Upgraded G4 with new HD, but is this Xbench right? Please read.

Lucky736

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jan 18, 2004
854
479
US
Okay all here goes. Xbench was at 121.xx now at 34.xx is this right? Read below.

System before:
G4 1.8
896MB RAM
Geforce2 MX 32MB
Adaptec SCSI Ultra 160 w/ IBM 10k RPM SCSI 36.7GB Drive

Xbench was just over 121

System now:
G4 1.8
896MB RAM
Geforce2 MX 32MB
Seagate Barracuda 120GB 8MB Cache 7200 RPM

Upon installing the seagate and uninstalling the Adaptec Card and IBM SCSI Xbench went from 121.xx to 34.xx

Is that right? The system feels snappier and the drive is quieter, my one and only complaint about the IBM drive but it is a SCSI workhorse so it is to be expected. Are these #'s right though? Or does Xbench have a flaw?

Mike
 

RGunner

macrumors 6502a
Jul 3, 2002
695
92
Midnight Sun
Lucky

Are you talking about the 'disk' only section of XBench?

If so, your IDE controller must be having issues... most should be near 100.xx in Xbench, I can run a few numbers if you need me to (LVD 10k SCSI, IDE, SATA etc.). What IDE controller are you using? If old, or old cables you could see this 34.xx number.
 

Lucky736

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jan 18, 2004
854
479
US
It is the IDE controller on the original sawtooth board. Also, cables are brand new. Drive is set to cable select, master cable attached to drive.
 

RGunner

macrumors 6502a
Jul 3, 2002
695
92
Midnight Sun
Well thats your problem...

the sawtooth board had a 33MHz IDE controller, I wouldnt expect much out of it...

buy a 133/100 controller, or better yet go SATA with Firmtek... best is SCSI (15k) with UL3S(D) or UL4S(D), cannot be beat.

EDIT: also, the Sawtooth controller needs to know Master or Slave, do not use CS.
 

RGunner

macrumors 6502a
Jul 3, 2002
695
92
Midnight Sun
Adaptec

So does your Adaptec work in 10.4.2? There were questions about this, but have not heard yet. (2940U2W? or something else?)

You had a good setup prior really, SCSI can really make a system fly, if it wasnt for the cost, I would can all of my IDE (SATA) gear.
 

Lucky736

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jan 18, 2004
854
479
US
http://www.adaptec.com/worldwide/product/proddetail.html?sess=no&language=English+US&prodkey=ASC-29160N&cat=%2fTechnology%2fSCSI+(Premium)%2fUltra160+SCSI+PCI+HBAs+%26+RAID
 

RGunner

macrumors 6502a
Jul 3, 2002
695
92
Midnight Sun
Yep, thats why...

I suggested SATA, $57 1S2 and your Barracuda (with IDE / SATA converter works just peachy), and then you can score a Raptor down the road (or Raptor II when they are released).
 

Lucky736

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jan 18, 2004
854
479
US
Why does everything else seem quicker than the SCSI drive then though?
 

Lucky736

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jan 18, 2004
854
479
US
132.63 now. Figured out what the problem was. There is a new version of Xbench that came out yesterday that is apparently buggy. Have read a few places online now and they are waiting on a fix. So the last working version is 1.1.3

So with the new barracuda drive I have 132.63. Not bad for a sawtooth. Wonder what that will look like on Tuesday when my Radeon 9800 comes back to me. Hmmmm.....

Also the controller seems to work just fine with the drive on cable select and hooked into the master connector on the cable.
 

Mord

macrumors G4
Aug 24, 2003
10,090
21
UK
Lucky736 said:
Why does everything else seem quicker than the SCSI drive then though?

how much space was left on the SCSI drive? if it was low then you wouldent have enough room for swap so your mac will slow the crap down, i'd run the SCSI drive as boot and then keep all storeage on the 120GB drive, only keep apps and IO importent stuff on the SCSI drive and make sure you have around 10GB free.
 

Lucky736

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jan 18, 2004
854
479
US
Hector actually had about 25-30 gigs of it free. Hadn't used up much. The thing is this. I am going to *try* to run all of this with a Radeon 9800 Pro on the factory power supply. I have heard it can be done, so I figured the ATA drive would take alot less power than the SCSI since the SCSI also required a PCI SCSI adapter. Also..... the SCSI from what I have just noticed is quicker for more hard drive intensive things, ie use as a server where people will constaltly be grabbing files, etc. I just don't use it for that. An expensive web machine, email, every now and then halo or some simple game to pass time. With that said it seems the ATA is a better option for now. I think I am going to sell the SCSI and this drive. They both work great. Works fine with 10.4.2 and I think someone else would be better suited getting more use out of it. :)
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.