PDA

View Full Version : Powermac G5 quad 2.5Ghz vs 2011 Mac Mini?




MacintoshMaster
Jul 13, 2011, 04:27 PM
Hi there,
Which computer would be faster for sibelius and logic studio 8?



bizzle
Jul 13, 2011, 05:09 PM
Hang on, let me ring up Steve Jobs and ask him the specs of the 2011 Mac Mini.

I am sure the Mini will be faster.

Hrududu
Jul 13, 2011, 05:13 PM
Sibelius 6 requires an Intel processor according to their site, so that takes care of that one. Logic 8 will run on either, but its hard to say which would be faster. Obviously multithreaded tasks will benefit from having 4 cores over 2 in theory, but I really don't know how much of Logic is built to take advantage of either processor type.

OrangeSVTguy
Jul 13, 2011, 05:51 PM
The 2011 Mac Mini isn't released yet so we don't know :)

HyperZboy
Jul 13, 2011, 05:57 PM
Hang on, let me ring up Steve Jobs and ask him the specs of the 2011 Mac Mini.

I am sure the Mini will be faster.

That's arguable. These INTEL people who keep ranting that a Mac Mini is always faster than a G5 make me laugh.

First off you're talking about programs that require lots of memory.

The max on the G5 is 16 GB.

The Mini ? 8GB and not as easy to upgrade.

The graphics on the Mini would be faster as a stock item, however the G5 is easily upgradeable to seriously much faster graphics and it would be easy to find a tricked out G5 on Ebay. Not so with the Mini.

The Mini's processor itself would technically be faster, but I'm not so sure it would make much of a difference with Logic if you had tons of memory on the G5.

Plus there are so many expansion options still on the G5 for musicians with the PCIe slots.

As a former really bad musician, I'd go with the G5 or better yet, get the 1st model of the Intel Mac Pro used if you want serious longevity.

On stage, I could see the Mac Mini being useful for its compactness, but not as useful in the studio.

That's my 2.

Tucom
Jul 13, 2011, 09:43 PM
Unless you plan on using JUST Logic 8 and other now outdated PPC appls, go for an Intel Mac.


I have a G5 Dual Core 2.3 here and it screams for the apps that DO run on it, but no newer apps will ever run on it in the near for-seeable future.

And 8GB is way more than enough for Logic I'd imagine, and it's faster memory, so it in theory could it not equal that of 16GB in a G5?


The G5's are still killer rigs, but again can only run oudated software, and if I didn't have a C2D Mac Mini as well, I wouldn't have this G5, but having both is pretty sweet, and vs. a 2.16 Ghz C2D Mac Mini w/ 3Gbs of RAM, the G5 overall feels faster, but again, outdated for support.



So yeah, at least one (if not more than one Mac, then only an Intel) Intel Mac all the way.

Cox Orange
Jul 14, 2011, 09:01 AM
Logic 9 was released some time ago, which would better fit the mac mini than Logic 8 (since it was optimized to run under 10.5 Intel, now Intel is at OS 10.7). I recommend though asking in a logic user forum.

Apple says about Logic 8 in connection with OS 10.6 (Intel only):
* The following Apple Audio Units have a Details disclosure triangle and are potentially affected by this issue:
o AUDelay
o AUDynamicsProcessor
o AUMultibandCompressor

There are some other threads to that special question, maybe they will help you http://www.google.de/search?q=Quad+G5+vs+site%3Amacrumors.com&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:de:official&client=firefox-a

Ask Chrismacguy in the forum here. He services and uses Macs that run Logic Studio a lot.

Your decision depends a bit on what audiohardware and software you allready have and not have. You could still keep logic 8 for its printed handbook and the serialnumber and upgrade to 9 for about 100eur (ebay), when buying an Intel with 10.7.

PowerGamerX
Jul 14, 2011, 09:32 AM
The max on the G5 is 16 GB.

The Mini ? 8GB and not as easy to upgrade.

The graphics on the Mini would be faster as a stock item, however the G5 is easily upgradeable to seriously much faster graphics and it would be easy to find a tricked out G5 on Ebay. Not so with the Mini.

The Mini's processor itself would technically be faster, but I'm not so sure it would make much of a difference with Logic if you had tons of memory on the G5.

Plus there are so many expansion options still on the G5 for musicians with the PCIe slots.



