
161
London, UK
A G5 quad is past 1080p anyways, I've seen these things manage even 4K. With the right OS and browser a G5 quad can play 1080p full desktop YouTube in the browser.
I haven't tried 4K on my G5 yet, looks like I should! :D

The PM G5 is an extremely capable machine - right into 2019 and that's testament to its engineering. This is extremely evident in the field of HD video playback.

My P4 3.06Ghz with a 128MB Radeon can just about manage some H264 720p videos. You can forget about M2TS files or general 1080p content. As for my Core Duo Mac, I encountered similar experiences. Although 720p was no longer a struggle, many HD videos are unplayable (including those in M2TS format) and I had to use a tweak in order to get some 1080p files to even play correctly. When I attempted to play an x264 1080p MKV on my supposed all-singing, all-dancing multimedia solution PS3, it reported that its CPU is too slow.

In stark comparison, my PM G5 can effortlessly play back every HD video file that I throw at it - and without any tweaking. These machines are titans that have never received their dues.
 

Appleuser201

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Oct 12, 2018
359
187
I haven't tried 4K on my G5 yet, looks like I should! :D

The PM G5 is an extremely capable machine - right into 2019 and that's testament to its engineering. This is extremely evident in the field of HD video playback.

My P4 3.06Ghz with a 128MB Radeon can just about manage some H264 720p videos. You can forget about M2TS files or general 1080p content. As for my Core Duo Mac, I encountered similar experiences. Although 720p was no longer a struggle, many HD videos are unplayable (including those in M2TS format) and I had to use a tweak in order to get some 1080p files to even play correctly. When I attempted to play an x264 1080p MKV on my supposed all-singing, all-dancing multimedia solution PS3, it reported that its CPU is too slow.

In stark comparison, my PM G5 can effortlessly play back every HD video file that I throw at it - and without any tweaking. These machines are titans that have never received their dues.
On an earlier thread about leopard WebKit someone mentioned getting glitchy 1080p video to play on his 1ghz PowerBook G4. If you look hard enough on the Internet there are people admitting their high end G4s can play 1080p without much struggle or frame drop.
 

flyproductions

macrumors regular
Jan 17, 2014
147
31
I haven't tried 4K on my G5 yet, looks like I should! :D
As much as i love the PPC-platform, i'm afraid the potential of this machines starts getting a bit overestimated now.

I had what you might call the most powerfull PPC possible for almost ten years up to this year's april as my daily driver: A G5 Quad, 16 Gigs of ram, a GeForce 7800GTX 512Mb and a Samsung 850EVO SSD as harddrive. They don't get any better...

...and with all that it reached around 3.500 in Geekbench. That’s it so far!

I did not try 4K. But at least it can not run full res for the simple fact that there is just no GPU to run in a Power PC which supports 4K. Not even the Quadro 4500 or the 7800GTX. Both put out two dual link DVIs with a max resolution of 2560 x 1600. So no 4K here.

I love this machine and still have it. The main reason for retiring was not performance, as it was still, in 2019!, "fast" enough for even more demanding everyday tasks as extensive picture editing in PS and else. I mainly switched to something newer for software and power consumption reasons. There was a daily increasing number of web-pages which even none of the known "patched" browsers could render correctly. Last working ADOBE was CS4. And i was just tired of this "INTEL required"-note i had to read for almost every new thing i tried to install.

But even in terms of performance one has to be aware of the limitations of those once most powerful computers. It is replaced by a cMP 5,1 12 core now, which is worlds beyond: 24.000 Geekbench, 1.500 Mb/s read/write speeds and a GPU which can drive up to three displays, at least one of them in real 4k. And all of that at noticeably lower levels in noise and powerdraw.

The Quad still has his place in my workflow to make some old printer-monster, MINOLTA QMS 6100, available over the network and to use FreeHand via VNC which both works fine. But only when needed. And for the rest of the time i enjoy the silence.

;)
 

Dronecatcher

macrumors 68040
Jun 17, 2014
3,271
2,773
Lincolnshire, UK
I did not try 4K. But at least it can not run full res for the simple fact that there is just no GPU to run in a Power PC which supports 4K.
I played 4K on my Quad:


And that was with GPUs that obviously had no video hardware acceleration.

And others have if you look on Youtube (not counting the phenomenal ability of one running Linux.)

That same reference 4K video can't be played on my Mac Pro 1,1 - I'm not making any extravagant claims about the Quad, just relaying those facts.

