Quicksilver vs Sawtooth?

Question

Level 1

0 points

Quicksilver vs Sawtooth?

Hey all,

This is purely academic at the moment, but at some point in the near future might be meaningful, at least for me.

I use & love a 9-year-old Sawtooth that I've upgraded and set up pretty much the way I want, and within days will be upgraded yet again to be bigger/faster/stronger. I've stumbled across some good deals on graphics cards, processor upgrades, etc., that have made keeping my 'Tooth a more viable economic proposition than replacing it with a newer model.

Someday, however, that will no longer be true; and I've been taking notice of the great deals one can find on used Quicksilvers these days. As it happens, purely by chance, every one of my upgrades to the 'Tooth will transfer easily to a QS: the Sonnet G4 upgrade (soon to be 1.8GHz), the PC-133 RAM, the Radeon 9800 graphics card, Sonnet Tempo Trio HDD controller, etc.

However, I've noticed a problem (?) with the specs on the QS; that being that it only has 3 RAM slots for a max of 1.5GB. So my question is this: Given that I'm already running 2GB RAM in my 'Tooth, and that a QS has a 33% faster system bus and a twice-as-fast AGP bus: which machine would be faster? Is the QS's faster system enough to compensate for a 25% reduction in RAM, all else being equal?

I'm just curious if I should be keeping an eye out for a steal on a QS, or wait 'til the 'Tooth just can't hack it any more and shoot for a MDD (which of course, I would also upgrade)? I understand the money angle (which is why I've still got my Sawtooth in the first place); I'm really just interested in your opinions on the performance side of the equation.

PowerMac G4/AGP w/Sonnet 1GHz; 80GB HDD; 2GB RAM, Mac OS X (10.4.11)

Posted on Sep 16, 2008 6:13 PM

Reply

Answer 1

Craig303

Level 1

100 points

Sep 16, 2008 7:32 PM in response to frankenmac

Having 512MB less of RAM really won't be noticeable as far a speed goes. Any QuickSilver will feel faster with 133MHz bus compared to 100MHz in your Sawtooth! I have a Digital Audio Power Mac G4 that was a 533MHz and I upgraded to an OEM Apple Dual 533MHz. That was a huge jump in performance!! I have an OEM QuickSilver 867MHz that is pretty fast. I want to find an OEM Apple Dual 800 to drop in. Remember, when you uprade to a hot Sonnet card etc, the machine bottlenecks at that 100 or 133MHz bus speed. The 9800 GPU you mentioned increases overall performance too, because it takes strain off of the CPU! The jump from a 5,400 rpm OEM PATA HD to a 7,200 rpm PATA HD is also very noticeable in performance. Get a QuickSilver and keep the Sawtooth, use them both! Download Mactracker http://mactracker.dreamhosters.com and carefully compare OEM Power Macs using the "Benchmarks" button! A 500 Sawtooth overall scores 353, while a QuickSilver 867 scores 482. For comparison, a new Mac Pro Dual 3.2Ghz 8 scores 8565! Also check out http://www.primatelabs.ca/blog/category/mac-os-x/

Reply

Answer 2

japamac

Level 7

24,400 points

Sep 17, 2008 3:11 AM in response to Craig303

Hi Craig303-

Very good advice for frankenmac.
The QS 2002 is an excellent machine.

Get a QuickSilver and keep the Sawtooth, use them both!

I did- actually two QS 2002 933mhz machines. One as a media server in the living room, and one connected to a KVM switch used with Sawtooth.

Not quite a power tower like a Mac Pro, or even a G5, but the combo greatly increases multi tasking abilities! 🙂

Frankenmac-

2 of the big benefits of the QS 2002 besides a bit faster bus, is the big drive support and the 4x AGP bus. The 9800 really stretches it's legs in a QS. I did, however, step both QS's up with flashed Geforce 6800 GT cards. That is a nice card!
Like Craig said, you won't notice the RAM difference.
Check your Activity monitor. Bet you aren't using much over 1GB now......

Reply

Answer 3

frankenmac Author

Level 1

0 points

Sep 17, 2008 5:33 PM in response to japamac

Hi Japamac,

I myself do not do a whole lot that is very demanding of the machine, so checking Activity Monitor wouldn't really do much for me. It's my kids that put demands on it, with things like iMovie and Photoshop and such. I intend to check it out the next time they're creating a YouTube masterpiece.

Your comment, however, brings me to another question: would you consider the 4gigs of RAM in a MacBook Pro, or 8 gigs in a Mac Pro, to be superfluous? It was always my understanding that more RAM is better, whether you're a "power user" or not...and I can say with certainty that that has been my experience in the Windoze world (shudder...bad memories) as well as with my other Macs, although none of them hold more than 1GB; so pardon me if this is a stupid question, but is it so different once you exceed 1GB?

Not challenging you, just curious...

Reply

Answer 4

japamac

Level 7

24,400 points

Sep 18, 2008 4:29 AM in response to frankenmac

would you consider the 4gigs of RAM in a MacBook Pro, or 8 gigs in a Mac Pro, to be superfluous?

Most would say No, it's not superfluous. It is, of course, dependent on the software in use. Some software requires large amounts of RAM.
To empirically demonstrate the performance differences, OWC has done some very thorough testing.
See This Page.
Seems to be a sweet spot or two, depending on the machine....

so pardon me if this is a stupid question, but is it so different once you exceed 1GB?

Not stupid at all.
Again, it really depends on the software in use.
For basic computing, with OS X 10.3 and 10.4, I have experienced palpable performance differences with a move to 1GB or greater, of memory.
The move to 1.5GB or even 2.0GB would be prompted by the needs of software such as Photoshop, or any video editing activities. These are memory hungry, and definitely benefit from the extra RAM.
My use of Adobe CS2 applications is much smoother with 2GB than if I have 1GB.
The same is said for my CAD program, Vectorworks. In Classic mode, the difference between 1GB and 2GB of memory is very noticable.

Not challenging you, just curious...

No challenge considered. 🙂
The topic of RAM expansion is an important one, as more RAM can really aid a machines performance with basic and complex tasks. In a G4 under OS X, the difference between 512MB and 1GB is measurable.
The real issue is always "how much is enough".
There really isn't a bullet answer to that question, as previously discussed.
However, in a G4, "fill 'er up" isn't all wrong.
I have 5 G4's of various models currently running, and all have a full compliment of RAM, be it 1.5GB or 2.0GB. And, not all of it has been purchased at today's low prices. Some of my 512MB DIMMs were purchased at 3x the current price. Ouch!
I definitely feel the extra RAM is of value.

Reply