Help me settle a bet

Discussion in 'PowerPC Macs' started by Lil Chillbil, Dec 29, 2012.

  1. Lil Chillbil, Dec 29, 2012
    Last edited: Dec 29, 2012

    Lil Chillbil macrumors 65816

    Lil Chillbil

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2012
    Location:
    California
    #1
    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
     
  2. pure3d2 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2012
    #2
    I think the 1.33 GHz would be faster. And btw, it's "my friend and I."
     
  3. simsaladimbamba

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2010
    Location:
    located
    #3

    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
    looks easier to read when formatted like this
    regardless of spelling.
     
  4. Lil Chillbil thread starter macrumors 65816

    Lil Chillbil

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2012
    Location:
    California
    #4
    sorry it looked completely different when I typed it :confused:
     
  5. McGiord macrumors 601

    McGiord

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2003
    Location:
    Dark Castle
    #5
    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?
     
  6. simsaladimbamba

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2010
    Location:
    located
    #6
    That is because VBB (the forum software) does not like that many spaces between words and thus exterminates them.

    For more formatting options: VBB Code List
     
  7. throAU macrumors 601

    throAU

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2012
    Location:
    Perth, Western Australia
    #7
    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.
     
  8. Lil Chillbil thread starter macrumors 65816

    Lil Chillbil

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2012
    Location:
    California
    #8
    mini vs. Powerbook

    general browsing
     
  9. cocacolakid macrumors 65816

    cocacolakid

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    Location:
    Chicago
    #9
    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...

    [​IMG]
     
  10. Shadow%20Mac macrumors demi-god

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2007
    Location:
    California
    #10
    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.
     
  11. throAU macrumors 601

    throAU

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2012
    Location:
    Perth, Western Australia
    #11
    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.
     
  12. eyoungren macrumors Core

    eyoungren

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2011
    Location:
    ten-zero-eleven-zero-zero by zero-two
    #12
    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.
     
  13. Ariii macrumors 6502a

    Ariii

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2012
    Location:
    Chicago
    #13
    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.
     
  14. throAU macrumors 601

    throAU

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2012
    Location:
    Perth, Western Australia
    #14
    OH really? Your machine must be pretty CPU poor then, as activity monitor on my MBP consumes approximately 0.6% cpu.
     
  15. simsaladimbamba

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2010
    Location:
    located
    #15
    It is probably a G4 or G5 then?
     
  16. rjcalifornia macrumors 6502a

    rjcalifornia

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2012
    Location:
    El Salvador
    #16
    Mine runs fast :)
     
  17. eyoungren, Dec 29, 2012
    Last edited: Dec 29, 2012

    eyoungren macrumors Core

    eyoungren

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2011
    Location:
    ten-zero-eleven-zero-zero by zero-two
    #17
    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.

    ----------

    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.
     
  18. skateny macrumors 6502

    skateny

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2012
    Location:
    New York, NY
    #18
    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.
     
  19. 666sheep macrumors 68040

    666sheep

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2009
    Location:
    Poland
    #19
    PowerBook should be faster in Leopard. No matter which one is 1.25 1GB.
    Mini runs software rendered CI what takes some CPU. 10.5 runs snappier with hardware CI.
     

Share This Page