The Mini may max out at 8gb of ram but the ram is much faster than a G5, also, even the best graphics card you can get for a G5 is worse than the 320m in a Mac Mini (unfortunate but true).

That said, you can get G5s for cheap now so if it works for you why not. Just keep in mind that PPCs are effectively dead as far as software support.

Tucom
Jul 14, 2011, 10:09 AM
even the best graphics card you can get for a G5 is worse than the 320m in a Mac Mini (unfortunate but true).

Sorry but that coming from someone with the name "gamer" is really head scratching as depending on what you mean, in terms of pure graphical muscle that's so completely untrue it's hilarious -

The 7800GT, 7800GTX, and ATI Radeon X1900XT Pro (check "Pro") will mop the floor with the 320...

Or, at least beat it by a far amount, no? No real offense..just checking facts if that makes sense.

What IS true however is chances are that the 320 will be getting graphics updates possibly in the future as it'll most likely be supported for a while yet, unlike aforementioned cards as they're only available in PowerPC machines.

MattA
Jul 14, 2011, 02:03 PM
I had a Powermac G5 1.6 for several years. Yes, it's only a single core, but I had put a Radeon 9800 Pro in it along with 2GB of memory. It wasn't a bad box at all, ran Leopard just fine, etc.

My 2009 Mini runs circles around it. Even with the much slower 9400m (compared to the 320m), it beat the crap out of it.

Sorry, but the G5 is past its prime.

cdinca
Jul 14, 2011, 02:55 PM
an additional benefit of the quad 2.5 is that it can help to heat a small home. I had 2 dual 2.7s in my home office, and I seriously considered installing vents to feed that heat to the rest of the house. You can store a chocolate bar on top of a mac mini (not a guarantee!)

iThinkergoiMac
Jul 14, 2011, 10:23 PM
That's arguable. These INTEL people who keep ranting that a Mac Mini is always faster than a G5 make me laugh.

My MacBook benchmarks faster than the best stock configuration of any G5. Benchmarks aren't everything, for sure, but they're a good indication.

First off you're talking about programs that require lots of memory.

The max on the G5 is 16 GB.

The Mini ? 8GB and not as easy to upgrade.

Yes, you're also talking about DDR3 vs 533 MHz DDR2 (at best). 8 GB of DDR3 is faster (and far, far cheaper) than 16 GB of DDR2 533 MHz.

The graphics on the Mini would be faster as a stock item, however the G5 is easily upgradeable to seriously much faster graphics and it would be easy to find a tricked out G5 on Ebay. Not so with the Mini.

Any GPU you can get for the G5 that's faster than the 320M would have to be a flashed PC card. And then the G5 wouldn't run too many applications that could truly take advantage of it (Logic certainly won't).

The Mini's processor itself would technically be faster, but I'm not so sure it would make much of a difference with Logic if you had tons of memory on the G5.

I'm quite sure it would. The C2D is way faster than the G5, and with 8 GB RAM, you've got plenty. 16 GB is most likely not necessary for the OP's situation. I've got 6 GB RAM, I do Photoshop and FCP work, and I go for days without ever using any swap space at all.

Plus there are so many expansion options still on the G5 for musicians with the PCIe slots.

A very good point, no argument there.

As a former really bad musician, I'd go with the G5 or better yet, get the 1st model of the Intel Mac Pro used if you want serious longevity.

Mac Pro, yes. G5, no.

The fact of the matter is that PPC is a dead architecture. There is no reason to buy a PPC Mac unless you have software you need to run that requires a PPC Mac (or nostalgia/utter lack of money). The G5 was a great machine, and is still fairly capable. However, it's just not worth it.

Get an Intel Mac, you'll be much happier.

iThinkergoiMac
Jul 14, 2011, 10:27 PM
The 7800GT, 7800GTX, and ATI Radeon X1900XT Pro (check "Pro") will mop the floor with the 320...

Looking at the specs none of these are available for the G5. Are you talking about flashed cards?

thunng8
Jul 14, 2011, 10:58 PM
I did some benchmarks last year in this thread if anyone is interested:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=966378&highlight=

Conclusion: PowerMac G5 quad still faster than the 2010 mac mini for CPU intensive tasks.

- Cinebanch
- Canon DPP
- Blender
- A Photoshop filter
- Quicktime 7.6.6 export

- Slightly slower for Handbrake

The 2011 Mac mini with likely updated Sandy Bridge CPU would probably topple the Powermac Quad.

thunng8
Jul 14, 2011, 11:03 PM
Looking at the specs none of these are available for the G5. Are you talking about flashed cards?

