iMac G5 with 4.5GB of RAM

[Project Alice]

Wow, this is an amazing finding. I also have a Late 2005 iMac G5 with 2.5 GB of memory installed but I'd of course not say no to having 2 GB more. Just to be clear, one can use PC2 6400 800 Mhz sticks, correct? I've found many sticks intended for the AMD platform online for very cheap and I'm wondering if those could possibly work. I'm really tempted to buy one or two sticks to try it out since a single stick can be already had for about 8€ and the only answer to an affordable and useful upgrade can be yes . Can you recommend a certain chip brand? Also could the voltage difference be of concern? Thanks!

I replied to your PM.

I don't even know what brand is in mine tbh. I think it's PC2-5300 spec. I've never been one of those people to freak out over differing ram specs and such. If it fits, the worst thing that will happen is it won't work. When I was a kid\teenager I used to mix random ram sticks in all the time and I never once had a single problem using whatever computer. They'll just clock down to the slowest stick\supported speed of the board. If you have a 4GB DDR2 stick, plug it in turn it on and see if it works🤷‍♂️ Thats what I did. Lol

 

[MacPro2006VBox]

Now the OP needs to do is install the Impossible Cat for the sake of the naysayers

 

[B S Magnet]

Hey PPC forum

I picked up a 20" 2.1GHz iSight iMac G5 from shopgoodwill.com. It's in excellent shape, and I only paid $60 including shipping.
It's my first working iMac G5 (I have a 17" ALS model that doesn't turn on). I plugged it in and booted straight into an already clean install of Leopard 10.5.8. It had 1.5GB of RAM installed.

So this iMac apparently has a bit in common with the late 2005 PowerMacs; PCIe based graphics, and DDR2 memory. Since it only had 1.5GB I immediately wanted to upgrade to the "max" of 2.5GB. I grabbed one of my RAM bags, and sifting through it I found multiple 4GB DDR2 sticks. Since the G5 architecture is obviously able to address over 2GB unlike G4s, I decided to put it in and see what happens.
Before doing this I googled and found mostly nothing, but one page on Apple discussions about somebody asking if it was possible. It was filled with the usual "no it is not even remotely possible" type of replies; however the OP said he did it anyways and it worked, but no photo evidence was provided.

It worked, mostly. The only weird thing is that System Profiler shows "Empty" under the memory section. Other than that, the stick is recognized just fine. It is also very noticeably faster.

View attachment 1719558
I'm wondering if the reason the memory tab says it is empty is because of the speed. I couldn't find a DDR2 stick slower than 666MHz. But as you can see, it works.
View attachment 1719559

View attachment 1719560

Given the revisions to the final iMac G5 iSight series, perhaps the most interesting quirk (to me, at least) is how the board was updated with PCIe bus support and the RAM was moved up to PC2 (along with the PowerBooks), but despite the work put into revising those, the processors were left with PPC970fx architecture. Mindful that PPC970mp processors, at the same clock speed, ran hotter as a unit, the overall performance of dual core, but at a lower GHz clock speed, could have delivered a speed bump over the previous iMac G5s — say, “a dual-core 1.5GHz iMac G5”.

Of course, I’m also mindful that this was squarely from a time when Apple (and by Apple, I mean Steve) hadn’t sold consumers on the notion that “clock speed isn’t everything” — not, at least, with the products they were selling at that moment.

 

[LightBulbFun]

Hey PPC forum

I picked up a 20" 2.1GHz iSight iMac G5 from shopgoodwill.com. It's in excellent shape, and I only paid $60 including shipping.
It's my first working iMac G5 (I have a 17" ALS model that doesn't turn on). I plugged it in and booted straight into an already clean install of Leopard 10.5.8. It had 1.5GB of RAM installed.

