G4 Processor upgrade Poll

[disconap]

Ok, you can read my current specs in my sig. It's time to upgrade one last time--in about a year or so I will be replacing the whole system, but I want it to have reliable parts, as it will likely become an in-house or web server...

So here's the options:

Single 1.8ghz Powerlogix for $319
Single 2.0gHz Powerlogix for $369
Dual 1.0gHz for $295
Dual 1.3gHz for $395

EDIT: 2.0gHz option added back on finding a 100mHz bus option

Both the singles are the 7447as, and both the duals are the earlier type but with the 2mb of L3 cache per processor. Advice? Opinions? This thread is actually going to help me make the choice, the biggest part of which is really how much the speed difference versus the L3 cache is worth (i.e., doing heavy CS2 and light to medium video and audio editing, is it worth going for the L3 and dual, is there going to be bottle-necking on the 100mHz bus at speeds as high as 1.8/2.0, etc.). Thanks!

 

[livingfortoday]

I'd go for the dual 1Ghz, since I think the L3 cache will probably make a difference. The newer chips are made to produce less heat, but in a big case like yours it won't be hard to cool the older ones.

 

[disconap]

Actually, I have a lot of upgrades in my case that generate heat (max RAM, a flashed PC graphics card, three hard drives, full PCI slots, etc.), so I'm worried a little about heat. But yeah, I'm a fan of the L3 cache, just want to get counter arguments.

BTW, I'm dropping the 2gHz processor from the list, as it appears they are only built for 133mHz buses...

 

[dmw007]

I say go for the dual 1.3GHz PowerPC G4.

 

[disconap]

Ok, so I found a 2 for 100bus, so I re-added it to the list.

So my real questions are A) is the L3 + dual going to outperform a single at twice the speed but with no L3 overall? and B) is that going to be true as a standalone server as well? I personally think the answer to A is yes, but I'm not 100% (having not put a processor either aboht 1.2 or more than a single in my machine before) and I have no idea about B.

 

[Demon Hunter]

A 2.0 GHz G4 is extreme overkill. My own experience with the G4 is that it becomes less efficient at higher clock speeds. A dual would be nice for audio channels and multitasking.

 

[livingfortoday]

I want to add that another reason I voted fro the Dual 1.0 was because it's the cheapest on there. If this machine isn't going to be seeing extremely heavy use in the future, then there's no need to pump a bunch of dough into it. Heck, you could just grab a used Mini and use that for the price of the higher-end upgrades.

 

[Lollypop]

I read somewhere at BareFeats that dual processors still have a huge edge over their faster clocked single processor counterparts in the tasks you mention. Its also the cheapest one, that way you save money for your new machine.

 

[SC68Cal]

This is the exact same dillemma I face.

 

[livingfortoday]

Oh, and I'm assuming this is the 1.1Ghz G4 you're replacing? If you need a buyer for the old CPU in the next few months, drop me a PM!

 

[disconap]

It is indeed! It's a pretty reliable, but very picky, quirky processor. It is one of those ones that is designed for overclocking and is very unstable at 1.0 and 1.2gHz, pretty stable at 900mHz, and runs perfectly on my machine at 1.1gHz. Makes no sense to me, but meh, it's a good speed (though getting 1.2 might be nice). It might just be a heat issue, some thermal paste could solve it, I just never bothered.

Also, it COULD be that it just doesn't like my motherboard. The guy I bought it from said it ran stably in all but the 1.2, and even that ran fine without his RAID set up running. But yeah, drop me a PM and I'll keep you in mind when I eventually replace it.

By the way, I am definitely leaning toward the dual 1.0 at this point. I was hoping to find a dual 1.5 with the L3 for an affordable rate, but no luck. Thank you all for your input thus far, and please feel free to keep making cases for the various options, but I tend to agree that going above a gig is wasting money in my system, but the dual processor will benefit what I do...

 

[spinne1]

If you feel you have to upgrade, the most bang for the buck is with Gigadesigns 1.7 Ghz Dual upgrade. Why? Because the 1.6 is slower, but not much cheaper, and the 1.8 is only guaranteed at 1.6 Ghz on a 133 Mhz bus (which I have--your mileage may vary).

Gigadesigns is among the cheapest of the dual upgrades I have found (at the same clock speeds), but with a good reputation for quality. The dual 1.7 is $459 I believe.

That said, the 1.3 dual you quote at $395 is probably a better deal, with a slight performance hit versus the Gigadesigns dual 1.7 (the increase in clock speed of the 1.7 will barely beat the 2mb cache advantage of the 1.3 card).

From the research I have done, there is a huge performance increase for the dual versus the single for many tasks, and therefore I would not consider a single unless price were the most important consideration.

 

[disconap]

Seems like the dual 1.0 is the best deal, then, though I'd consider higher if I can sell enough on ebay to make it worthwhile. I may have to replace my airport extreme card, so I just got shot back down a price bracket on this. Grrr...