Yes, the Quad has had it's day and is utterly smashed by modern workstations but it still has it's uses if you have one - but I'd never recommend getting one now to do any particular task as much more capable Macs can be bought at the same price.
 

flyproductions

macrumors regular
Jan 17, 2014
147
31
I played 4K on my Quad
Yes, that’s what i was trying to say: 4K might be playable, maybe even smoothly and fullscreen downscaled to a given display. But never in it's native resolution of 3840 x 2160 as there is just no PowerMac-vid card able to display this res.
 

Dronecatcher

macrumors 68040
Jun 17, 2014
3,271
2,773
Lincolnshire, UK
Yes, that’s what i was trying to say: 4K might be playable, maybe even smoothly and fullscreen downscaled to a given display. But never in it's native resolution of 3840 x 2160 as there is just no PowerMac-vid card able to display this res.
That's an interesting point - I've always maintained that a video plays better on a screen smaller than it's actual resolution ie downscaled but my theory was poo pooed ;)
 

Appleuser201

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Oct 12, 2018
359
187
As much as i love the PPC-platform, i'm afraid the potential of this machines starts getting a bit overestimated now.

I had what you might call the most powerfull PPC possible for almost ten years up to this year's april as my daily driver: A G5 Quad, 16 Gigs of ram, a GeForce 7800GTX 512Mb and a Samsung 850EVO SSD as harddrive. They don't get any better...

...and with all that it reached around 3.500 in Geekbench. That’s it so far!

I did not try 4K. But at least it can not run full res for the simple fact that there is just no GPU to run in a Power PC which supports 4K. Not even the Quadro 4500 or the 7800GTX. Both put out two dual link DVIs with a max resolution of 2560 x 1600. So no 4K here.

I love this machine and still have it. The main reason for retiring was not performance, as it was still, in 2019!, "fast" enough for even more demanding everyday tasks as extensive picture editing in PS and else. I mainly switched to something newer for software and power consumption reasons. There was a daily increasing number of web-pages which even none of the known "patched" browsers could render correctly. Last working ADOBE was CS4. And i was just tired of this "INTEL required"-note i had to read for almost every new thing i tried to install.

But even in terms of performance one has to be aware of the limitations of those once most powerful computers. It is replaced by a cMP 5,1 12 core now, which is worlds beyond: 24.000 Geekbench, 1.500 Mb/s read/write speeds and a GPU which can drive up to three displays, at least one of them in real 4k. And all of that at noticeably lower levels in noise and powerdraw.

The Quad still has his place in my workflow to make some old printer-monster, MINOLTA QMS 6100, available over the network and to use FreeHand via VNC which both works fine. But only when needed. And for the rest of the time i enjoy the silence.

;)
While mid to high end modern machines are so much more powerful than the old G5, the quad G5 destroys low end intel CPU's found in cheap notebooks and chromebooks. The Core 2 Duo is about twice as fast as these CPU's for most daily usages which says a lot about the G5.
 

flyproductions

macrumors regular
Jan 17, 2014
147
31
Since no current Kodi plugins work w/the PPC version of XBMC I hadn't loaded it.
Sorry for quoting from a different thread.

But i have been able to patch some older version (2.1.6) of what i think is the most popular KODI-plugin, x-stream, to work with the last PowerMac-usable version of XBMC, 11 (Eden), at least with some of the site-plugins like Kinox, Movie4k, Filmpalast.to. So i have been able to watch movies and TV-shows for free quite fine. In some cases even HD. But the more recent versions of the site-scripts all need some newer version of Python to work, which neither XBMC nor 10.5.8, Leo, seem to offer anymore. So sadly this has come to an end too.

:confused:
 

Appleuser201

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Oct 12, 2018
359
187
Sorry for quoting from a different thread.

But i have been able to patch some older version (2.1.6) of what i think is the most popular KODI-plugin, x-stream, to work with the last PowerMac-usable version of XBMC, 11 (Eden), at least with some of the site-plugins like Kinox, Movie4k, Filmpalast.to. So i have been able to watch movies and TV-shows for free quite fine. In some cases even HD. But the more recent versions of the site-scripts all need some newer version of Python to work, which neither XBMC nor 10.5.8, Leo, seem to offer anymore. So sadly this has come to an end too.

:confused:
Never even thought about streaming from Kodi. Anyone got in browser Netflix working on PPC Linux from one of the many available browsers? or even in browser Spotify?