So this iMac apparently has a bit in common with the late 2005 PowerMacs; PCIe based graphics, and DDR2 memory. Since it only had 1.5GB I immediately wanted to upgrade to the "max" of 2.5GB. I grabbed one of my RAM bags, and sifting through it I found multiple 4GB DDR2 sticks. Since the G5 architecture is obviously able to address over 2GB unlike G4s, I decided to put it in and see what happens.
Before doing this I googled and found mostly nothing, but one page on Apple discussions about somebody asking if it was possible. It was filled with the usual "no it is not even remotely possible" type of replies; however the OP said he did it anyways and it worked, but no photo evidence was provided.

It worked, mostly. The only weird thing is that System Profiler shows "Empty" under the memory section. Other than that, the stick is recognized just fine. It is also very noticeably faster.

View attachment 1719558
I'm wondering if the reason the memory tab says it is empty is because of the speed. I couldn't find a DDR2 stick slower than 666MHz. But as you can see, it works.
View attachment 1719559

View attachment 1719560

oh thats very cool!

its something iv been wanting to test/see tested for a long time since I knew the G5 quad does work with certain 4GB sticks

I had been very curious if the Last gen iMac G5 was the same (since as you say it shares a fairly common architecture to the PCIe G5s)

very cool to see that it does indeed work

 

[Project Alice]

Now the OP needs to do is install the Impossible Cat for the sake of the naysayers

I plan on it! I did attempt to boot the one already installed on my PowerMac but it kernel panic’d. I haven’t fiddled with it in awhile, I kinda go through phases. But I’ll get back to it eventually.

Given the revisions to the final iMac G5 iSight series, perhaps the most interesting quirk (to me, at least) is how the board was updated with PCIe bus support and the RAM was moved up to PC2 (along with the PowerBooks), but despite the work put into revising those, the processors were left with PPC970fx architecture. Mindful that PPC970mp processors, at the same clock speed, ran hotter as a unit, the overall performance of dual core, but at a lower GHz clock speed, could have delivered a speed bump over the previous iMac G5s — say, “a dual-core 1.5GHz iMac G5”.

I thought the exact same thing. How awesome a 970MP iMac would’ve been.. WAY cooler than the first gen Intel iMacs for sure. And you just know Apple had prototypes of them. Perhaps they decided that by cheaping out using the Core Duo instead of the Core2 they didn’t want to sell a downgraded new iMac.

 

[Amethyst1]

Perhaps they decided that by cheaping out using the Core Duo instead of the Core2 they didn’t want to sell a downgraded new iMac.

You do know that the Core 2 Duo was released in August 2006, so that in January 2006 they had no choice but to use the Core Duo, right?

 

[Project Alice]

You do know that the Core 2 Duo was released in August 2006, so that in January 2006 they had no choice but to use the Core Duo, right?

No, in 2006 I was in 6th grade and still had an AMD Athlon XP.

But that makes more sense.

 

[Amethyst1]

No, in 2006 I was in 6th grade and still had an AMD Athlon XP.

It's all good, I meant no harm, I was just teasin' ya. Ah, the Athlon XP - those were the days. (At least they didn't put a Core Solo in the iMac!)

 

[Project Alice]

It's all good, I meant no harm, I was just teasin' ya. Ah, the Athlon XP - those were the days. (At least they didn't put a Core Solo in the iMac!)

Oh I know. I guess back then I never paid attention to Intel and (even now) I couldn’t care much less what Intel did. I didn’t know when the Core Series was released at all🤷🏼‍♂️
I miss that AMD computer. I wish I still had it.

That kind of makes you wonder though. The Core series was the first time in a long time that Intel was outperforming AMD or PPC. Apple must have been working with Intel closer than some people (myself included) realized.

 

[Amethyst1]

I guess back then I never paid attention to Intel and (even now) I couldn’t care much less what Intel did.

Same here, I've always been an AMD fan; but was forced to go Intel with my first Intel Mac. My next box, whenever that comes, will be a Ryzen.

 

[Amethyst1]

Apple must have been working with Intel closer than some people (myself included) realized.

