Help Needed: G4 Speed Cpu Type 2.1 Vs 2.9?

Discussion in 'PowerPC Macs' started by truster, Aug 10, 2008.

  1. truster macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2008
    #1
    Being new to Mac, can someone help shed light on which of the these two G4 powermac configuration yield the best performance.

    I.
    CPU Type: 2.1
    # of CPU: 1
    CPU Speed: 800 mhz
    L2 cached: 256KB
    Bus speed: 133 mhz
    Memory: 1GB

    II.
    CPU Type: 2.9
    # CPU: 2
    CPU Speed: 500 mhz
    L2 Cache: 1MB
    Bus speed: 100 mhz
    Memory: 1GB

    The first config I think is a newer G4 model. Does having 2 CPUs in config II compensate for the slower bus speed?

    Also, can Leopard run on any of these configurations without noticeable lag? Both currently on Tiger.

    Thanks for any input.
     
  2. iToaster macrumors 68000

    iToaster

    Joined:
    May 3, 2007
    Location:
    In front of my MacBook Pro
    #2
    It's really a toss up between the two. Machine 1 might be faster in one area where machine 2 might be faster in another. Either way, neither is acceptable to attempt to run Leopard on considering Leopard's minimum specs require a minimum of a 867 MHz G4.
     
  3. dukebound85 macrumors P6

    dukebound85

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Location:
    5045 feet above sea level
  4. disconap macrumors 68000

    disconap

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2005
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #4
    For running Leopard (not officially supported, but it is possible to get any G3 or G4 up and running [slowly] with Leopard), I'd go with the first, since it's closest to the requirements. For Tiger, I'd actually go with the second, depending on what you're using it for; most tasks aren't as processor intensive as you'd think, and a lot can take very good advantage of the dual processor set-up...
     
  5. Lord Zedd macrumors 6502a

    Lord Zedd

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2007
    Location:
    Denver, Colorado
    #5
    Leopard can't run on any G3, it needs the AntiVec core to work. Tiger is the highest that either of those will run.

    Its really a wash but the first 800mhz machine will be faster in most activities.
     
  6. disconap macrumors 68000

    disconap

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2005
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #6
    No idea about the G3, you might be right, but both of those are G4s; Leopard will run (slowly) on either one. DEFINITELY on the 800mHz, my friend has it running on a 700mHz emac, and I'd bet you could get it to boot on a dual 500...

    And you mean Altivec, right? That would make sense then if it didn't run on G3s.
     
  7. Lord Zedd macrumors 6502a

    Lord Zedd

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2007
    Location:
    Denver, Colorado
    #7
    Leopard won't run on either of those machines without hacks or cheats.
    Says it right there.
     
  8. disconap macrumors 68000

    disconap

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2005
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #8
    Ok, so again I will ask if you meant Altivec, as I have never heard of Antivec. Because that's what it says right there, and all I was saying is that if that's what you meant then you're probably right.

    And I don't think you need to hack anything; I did the install on my friend's machine via Firewire. That's not really a hack, and may be a cheat, but either way you can definitely get Leopard running on the 800 and probably on the dual 500 (though I don't know if the dual 5 would work). either way I don't advise it, as it runs really slow. In fact, I don't really advise Leopard in general, especially for pre-G5 machines, Tiger will run faster and more stably.
     
  9. truster thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2008
    #9
    Well then which one of these two machines would you recommend to be a better candidate for both software and hardware upgrades/paths?


     
  10. Firefly2002 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    #10
    Actually, Leopard's been made to run on later 900 MHz iBooks, albeit unstably.

    As for the 800 MHz, it would absolutely run Leopard with the CPU hack, which simply modifies the CPU requirement (probably changes a value in a .plist like the Aperture hack does).

    Not really sure how it's possible you could have never heard of AltiVec before as you own more than one Mac that has it (Apple made a huge deal out of it when the G4 came out)... but it was Apple's name for their SIMD vector unit... it was also known as the "Velocity Engine." It's a 128-bit vector unit in all PowerPC G4s and G5s, improved in the 7450, and I think probably tweaked again in the G5. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AltiVec
     
  11. disconap macrumors 68000

    disconap

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2005
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #11
    I know what AltiVec is. Seriously, did you read either of my posts? Your first post said "Antivec" and I was just asking if that was something else that I hadn't heard of.

    Seriously, no anger in what I'm saying and I'm totally not trying to start an argument, your first post just confused me is all. And you replied to something that said specifically that I knew what Altivec was, so I'm not sure what you're saying...
     
  12. Firefly2002 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    #12
    Lol...... looks like I misread your post. Sorry. :)

    It wasn't my post that actually said AntiVec, but the one I was quoting... I didn't catch the mistake in his, so I suppose that's why I didn't catch the "V" in yours, either. Was on a small-screened laptop at the time, maybe that had something to do with it *shrugs*
     

Share This Page