Which is faster?

9 posts / 0 new
Last post
Offline
Last seen: 9 years 5 months ago
Joined: Dec 19 2003 - 17:34
Which is faster?

If I were to have two Macs -- an 8500 with a 233 MHz 604ev and an iMac 233 G3, which would be faster, assuming they each had the same amount of RAM?

tmtomh's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Dec 20 2003 - 10:38
I think it would be nearly a

I think it would be nearly a toss-up on pure CPU performance, with the G3 winning on integer and the 604e winning on floating point.

The iMac's faster system bus and faster RAM would make it faster. On the other hand, I'm guessing that the 8500's HD will be faster because (IIRC) the original iMac's HD is a laptop HD with low rotational speed.

Overall I'd say the iMac would be faster. OTOH, the 8500 should be cheaper (even after you also buy a used 15" monitor), and if you can give it G3 and G4 upgrades that will make it faster than the iMac.

Finally, if you want to run OS X, I'd suggest going with the iMac. It'll be kinda slow on the iMac, and there is that xpostfacto util that will allow installation on the 8500, but still I'd recommend going with the officially supported machine for OS X.

Matt

JetStar's picture
Offline
Last seen: 12 years 9 months ago
Joined: Dec 20 2003 - 10:38
The hard drives used in the f

The hard drives used in the first iMacs were regular size IDE drives that were probably a tad faster then an 8500's. The thing that is going to kill you the most is your bus speed in your 8500. Even if you put in a g4 in the 8500, your bus speed is going to hold it way, way back.

Jeremy

Offline
Last seen: 9 years 5 months ago
Joined: Dec 19 2003 - 17:34
Toss Up

I'm thinking that the iMac would be faster. I'm getting a 233 tomorrow, so I was just wondering. I know that the 8500 is older (by a lot), but it still holds its own with 9.2. And yes, I do have one Acute -- it was only $10 and came with the 233 604ev, 160 MB RAM, and an Ultimate Rez! I have it paired with a Multiple Scan 17 right now.

The RAM has been parted out, so the 8500 stands at 112 at the moment. My beige G3 has 128, as does the iMac 350 that I'm posting on. My poor little iBook G4 only has 256 Blush -- though I'll buy a 512 for it once I have some money...

:macos:

catmistake's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 7 months ago
Joined: Dec 20 2003 - 10:38
waitin for the bus

I put a g4 in my 8500, and I have clocked it as high as 2 gigaflops!
But mostly it hangs around 1.2 - 1.7 gigaflops.
More than I expected.

MacTrash_1's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 years 2 months ago
Joined: Dec 20 2003 - 10:38
I have a G3 233 DT and a Powe

I have a G3 233 DT and a PowerComputing clone with a 250 Mhz 204e and the G3 is faster all around, even with a little less RAM. On-line surfing with the PTP is a little slower and Photoshop is much much faster on the G3.
But, the G3 has faster RAM and Bus speed so there's probably not alot of difference.

Krow,

My Apple art at:
http://krowmagnum.4mg.com/index.html

Offline
Last seen: 11 years 8 months ago
Joined: Dec 26 2003 - 16:21
are you kidding?

The iMac is faster in every single way. Every. Single. Way.

No Mach 5-not even the 350- is a match for a 750.

You like your Macintosh more than me, don't you, Dave? Dave? Can you hear me, Dave...?

Offline
Last seen: 1 year 2 months ago
Joined: Dec 20 2003 - 10:38
Every Single Way? Even if he

Every Single Way? Even if he had a nice mac edition radeon video card in the 8500, wouldn't video be a tad faster than the iMac?

I'm just being a pest.. I do agree that the imac is going to be faster pretty much in every way.

But sitll, what if???...

Offline
Last seen: 11 years 8 months ago
Joined: Dec 26 2003 - 16:21
nobody would

bother putting one of those in an 8500 Blum 3 even if they did, the iMac would be faster- but its video would be less advanced.

You like your Macintosh more than me, don't you, Dave? Dave? Can you hear me, Dave...?

Log in or register to post comments