In which way? Helping Intel build Core? Core was derived from the Pentium M which was first released in 2003, as a highly efficient (performance per watt) alternative to the fiasco known as Pentium 4.

 

[TheShortTimer]

...the fiasco known as Pentium 4.

Can you elaborate as to why the P4 was a fiasco? I'd like to know more about this.

 

[Amethyst1]

Can you elaborate as to why the P4 was a fiasco? I'd like to know more about this.

It ran hot, used lots of power (making it totally unsuitable for small or thin-and-light laptops) and needed extremely high clock speeds to perform. AMD's CPUs were competitive or faster despite being clocked much lower.

 

[Project Alice]

In which way? Helping Intel build Core? Core was derived from the Pentium M which was first released in 2003, as a highly efficient (performance per watt) alternative to the fiasco known as Pentium 4.

I don't think helping them build it, I guess I mean testing it\having a lot earlier access to it than 2006.

Can you elaborate as to why the P4 was a fiasco? I'd like to know more about this.

I posted a thread on here awhile ago about a 1.5GHz G4 vs a 2.6GHz P4 I have, and the G4 only slightly lower than the P4; and the G4 feels much quicker.

It ran hot, used lots of power (making it totally unsuitable for small or thin-and-light laptops) and needed extremely high clock speeds to perform. AMD's CPUs were competitive or faster despite being clocked much lower.

I have experienced this first hand. I did have my aforementioned AMD Athlon XP up to around 2009, and it was faster than any P4 I used. I ended up acquring a Dell Dimension 3000 around that time with a 3Ghz P4 and I felt like I was using a slower computer, not one clocked over half faster.

Same here, I've always been an AMD fan; but was forced to go Intel with my first Intel Mac. My next box, whenever that comes, will be a Ryzen.

Yes, my thoughts exactly. I'm actually thinking on buying a Lenovo Legion with a Ryzen when I can afford it.

 

[B S Magnet]

I posted a thread on here awhile ago about a 1.5GHz G4 vs a 2.6GHz P4 I have, and the G4 only slightly lower than the P4; and the G4 feels much quicker.

I remember the thread @LightBulbFun fun posted about running OS X with the ADP2,1, the development P4 configuration Apple used internally.

I’d find it fascinating to see, say, a 2.6GHz P4 and either a 1.5 or 1.67GHz G4 going head-to-head with, say, Tiger or Leopard — the former configured as a Hackintosh, but otherwise running side-by-side performance tests (which aren’t like the cherry-picked tests published by Apple in June 2005), to assess each platform’s strengths and shortcomings.

 

[Project Alice]

I remember the thread @LightBulbFun fun posted about running OS X with the ADP2,1, the development P4 configuration Apple used internally.

I’d find it fascinating to see, say, a 2.6GHz P4 and either a 1.5 or 1.67GHz G4 going head-to-head with, say, Tiger or Leopard — the former configured as a Hackintosh, but otherwise running side-by-side performance tests (which aren’t like the cherry-picked tests published by Apple in June 2005), to assess each platform’s strengths and shortcomings.

I could probably attempt to get Tiger or Leopard on my P4. During my test it was running Windows 7. It’s an IMB NetVista. The Mac I used was a 12” 1.5GHz PowerBook running Leopard.

 

[Amethyst1]

I’d find it fascinating to see, say, a 2.6GHz P4 and either a 1.5 or 1.67GHz G4 going head-to-head with, say, Tiger or Leopard

The G4 would be in a PowerBook though wouldn't it, so a Pentium M laptop running at 2 GHz (or faster, if we're comparing 2005-era performance) would be a fairer or at least equally valid/interesting comparison. Or a Core Solo since that's just a slightly updated Pentium M.

 

[RogerWilco6502]

I remember the thread @LightBulbFun fun posted about running OS X with the ADP2,1, the development P4 configuration Apple used internally.

I’d find it fascinating to see, say, a 2.6GHz P4 and either a 1.5 or 1.67GHz G4 going head-to-head with, say, Tiger or Leopard — the former configured as a Hackintosh, but otherwise running side-by-side performance tests (which aren’t like the cherry-picked tests published by Apple in June 2005), to assess each platform’s strengths and shortcomings.

