Single Processor G4
- Thread starter loom001
- Start date
macidiot
Registered
I have a single processor G4 533 MHz, that I got in april of '01, and it is still fast enough to run anything I throw at it today. I have 10.2.4, I run a web site off of it (albeit a low hit web site) and I work in photoshop, and do all kinds of processor intensive work on it, and it has never let me down, so I would take a guess that a single processor 1 GHz system would last you 3 years easy.... one thing I would suggest though is RAM, I have a Gig, and it is worth every penny!
mr. k
Registered
Well, if the single 1 ghz is 1499 and the dual 1.25 is 1999 thats just a 500 dollar difference. I guess 500 could be big or small depending on how you look at it 
With a dual 1.25 ghz and a decent amount of ram, your powermac would be able to do just about anything you throw at it easily, but do you need that? I would lean toward the dual just because I figure that if I am getting a machine to last me 2-3 years I don't wanna look back and kick myself about it
On the apple site ( http://www.apple.com/powermac/architecture.html ) it says that in a FCP test the single 1ghz is 56% faster then a 500mhz G4 and the dual 1.25 is 176% faster then the 500. I would say that performance difference is worth it.
But if you are going to spend what, $3000 for a high end mac (1499 + 1299 for monitor = 2800 + tax) then 500 seems like a minimal amount to add on for the benefits it poses.
With a dual 1.25 ghz and a decent amount of ram, your powermac would be able to do just about anything you throw at it easily, but do you need that? I would lean toward the dual just because I figure that if I am getting a machine to last me 2-3 years I don't wanna look back and kick myself about it On the apple site ( http://www.apple.com/powermac/architecture.html ) it says that in a FCP test the single 1ghz is 56% faster then a 500mhz G4 and the dual 1.25 is 176% faster then the 500. I would say that performance difference is worth it.
But if you are going to spend what, $3000 for a high end mac (1499 + 1299 for monitor = 2800 + tax) then 500 seems like a minimal amount to add on for the benefits it poses.
loom001
Registered
I think I will post a little more information on what I am going to us it for, that might help.
I am trying to figure out is this enough to get me through 2 to 3 years? What I am going to us it for? Some Photoshop I am by no means a graphic artist, just trying to learn how to create my own web graphics. PHP Programming, web development. Learning UNIX, Photos, Quick books for a small biz, and minor video editing you know family stuff. I also am addicted to downloading freeware, open source and playing with it. I hear everyone talk about the dual processor G4's, but I am not sure the need is there for me. I am a PC person that just wants to learn more and have something new to play with. Any input would be greatly appreciated!
I am trying to figure out is this enough to get me through 2 to 3 years? What I am going to us it for? Some Photoshop I am by no means a graphic artist, just trying to learn how to create my own web graphics. PHP Programming, web development. Learning UNIX, Photos, Quick books for a small biz, and minor video editing you know family stuff. I also am addicted to downloading freeware, open source and playing with it. I hear everyone talk about the dual processor G4's, but I am not sure the need is there for me. I am a PC person that just wants to learn more and have something new to play with. Any input would be greatly appreciated!
Well, the single 1 GHz machine is certainly a good machine to start with the Macintosh. The things you talk about won't make so much use of the dual processor setup. Photoshop, but only in some cases.
If you ever start to really push the processor(s) with things optimised for dual processors (3D animation, large scale graphics stuff etc.) and you're going to make money off of these features: Why not buy a decent machine for those tasks, then, I ask.
Btw., I AM a graphics designer and am totally stunned at how well I'm doing on my tiny iBook with one G3 processor. Thing is, Mac OS X is helping me so much in these tasks that I don't mind if something in Photoshop or InDesign might take a bit longer sometimes.
However, if you PLAN on keeping this for two years already, the 500 USD don't sound so bad, either. Just keep in mind that everything BESIDES the processor(s) is upgradeable to the same extent. And overtime, a new graphics card or more RAM, a new harddrive or optical drive might seem a good idea. All those things can be upgraded as easily on a single OR dual processor machine.
If you ever start to really push the processor(s) with things optimised for dual processors (3D animation, large scale graphics stuff etc.) and you're going to make money off of these features: Why not buy a decent machine for those tasks, then, I ask.
Btw., I AM a graphics designer and am totally stunned at how well I'm doing on my tiny iBook with one G3 processor. Thing is, Mac OS X is helping me so much in these tasks that I don't mind if something in Photoshop or InDesign might take a bit longer sometimes.
However, if you PLAN on keeping this for two years already, the 500 USD don't sound so bad, either. Just keep in mind that everything BESIDES the processor(s) is upgradeable to the same extent. And overtime, a new graphics card or more RAM, a new harddrive or optical drive might seem a good idea. All those things can be upgraded as easily on a single OR dual processor machine.
kenny
Registered
I've always worked with the notion that you should buy the best machine you can afford. With the sorts of things that you mention you're planning to do, a dual-proc machine will certainly make a difference vs. a single-proc machine. It will also have a much longer lifespan even though it might seem like overkill today. If nothing else, a dualie will have a better resale value later on if you find you need to upgrade (or if for some bizare and sick reason you decide you can't live without your PC ).