The Powermac G5 (Late 2005) had as official BTO options the Nvidia 7800GT or the Nvidia Quadro FX4500.

There was also the ATI X1900GT Mac Edition available to buy outside of Apple.

dontwalkhand
Jul 15, 2011, 01:12 AM
This question is relative to what you're doing, and what kind of software you plan to run.

In the case of Universal Binary or PPC apps, the G5 will be faster (or the only option).

With Intel apps, the choice is obvious.

Jethryn Freyman
Jul 16, 2011, 04:38 AM
As far as graphics go, I'd also say that the G5's optional NVIDIA 6800 Ultra and ATI Radeon X800XT would be faster than the Mini's NVIDIA 320M.

Nameci
Jul 16, 2011, 10:56 AM
This Quad Powermac does not take AGP gfx cards that you stated. They take PCIe cards, and the fast cards were ATI x1900, Nvidia 7800 GT or 7800 GTX and Quadro FX 4500...

iThinkergoiMac
Jul 16, 2011, 11:12 AM
While some of the G5's faster cards may be somewhat faster than the Mini's, the Mini can better utilize its card between Intel software and OpenCL.

Either way, the OP is looking to use Sibelius and Logic. GPU isn't really an issue here, so why bring it up? The OP would most definitely be better served by a current Mini over any G5.

chrismacguy
Jul 16, 2011, 02:54 PM
Okay, so background to my answer: (1) I use PowerPC and Intel Macs (Mac User since '94) and (2) I have been using DAW Systems since 2000, from ProTools 5 and Logic I believe 5 or 6, not sure, but anyway, a Long Time.

My recommendation from an AUDIO PRODUCTION point of view:

Get the Intel Mac Mini. While it, under certain conditions, under certain circumstances could potentially be slightly less fast than a PowerMac G5 Quad using a specific G5 optimized rendering application, it is easily the better choice both for DAWs and looking forward. PowerPC Based Macs are no longer suitable to have as your main Recording Mac if your just starting out on the Mac, or only have limited external hardware (ie USB/FW Based Interfaces) (obviously if youve been recording on the Mac since pre-history and have large amounts of random audio hardware on shelves like me, my advice differs, as then you have older project files and lots of other specialised PPC tools kicking around - If you are even considering an Intel mac, this cannot be the case, as you would only consider PPC Macs if you had PPC only-never-to-be-updated-tools, or only a Mac Pro if you required Internal Expansion Cards for your interfaces).

Firstly, graphics are not in anyway important to the issue here, so we can safely ignore that argument, as both systems can happily drive a 30" Display, no bother, and if your considering a Mac Mini, you dont need expansion, as if you did, you would never even consider a Mini. (Also, the Minis RAM is very easy to upgrade on the new design, you just flip it over and open the door and Boom, there it is - much better now than in the old ones, so that argument is moot.) Also, the amount of RAM is not really going to be an issue unless your looking at 100+ Tracks, and if that was the case, you again wouldnt be looking at a Mini under any circumstances (Or a G5 Quad - Neither CPU would be able to keep up). 8GB will be fine. My Main Audio Production Mac only has 12GB, and I rarely go above 8 unless Im video editing, never had it go above 8 doing Audio Work (Even with all 4 DAWs up and Running, and Soundtrack Pro and Waveburner together).

Secondly, Intel Macs are the best looking forward, because as your experience with the Mac (and Audio in General) grows (we're all learning), you'll acquire more and more tools to let you do more things (I started with just ProTools on a PowerMac, now I have Logic Pro, ProTools, Digital Performer and Reason all in use as each does somethings well, and others less so), and as time progresses finding the PowerPC Versions of these tools is becoming harder and harder. (I had to acquire some Logic Pro 7 Discs for a client recently, it took me a Month to find a source that could supply me the application disks, serial, XSKey and the documentation for a reasonable price, its a similar situation for older versions of ProTools). If you choose to follow my advice and go the Intel route, upgrade to Logic Pro 9, as its much faster and more compatible on Intel Machines (I tested Logic Pro 8 on my MacBook, and a G5 could equal it despite the G5 being Dual 1.8, and the MacBook Dual 2.1, with Logic Pro 9 the MacBook is about twice as fast as the G5), and having the latest version of Logic always helps when it comes to working out how to get plugin X to work with it. The last advantage of an Intel Mac Mini is that it lets you run the latest version of Sibelius, which again is a massive bonus over the G5 (Same reasoning as for Logic Pro 9).

