• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

overclocking a g4? WTF?

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

jacheatamobits

Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Location
you cant spell stupid w/out SIU
i was looking for some case mods, and i found this

why didnt anybody tell me you can overclock an apple powermac?

i want to do this "mod" i guess you can call it, but this guy didnt take as far as it could go. he must not know about other cooling options
 
errrrrrr is this guy on crack?

He's got a 20" monitor, and he's using 640x480 @ 256 colors, at 60hz, and he has a GF4MX?!?! Damn, he could handle 1024 at 32bit at probably 85 or 100 hz....unless of course there's something about macs that I don't know that would limit the display resolution...

and seriously, someone should tell him about better cooling options....i'm sure he could get that to 1300 no problem.

But of course, there's the inherent difficulty of OCing dual processors....I suppose that's gonna limit him some. And then of course there's the limit of multis...
 
yeah, isnt that how your supposed to do benchies? at a lower res. first? i dunno, the guy is still lame. i mean in the link to the article he calls it 1000 MHZ "speedup"

i think the mani concepts of overclocking are beyond this guy anyway.

and you know, if the g4&g5 chips are superior to p4's (like apple claims) why wouldnt you be able to get a better OC than %20, or even %30?

hmmm.....
 
Maybe because they are running at the top of their limit?

The G4 was a beast to progress past 500mhz at all, so overclocking would be rough -- and nobody even has a G5 to overclock yet, although it looks like it might be a monster in terms of heat.
 
jacheatamobits said:

and you know, if the g4&g5 chips are superior to p4's (like apple claims) why wouldnt you be able to get a better OC than %20, or even %30?


Because 99% of the people in the world do not care about what its maximum is, they care what it does out of the box. Thus overclocking does not count.


The author puts this in the notes at the bottom:
I have not yet tried the 1330 MHz configuration.
I have not yet explored bus frequency or core voltage modifications.



So the chip could still go farther. 20% on stock voltage is actually very good.
 
wow, cack, i didnt even think of that!

maybe someone here could actualy try this with a volt mod, and some better cooling. (id like to see a couple melted g4s)

hmmm... could there possibly be a mac owner wiiling to do this?

:rolleyes:
 
jacheatamobits said:
yeah, isnt that how your supposed to do benchies? at a lower res. first? i dunno, the guy is still lame. i mean in the link to the article he calls it 1000 MHZ "speedup"

i think the mani concepts of overclocking are beyond this guy anyway.

and you know, if the g4&g5 chips are superior to p4's (like apple claims) why wouldnt you be able to get a better OC than %20, or even %30?

hmmm.....


i dont know about who has the better chip, intel, amd, or PPC


but i know for certain, that they dont rate how good their chips are to the public by how much they o/c lol


a 2000,palamino performs just as good as a 2000 tbred-b

but from a o/c standpoint, the tbred-b smacks it


see what im trying to say?
 
yah, i see what your saying.

btw. i didnt see any angry posts about apple saying it has the fastest computer ever. just one big gripe about the benchmark incedent, or whatever.

im going over to intel cpus for awhile.
 
jacheatamobits said:

btw. i didnt see any angry posts about apple saying it has the fastest computer ever. just one big gripe about the benchmark incedent, or whatever.


The thing is, is that no one knows for sure. I have only seen one non-apple benchmark of the G5. Once people start recieving the their G5's well know for sure. But the benches that I did see, the G5 was killed by a 2000+XP
 
yea, the reason they can say that is because of the faulty benchmarks.....

the faulty benches was what allowed them to make all those wild claims......even though they are all blatent lies. They try to hide it by claiming they used the same compiler....well duh, if they tried to used a predominantly windows compiler, the mac scores would have suffered big-time... that's the reason they make different compilers, because they're optomized for the enviornment they will be running in (not to say that the compiler they used was optomized for OSX (tho who's to say that they didn't design the computer around the compiler just for a better bench?))

Anyhow, back to the subject.....lol.

This is actually quite an accomplishment.....it's like OCing a Dell or something. They are not made for OCing.....they are made to be tools, not uber-tweaking monster machines.

Considering that it is a DUAL processor machine, and he successfully OCed them 200mhz, I would say that he did a good job....also considering that they processors and related components are all at stock voltage, and stock HSF.
 
cack01 said:


The thing is, is that no one knows for sure. I have only seen one non-apple benchmark of the G5. Once people start recieving the their G5's well know for sure. But the benches that I did see, the G5 was killed by a 2000+XP

got a link?

oh, and btw, i was doing some window shopping, and i could get 2 3Ghz p4 systems FULLY loaded, with lcds for the price of a g5 without a monitor. LOL:rolleyes:
 
that's the reason they make different compilers, because they're optomized for the enviornment they will be running in

You think gcc isn't optimized for x86? And for Linux on x86, even?

GCC is far more optimized for x86 than it is for PPC.

You think they should have used the Intel compiler? Name something that uses it. Most things on Windows use Microsoft's compiler.
 
NASA did some G5 benches also. I didn't read them, but apparently it didn't suck as everyone is claiming/hoping.
 
The 1.4GHz (Or whatever it is. Something around that speed.) G4 is factory overclocked. Anything over 1GHz (I believe) is, in fact, a 1GHz processor that has been overclocked by Apple. :rolleyes:
 
Why do I even post on these threads anymore? I can just feel my blood pressure rise...

Im with XWRed1, I read up on the NASA benchies, not too shabby I might say =). (where it stands, they just installed it and run it, it hasn't even been optimized for 2 processors, or the processor itself)

Yeah, you're peeved that Apple said that they have the fastest desktop computer, so they do, get over it ignorant x86 followers, it eats all P4s, x86 suxorz, Apple roxorz :rolleyes:

(Gee, its kinda fun to point an uneducated finger at the other side, Im sick of playing defensive)

Im sick of hearing crying about compiler this compiler that; it was legit, it is the accepted way of benchmarking separate platforms, blah blah blah.

I can't wait til someone benchmarks the dual 2 GHz G4 with Apple's optimized compiler and beats, meets, or compares to Intel's optimized benchmarks. Gee, then XWRed1 and I will have to have to defend Apple when all the x86 babies cry about Apple using "their" optimized compiler, which isn't a legit test. :rolleyes: At which point the x86 junkies will try to use our argument point against us.... whatever :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
I'm not an Apple ***** or anything, but I hate the people that come out of the woodwork and sling poo about Apple's choice of compiler. I mean just using common knowledge, the whole argument can be invalidated.

Apple used gcc on both machines. People say icc should have been used on the Intel gear. They say gcc is too slow.

1) Everything in Linux is typically compiled with gcc
2) Is Linux way slower than Windows? That doesn't seem to be the typical consensus.
3) Gcc is more optimized for Intel than it is for any PowerPC.
4) Not much anything uses icc. If you wanted to pick the most common compiler, you'd pick msvc. Then you get into having to run a much much different OS environment and introducing ALOT of other differences between the systems, if not just in the codebase of the benchmark.
 
Back