).
Vard
Looking for progress
Here's an idea....refering back to Mr. K's argument about the $500 difference...
OS X needs Ram, the more the better. How about getting the 1.25Ghz with the MINIMUM amount of ram from Apple...then buy the rest of the ram you need from a supplier that charges reasonable prices! I made this mistake....I could have save over $200 bucks getting my second 512MB after I bought it...but I didn't....
Just an idea.
OS X needs Ram, the more the better. How about getting the 1.25Ghz with the MINIMUM amount of ram from Apple...then buy the rest of the ram you need from a supplier that charges reasonable prices! I made this mistake....I could have save over $200 bucks getting my second 512MB after I bought it...but I didn't....
Just an idea.
hulkaros
The Incredible...
Or is it a wallet job?
Hehe... I've got my self a 1ghz TiBook and I think that it is more than enough!
However, I live by the following rule and I always learn the others to live that way (or is it my way? )...
-ALWAYS buy the best system that you can afford AND does your job NOW!
If you can afford the dual GO for it If you can't go for the single Is THAT easy
Hehe... I've got my self a 1ghz TiBook and I think that it is more than enough!
However, I live by the following rule and I always learn the others to live that way (or is it my way?
)...-ALWAYS buy the best system that you can afford AND does your job NOW!
If you can afford the dual GO for it
If you can't go for the single Is THAT easy
loom001
Registered
So would I be better off going with something like this?
Dual 867MHz PowerPC G4 processors
L3 Cache: 1MB DDR SRAM per processor
System Bus: 133MHz
256MB PC2100 (266MHz) DDR SDRAM, 4 DIMM slots supporting up to 2GB of DDR SDRAM
60GB Ultra ATA/100 hard drive; 7200 rpm
Combo DVD-ROM/CD-RW
NVIDIA GeForce4 MX with 32MB of DDR SDRAM
Built-in 10/100/1000BASE-T Ethernet and 56K modem; AirPort ready
Dual display support - supports two all-digital Apple flat-panel displays
Mac OS X v.10.2 (Jaguar) - Experience robust multitasking and accelerated application performance with symmetric multiprocessing in Mac OS X
Has smaller video ram but at this point don't see a big issue. This system would be the about a 100 bucks more then the 1gig. Thanks for the help.
Dual 867MHz PowerPC G4 processors
L3 Cache: 1MB DDR SRAM per processor
System Bus: 133MHz
256MB PC2100 (266MHz) DDR SDRAM, 4 DIMM slots supporting up to 2GB of DDR SDRAM
60GB Ultra ATA/100 hard drive; 7200 rpm
Combo DVD-ROM/CD-RW
NVIDIA GeForce4 MX with 32MB of DDR SDRAM
Built-in 10/100/1000BASE-T Ethernet and 56K modem; AirPort ready
Dual display support - supports two all-digital Apple flat-panel displays
Mac OS X v.10.2 (Jaguar) - Experience robust multitasking and accelerated application performance with symmetric multiprocessing in Mac OS X
Has smaller video ram but at this point don't see a big issue. This system would be the about a 100 bucks more then the 1gig. Thanks for the help.
loom001
Registered
Was doing so more thinking here, besides OSX and Photoshop what really uses 2 processors that I was talking about? Like if I am using Itunes is it going to us both processors? Web development dosn't I can't imagine? If I did do the dual 867 processors, would I actually take a noticeable hit in performance on things not using the duals? Just trying to think it through. I really don't want to spend a little over 2000.00 dollars on a mac. more comfortable in the 1,500.00 dollar range. Thanks again for all the help.
Vard
Looking for progress
I can see your point, but as a DP user, I'll say this....
As you pointed out, OS X uses DP, so 'everything' get's a taste of it at some level. Say your doing something in X program that only uses 1 proc, with the DP you can jump to something else and not suffer while the other is kicking away.
Sometimes I have my CPU monitor open just cause 2 is so pretty to look at!
Anyway, you should just get what you are comfortable with, go with your first impression and don't worry about regretting your decision later...you're still going to love the system.
As you pointed out, OS X uses DP, so 'everything' get's a taste of it at some level. Say your doing something in X program that only uses 1 proc, with the DP you can jump to something else and not suffer while the other is kicking away.
Sometimes I have my CPU monitor open just cause 2 is so pretty to look at!
Anyway, you should just get what you are comfortable with, go with your first impression and don't worry about regretting your decision later...you're still going to love the system.
Most Apple sales are made of iMac and portables, so that you can considere that this is the reference for current computing capabilities. Most of the people that buy software have machine that are between 1 and 2 years old. So that for quite a long time the 1 GHz will be quite a good machine for any software...
Arden
Where mah "any" keys at?
I think, with those specs, and your previously mentioned computing intentions, that if you don't decide to suddenly drastically increase the workload on your processor (you definitely won't get the fan(s) running doing web development), you should be set with that computer for at least 7-8 years. (I'm writing this off of a 5 year old beige G3, and it's still running pretty smooth. The hull has a few leaks and there's some rot in the lower decks, but other than that it's smooth sailing.)