ReanimationLP
Jul 16, 2011, 03:08 PM
I would assume, going forward, the Mini is a better choice due to Apple discontinuing all support for the PowerPC G5.

You can easily drop 8GB of RAM into it by removing the bottom door, if not 16GB when those sized modules come out (Don't hold me to this).

I would wait for the refresh though.

alexreich
Jul 16, 2011, 06:55 PM
That's arguable. These INTEL people who keep ranting that a Mac Mini is always faster than a G5 make me laugh.

First off you're talking about programs that require lots of memory.

The max on the G5 is 16 GB.

The Mini ? 8GB and not as easy to upgrade.

2010 Mac Mini is the easiest machine on earth to upgrade RAM in. The bottom is a freaking turnable access door to the RAM.

Just sayin'

-Alex :apple:

TA031
Jul 19, 2011, 11:23 AM
I am sure the Mini will be faster.

Unless the mini is offered with a quad core CPU, it ain't gonna happen.

even the best graphics card you can get for a G5 is worse than the 320m in a Mac Mini (unfortunate but true).
http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/gpu_list.php
GeForce 320M 330th
Radeon X1900 GT 134th

The 320m scores 309 vs the X1900's 791. So clearly you've got a major lack of knowledge on the subject.

Even the "Intel HD" GPU on the i-series CPU that will be used in the next mini scores only slightly better than the 320m (Intel HD 326score, 314th), but is still only a fraction of the power of the X1900.

PowerGamerX
Jul 19, 2011, 11:57 AM
Unless the mini is offered with a quad core CPU, it ain't gonna happen.


http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/gpu_list.php
GeForce 320M 330th
Radeon X1900 GT 134th

The 320m scores 309 vs the X1900's 791. So clearly you've got a major lack of knowledge on the subject.

Even the "Intel HD" GPU on the i-series CPU that will be used in the next mini scores only slightly better than the 320m (Intel HD 326score, 314th), but is still only a fraction of the power of the X1900.

Yet you don't take into account that the PowerMac is running on 6+ year old tech and has slower ram, and an outdated processor regardless of how many cores it has. No doubt the G5 will be faster with native PPC applications but it can't run much in the way of new software. The graphics card may bench higher, but that doesn't mean the machine will perform better.

That said, benchmarks only tell part of the story with graphics cards and although you can throw benchmarks around they usually are only semi-accurate at the best. For example, Intel 3000 graphics bench higher in a lot of cases than the 320m, but in practice, it's usually worse.

All of this is pretty much irrelevant though because the OP will be able to do what he wants with either machine. If he needs legacy PPC apps he should buy the PowerMac and if he needs newer software he should go with the Mini.

VanneDC
Jul 20, 2011, 12:22 AM
Haha lol the x3000 intel cards are also a pile of cods wolup that I wouldn't piss on to put them out if they were on fire. Same as the 320m nvidia cards.. What a joke.

The mini's are great bosex, I've owned 2 the original and the c2d, and they exell as media players, but they do not function as a desktop for power users requiring any sort of graphic power. Thus its pretty useless comparing both systems..

Tucom
Jul 20, 2011, 12:42 AM
Haha lol the x3000 intel cards are also a pile of cods wolup that I wouldn't piss on to put them out if they were on fire. Same as the 320m nvidia cards.. What a joke.

The mini's are great bosex, I've owned 2 the original and the c2d, and they exell as media players, but they do not function as a desktop for power users requiring any sort of graphic power. Thus its pretty useless comparing both systems..

Right because they're some of the fastest integrated graphics out there and perform exceptionally well for the designated Mac Mini market? Maybe your piss would do disservice to the chips :rolleyes:


Seriously, its like, I think, sorry to burst your bubble, but for the last time: The Intel machines are, and will ALWAYS BE (lol, seriously though) faster than *ANY* PPC machine, sans the older Core 1 Duos vs. a G5 Quad, but realize the G5's can only run legacy applications probably only as fast if not just marginally faster then the Intel machines running the latest and greatest Unix code.

Make sense? I think the G5s are still awesome machines for what they are, but the Intel machines are nothing short of better.