I'd gladly stick Tiger on my T42p and throw that into the ring as well. It has a 1.8GHz Pentium M in it.

 

[Project Alice]

The G4 would be in a PowerBook though wouldn't it, so a Pentium M laptop running at 2 GHz (or faster, if we're comparing 2005-era performance) would be a fairer or at least equally valid/interesting comparison. Or a Core Solo since that's just a slightly updated Pentium M.

I do have a Dell Inspriron in the worlds worst condition with a Pentium M. Aside from a destroyed bezel and basically no hinges the laptop has always served me well in terms of performance 🤷‍♂️ It's a 2005 laptop I think.

 

[Amethyst1]

Here's a 2 GHz Pentium M in a desktop scenario - aside from a few tests where it sucks, it competes well with P4s running at 3 GHz or more - while consuming a fraction of the power.

 

[LightBulbFun]

I remember the thread @LightBulbFun fun posted about running OS X with the ADP2,1, the development P4 configuration Apple used internally.

I’d find it fascinating to see, say, a 2.6GHz P4 and either a 1.5 or 1.67GHz G4 going head-to-head with, say, Tiger or Leopard — the former configured as a Hackintosh, but otherwise running side-by-side performance tests (which aren’t like the cherry-picked tests published by Apple in June 2005), to assess each platform’s strengths and shortcomings.

I still need to try the actual DTK BIOS on that board now Iv got a dump of it (hopefully flashrom can do it and the BIOS chip is not locked out from flashrom)


but on the Pentium 4 front, if you go into my Geekbench profile page, you can find some Geekbench 2 results of my Pentium 4 Northwood Shuttle clone PC (which I affectionately refer to as the P4 cube LOL) under leopard

Hackintosh-P4-2.4Ghz-NW-10.5.8-GB2.2.7 - Geekbench

Benchmark results for a Hackintosh with an Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 2.40GHz processor.

browser.geekbench.com

I have since maxed this PC out with a rare 3.06Ghz 533Mhz Northwood CPU which even has hyper-threading

Intel Pentium 4 @ 3065.13 MHz - CPU-Z VALIDATOR

[vs5l3f] Validated Dump by LightBulbFun (2021-02-09 16:21:13) - MB: Unknown i845G-W83627HF - RAM: 2048 MB

valid.x86.fr

amusingly the nearest OS install I had on hand was OS X Tiger I had setup for my EEE PC 701, so this is this first picture i had of the new CPU installed and booted into an OS LOL

 

[RogerWilco6502]

Here's a 2 GHz Pentium M in a desktop scenario - aside from a few tests where it sucks, it competes well with P4s running at 3 GHz or more - while consuming a fraction of the power.

I love the Pentium M. Has to be my favorite x86 processor (although the PIIs are also cool because of the fact they came on cards).

 

[Amethyst1]

(although the PIIs are also cool because of the fact they came on cards)

You mean the Slot 1 versions? The earliest PIIIs ("Katmai") also did - and the earliest Athlons (Slot A).

 

[MacPro2006VBox]

Oh I know. I guess back then I never paid attention to Intel and (even now) I couldn’t care much less what Intel did. I didn’t know when the Core Series was released at all
I miss that AMD computer. I wish I still had it.

That kind of makes you wonder though. The Core series was the first time in a long time that Intel was outperforming AMD or PPC. Apple must have been working with Intel closer than some people (myself included) realized.

They were planning Intel as far back as System 7 with the Star Trek project. They didn’t get around to actually doing this until Rhapsody and later on in Tiger (and later) in retail Intel Macs.

 

[RogerWilco6502]

You mean the Slot 1 versions? The earliest PIIIs ("Katmai") also did - and the earliest Athlons (Slot A).

Yes! Slot 1

I always forget that some PIIIs and some Athlons did as well.