I am loking for a speed comparison. I am planning on upgrading my lowly Quicksilver 2002 (Specs: G4 @ 800Mhz 512MB RAM Radeon 9600 Pro (64 MB VRAM) 120 GB, 40 GB, 30 GB (7200 RPMs, ATA133s on a ATA66 bus) HDs) and have been having a hard time getting good info on some upgrade cards. I have done a search on this site and found unhelpful info, mostly people saying to save up for a new machine, very impracticle for me as I am still paying this one off, kind of, and I only can spend maybe $450 (+/-) in the next year (give or take). I am looking at either: G4 @ 1.4 Ghz (really a 1.25 clocked to 1.4, I think) 256K L2 Cache 2MB L3 Cache (6:1) or G4 @ 1.8 Ghz (really a 1.4 clocked to 1.8) 512K L2 Cache NO L3 Cache. This computer is used by three people, with itunes, web, and email taking the brunt of the use. Some photoshop, garageband, WP, coding, and games are played on it (Games played the most are: some type of web based game system, don't ask as I don't know, card, EV: Nova, Neverwinter nights, diablo II, Warcraft III, not in that order) Moslty I would like the basic run down on the performance that each chip can perform. And what experience I may get based on the apps I am using (i.e. Will the higher clock and L2 cache affect me more or will the L3 cache win out?) I do plan on getting more ram, another 512Mb to be exact, and hope to get tiger (I have run all versions of X except 10.0 varient on this system so far, and hoping this upgrade will get me throuhg the next year or two). Thanks for any help. PS there is about a $100 difference in price between the two. If you want to comment on price/performace ratio as well, I would like that as well.