Old World OS X Performance Observation |
February, 17, 2003 8:03 PM |
alan |
I have an 8600 with a G3/500 upgrade, 512M memory, IBM Ultra 160 hard drive, Adaptec 29160 controller, Adaptec USB/Firewire, and a Radeon 7000 PCI graphics adapter. After running OS X for the past 9 months on this machine, I recently purchased Powerbook G4/867 w/256M memory. After working on the powerbook, I am surprised at how LITTLE difference there is in speed between these two systems in normal use. They boot in almost identical times, I can launch large apps like Photoshop 7 or GoLive 6 actually FASTER on my 8600. The most obvious difference is in Graphics performance. There is NO comparison in 2D scrolling performance. The Powerbook scrolls in OS X like my 8600 does in OS 9 - lighting fast. In OS X my 2D scrolling is pretty sluggish. From what I have seen so far, there doesn't seem to be any way around this... I havent tried any real CPU intensive tasks like VPC or photoshop filters, yet and I ASSUME the powerbook would be faster, especially if Altivec was involved. Could the Powerbook's 256M memory be a limiting factor here? When running Xbench, my Disk I/O is much faster with the Ultra160's than the pokey Powerbook drive, but all of the other numbers are significantly lower. I plan to upgrade to 512, but I didn't expect memory to make much of a difference - especially with a single app running. I don't have benchmark access to any of the new G4 PowerMacs, but I wonder how the Dual 1.0G and 1.25G machines compare. My observations from the local CompUSA is that they certainly don't feel significantly faster than my system. For those of you with the G4/800 upgrade cards, how do your systems compare to the latest and greatest from Apple? I plan on getting a new system later this year, but I don't think I am going to get the performance increase I would expect. Certainly nothing like what I saw when I tossed my old Performa for my 8600/300! Any one else have any thoughts or insights into this? Anyone with multiple systems that could tell me how say a Dual 1.25 compares to a Powerbook 867? Finally for anyone who has been "lurking" in this forum, wondering if they should take the XpostFacto plunge, I can't say enough for how well it works for me. With a decent upgrade card, my machine has worked flawlessly from 10.1.3 through 10.2.4. You can even get 9.22 to work if you really want to, and it has worked flawlesly as well. My only suggestion is to try installing it on an extra drive if you are really worried - that what I did until i was sure it would work well. I have sure seen some horror stories here, but all in all, the experience seems to be overwelming positive. Personally, I think I have had better luck on my 8600 than lots of people with "supported systems". 10.2-10.2.4 have worked perfectly except for interim SCSI CDR issues, that were resolved. Thanks Ryan and OWC for keeping all of our old world machines going, and going, and going... Alan Ross |
. |
RE: Old World OS X Performance Observation |
February, 21, 2003 12:38 PM |
marcush |
. |
The PTP bus runs at 50Mhz but can be pushed to 55Mhz and I've even heard of 60Mhz with adjustable daughter cards. It's based on the 9500 so I think one of those would be good too. They are cheap on e-bay. I'd also look at a 9600 if you are in the market. |
. |
RE: Old World OS X Performance Observation |
February, 21, 2003 3:15 AM |
paul_findley |
. |
marcush: I notice the PTP owners get a little more agressive use out of the CPU upgrades. I suppose these have faster system bus than mac 7500? Maybe I should look for one on ebay. |
. |
RE: Old World OS X Performance Observation |
February, 19, 2003 5:23 PM |
skip |
. |
Let me confirm that drive answer. I have a alBook 12" (12" aluminum G4 PowerBook @ 867MHz). Compared to the tiBook 1GHz I had for a bit before this one, the alBook is around 10% slower overall, so the L3 cache doesn't make as much of a difference once DDR is installed. However, both the tiBook and the alBook and the 533 Sawtooth AGP before it couldn't hold a candle in disk access to my Ultra160-equipped 8600. It is so tedious to have to sit and wait while copies happen. These notebooks both have 60G drives and almost all 2.5" 60G drives are 4200 RPM drives. Really horrific performance when one is used to SCSI. Of course, we do have a DP 1.25 GHz PowerMac with Ultra160 10k rpm drives, and that is blindingly fast at anything you set it to; we use it for video production. We also have a couple of RS/6000 610-6C1s with Ultra320 15k rpm SCSI drives, and those things go beyond fast. I really wish Apple would do something about putting together a larger, thicker notebook with a 3.5" SCSI drive or at least a fast IDE and two CPUs. I'd go sit in my boss' office and not leave until he ordered me one... |
. |
RE: Old World OS X Performance Observation |
February, 18, 2003 2:07 PM |
marcush |
. |
I'm holding out for the PPC970. I figure I've got at least another year or so in which I can wait and still get decent performance out of my Power Tower Pro w/Sonnet G4 800/1GB RAM. I get good performance with Final Cut Pro and iMovie 2 (iMovie 3 is slow and crashes during video capture), and iDVD2 (haven't attempted a burn with iDVD 3 yet). DVD playback is once again completely smooth under 10.2.4 and I have no sound problems except for analog audio input. I need to test it again to verify that it still doesn't work. My solution for that will be to buy an M-Audio Revolution 7.1 card to replace my SoundBlaster. Game performance is also quite good in Return to Castle Wolfenstein and Medal of Honor. I can do everything I want to do on this machine. All things considered I think performance is quite good to excellent. |
. |
RE: Old World OS X Performance Observation |
February, 18, 2003 1:18 AM |
paul_findley |
. |
My main problem with the old world machine (7500 g4 800, LVD SCSI) is importing DV camcorder video thru firewire. iMovie 2 (and maybe 3 but it is too buggy now) causes audio sync problems, and playback in any iMovie is horrid. And Premier wants to compress on the fly with the DV codec (my computer is too slow for that), instead of importing the dv clip directly the way iMovie does. Also seems to be some issue with my Sony TRV10 (not listed by apple as supported, but TRV11 is). After getting a PCI Radeon, I can play most QT movies OK with "present movie" at up to 640x480. But then, there is that audio problem, well documented in the forums. I'm about to throw in the towel, buy a new mac, and put the 7500 in the closet as a web/ftp/file server. Except for video and sound problems, the old world mac is fine. |
. |
RE: Old World OS X Performance Observation |
February, 17, 2003 8:28 PM |
mjoecups358 |
. |
Comparing your laptop disk I/O to the ultra 160 card and drive even in such an old an slow bus is hardly fair. Laptop disk drives suffer from low rotational speeds (5400 max usually 4200) and IDE interface. Also I guess you bought the 12" PB G4? That model being cacheless might actually run SLOWER then the Sonnet 800 card with cache IF the code is able to load fully into the L3 cache.. With regards to any real word performance, your assertion regarding decreased step up versus the past, is clearly true across all platforms. We are in an era of dimishing return for increasing hardware speeds as we try to find new applications to utilize the monster hardware available. Of course for people in digital audio or imaging the returns for upgrading are still very substantial and well worth it. It seems likely that if you can wait till the PPC 970 boxes arrive (conjecture) they will likely provide a greater jump versus any G4 setup... This is just a wild guess of course. Marty |
|
|