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

Help me settle a bet

Lil Chillbil

Lil Chillbil

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Jan 30, 2012
1,335
111
California
Ok so my friend and I were talking the other day over what would be a faster g4 leopard machine.

1.25ghz g4 and 1gb ram
or
1.33ghz 768mb ram

I say its the 1.25ghz that would run leopard the fastest


what do you guys think
 
Last edited:
Lil Chillbil said:
Ok so me and a friend were talking the other day over what would be a faster g4 leopard machine.

1.25ghz g4 1.33ghz g4
or
1gb ram 768mb ram

I say its the 1.25ghz that would run leopard the fastest


what do you guys think
Click to expand...

I think the 1.33 GHz would be faster. And btw, it's "my friend and I."
 
Lil Chillbil said:
Ok so me and a friend were talking the other day over what would be a faster g4 leopard machine.

1.25ghz g4 1.33ghz g4
or
1gb ram 768mb ram

I say its the 1.25ghz that would run leopard the fastest


what do you guys think
Click to expand...


There is probably no real difference, but the extra 256 MB RAM will probably help a bit better than the extra 80 MHz.

Btw, this
1.25ghz g4 1.33ghz g4
or
1gb ram 768mb ram
Click to expand...
looks easier to read when formatted like this
1.25ghz g4 with 1gb ram
or
1.33ghz g4 with 768mb ram
Click to expand...
regardless of spelling.
 
G4 1.25GHz 768MB RAM
G4 1.25GHz 1024MB RAM
G4 1.33GHz 768MB RAM
G4 1.33GHz 1024MB RAM <------ faster processor, more RAM, seems like a winner for navigating MacRumors and replying to your post

What model?
Faster doing what?
 
Faster at what? It is highly dependent on how CPU/memory bound your application is.

If this is a "what would you buy", then i'd buy the faster CPU machine and stick more RAM in it. RAM is cheap.
 
McGiord said:
G4 1.25GHz 768MB RAM
G4 1.25GHz 1024MB RAM
G4 1.33GHz 768MB RAM
G4 1.33GHz 1024MB RAM <------ faster processor, more RAM, seems like a winner for navigating MacRumors and replying to your post

What model?
Faster doing what?
Click to expand...

mini vs. Powerbook

general browsing
 
I think for general browsing, the extra RAM would be more helpful. Everytime I've added more RAM to an older PPC it was a different computer.

And look at how happy more RAM makes this woman...

mushkin-redline-model.jpg
 
The additional RAM would help more than the additional 80 MHz, imho.

I had an iBook G4 clocked at 1.2 GHz with 1.25 GB RAM and I installed leopard and it ran terribly, btw.
 
PUt it this way.

Open activity monitor. Leave the window open on the CPU graph.

Do your normal stuff.

Note how many times it is pegged above 90%.


If your machine is essentially CPU-idle 90% of the time, as most are, then 80mhz difference between 1250 and 1330 mhz is going to make no difference.

RAM will.
 
throAU said:
PUt it this way.

Open activity monitor. Leave the window open on the CPU graph.

Do your normal stuff.

Note how many times it is pegged above 90%.
Click to expand...
I'd suggest doing this with either MenuMeters or iStat Menus.

Activity Monitor alone sucks 15-25% CPU just sitting there as an open and running app.
 
Are you also taking the GPU into account? Leopard is very graphics-intensive, and the GeForce FX Go5200 is generally faster than the 9200, especially since the Go5200 has 64 MB VRAM.

For a lot of tasks the PowerBook will be faster.
 
throAU said:
OH really? Your machine must be pretty CPU poor then, as activity monitor on my MBP consumes approximately 0.6% cpu.
Click to expand...
Well, I guess so. This is actually a PowerPC forum here on MacRumors. Some of us own MBPs, but the focus is PowerPC Macs, not Intel Macs.

With that said, undoubtedly your MBP would perform using much less CPU. You probably have more RAM and you have an Intel Processor.

----------
simsaladimbamba said:
It is probably a G4 or G5 then?
Click to expand...
If we are discussing my Mac, and not Lil Chillbil's, then yes. 17" PowerBook G4 with 2GB ram. Note that my PB has a failed external cache so that may affect things more than a little. However, on my other 17" PB the draw is still there, if not as much.

Activity Monitor takes some CPU cycles because it's an open program, even if for some other Macs it's a minimal hit. Both MenuMeters and iStat Menus will draw even less than Activity Monitor.

Please note that I am not arguing the merits of using Activity Monitor to monitor system usage. That's what Activity Monitor is for. However, it's still an open program where the others I mentioned are System Prefs. I'm just coming from a standpoint of having the monitoring software be the least intrusive.
 
Last edited:
cocacolakid said:
I think for general browsing, the extra RAM would be more helpful. Everytime I've added more RAM to an older PPC it was a different computer.

And look at how happy more RAM makes this woman...

Image
Click to expand...

Funny! I like it! Especially with all the grammar police making citizens' arrests.

More RAM is my credo as well, but I doubt there's much difference in speed between the two rigs. I'd need to know what app was being compared, and the differences in graphics cards.
 
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