What about G4 upgrades?

[vintagetobes]

What do people think about the G4 processor upgrades available from this place:
http://eshop.macsales.com/Search/Search.cfm?Criteria=maxpower&sort=a
The highest, dual 1.8 quotes better than intel core 2 duo imac performance! If this is the case, why don't people buy these and and cheap G4 powermacs to answer their modification needs. Whilst expensive, they are no where near the price of Mac Pros. Admittedly PPC, but that only rules out a few apps.

Just thought i'd put this forward for discussion.

Toby

 

[Lovesong]

I used to have a similar upgraded G4 DA with a dual 1.8 from Gigadesigns. There are 2 problems, which seemed to spell the end of that computer for me. First off, you're limited to having only 1.5 gigs of RAM in the computer. For most things that's sufficient, but if you're crunching huge files like me, you realize that it's simply not enough. The second problem is the FSB. Regardless of what chip you put into a G4, you're not going to get more than 133 MHz FSB out of your machine. My G5 is running at 1.25 Ghz per channel at this point, and the MBP I have runs at 667.

The reason advertisers will tell you that the chip is "faster" than a G5 or an intel is due to the fact that the G4 chips had a much lower latency than many of the 64-bit chips. Yes, for small files, you wouldn't notice the difference, and the G4 might actually be faster, but for anything of significant size, the Intels and G5 mop the floor with that thing.

 

[discodave]

I used to have a similar upgraded G4 DA with a dual 1.8 from Gigadesigns. There are 2 problems, which seemed to spell the end of that computer for me. First off, you're limited to having only 1.5 gigs of RAM in the computer. For most things that's sufficient, but if you're crunching huge files like me, you realize that it's simply not enough. The second problem is the FSB. Regardless of what chip you put into a G4, you're not going to get more than 133 MHz FSB out of your machine. My G5 is running at 1.25 Ghz per channel at this point, and the MBP I have runs at 667.

The reason advertisers will tell you that the chip is "faster" than a G5 or an intel is due to the fact that the G4 chips had a much lower latency than many of the 64-bit chips. Yes, for small files, you wouldn't notice the difference, and the G4 might actually be faster, but for anything of significant size, the Intels and G5 mop the floor with that thing.

Very well put Lovesong. Seconded.

 

[yzp]

What do people think about the G4 processor upgrades available from this place:
http://eshop.macsales.com/Search/Search.cfm?Criteria=maxpower&sort=a

HAHAHAHA...... the upgrades names are MAXPOWER

as in the simpsons!!!!!!

 

[jcoop]

Those tests showing the dual 1.8 GHz G4 outperforming a 2.33 GHz Core 2 Duo are using the last version of Photoshop, which only runs under Rosetta on Intel Macs. Not exactly a fair test.

 

[velocityg4]

To further expand on the speed difference. What they do not mention is that the version of photoshop mentioned is either CS1 or CS2. Both of which are non-universal getting poor performance on the Core Duo and Core 2 Duo. Now if you run CS3 or any Universal program against that G4. The G4 will get blown out of the water.

Edit: Dang beat to it.

You have to remember that G4 is essentially a higher clocked and slightly more efficient per clock version of a processor from 1999. While the Core 2 line is the latest in x86 processor technology.

 

[Angrist]

Regardless of the above discussion ....

I'd still rather spend $5-600 on a dual 1.8GHz 7448 upgrade than 2-4x as much on a new machine. The upgrade will easily wipe the floor with just about any stock G4 (I expect the dual 1.25 and 1.42 MDDs to do pretty well against these things though).

If you've got an investment in PATA hard drives, PCI controller cards, PCI Tv Card, etc. then it may also make more sense to keep the current machine.