VanneDC
Jul 20, 2011, 12:49 AM
sure, i love my Macpro, and its much, much faster than my G5, but its not comparable to the G5 nor should it be (was that lol about BE about Be.inc? and its BeOS? :) anyhows, its a completely different system and arch, so not realy worthwhile examining what box is better, it may be better to discuss the pro's and cons of each system.

Tucom
Jul 20, 2011, 01:58 AM
Lol for there probably being no future PPC machines thus the Intel machines will always be faster (though it'd be cool to see a return of PPC I think, there were advantages and some superior aspects IIRC).


Nothing remotely new - except Serato Sracht LIVE - runs on PPC machines, thus its not really a matter of pros and cons (which can be relevant, but certainly not for Logic), but for the fact that Intel machines are faster, more futureproof, and far, FAR more power efficient and compatible.

Just wondering, what do you still use the G5 for?

VanneDC
Jul 20, 2011, 02:07 AM
The Mac Pro is in my studio, i use the G5 for daily nerding and playing doom3 and Kotor, and playing around with installs and crap.

Pretty much cant afford my mac pro to have downtime due to me stuffing or corrupting it due to playing games/crap on it :)

I used to do my work on the G5 Quad (long sold), and it was good, but the Pro is soo much faster.

funnily enough ive just revieved my fx4500 in the mail today and now just need the power cable and a lend of a x86 box to mod the bios to mac.. Then hopefully a few more frame rates in kotor and Halo. :)

what do you use yours for?

thunng8
Jul 20, 2011, 02:58 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

Haha lol the x3000 intel cards are also a pile of cods wolup that I wouldn't piss on to put them out if they were on fire. Same as the 320m nvidia cards.. What a joke.

The mini's are great bosex, I've owned 2 the original and the c2d, and they exell as media players, but they do not function as a desktop for power users requiring any sort of graphic power. Thus its pretty useless comparing both systems..

Right because they're some of the fastest integrated graphics out there and perform exceptionally well for the designated Mac Mini market? Maybe your piss would do disservice to the chips :rolleyes:


Seriously, its like, I think, sorry to burst your bubble, but for the last time: The Intel machines are, and will ALWAYS BE (lol, seriously though) faster than *ANY* PPC machine, sans the older Core 1 Duos vs. a G5 Quad, but realize the G5's can only run legacy applications probably only as fast if not just marginally faster then the Intel machines running the latest and greatest Unix code.

Make sense? I think the G5s are still awesome machines for what they are, but the Intel machines are nothing short of better.

Have you got an benchmarks to back that up? I did an benchmarks last year that for the apps I use, the g5 quad is faster than a 2.66ghz core 2 duo.

TA031
Jul 20, 2011, 07:24 AM
Yet you don't take into account that the PowerMac is running on 6+ year old tech and has slower ram, and an outdated processor regardless of how many cores it has. No doubt the G5 will be faster with native PPC applications but it can't run much in the way of new software. The graphics card may bench higher, but that doesn't mean the machine will perform better.

Try playing common games across them, like Halo's Universal version. A G5 with an x1900 can run at 1920x1200, max details and 4xAA with 30+fps. A 2011 Mini isn't playable at that resolution with any AA turned on.

VanneDC
Jul 20, 2011, 10:35 PM
the quad ***** all over the mini with that crappy video card in Halo, kotor or any other game (that can run on the quad) :)

Tucom
Jul 20, 2011, 10:40 PM
the quad ***** all over the mini with that crappy video card in Halo, kotor or any other game (that can run on the quad) :)

And the Mini **** all over a Quad because its running on the newer, faster Intel chips and can run BioShock, Portal 2, and any Valve games :rolleyes: :D


The Mini was never designed to be a gaming machine, but here I'll sell my 360 to get a G5 for Halo ;) I kid, but yeah the G5's still got muscle of course and currently the G5 I have is the most powerful Mac in the house overall, but I'd sell it in a heartbeat to get the new Mini with the ATI chip which would **** *ANY* G5 in all areas. Sad in a way, lol, but true.

thunng8
Jul 20, 2011, 11:31 PM
I kid, but yeah the G5's still got muscle of course and currently the G5 I have is the most powerful Mac in the house overall, but I'd sell it in a heartbeat to get the new Mini with the ATI chip which would **** *ANY* G5 in all areas.

Yeah, the just released 2011 mac Mini with ATI graphics is impressive .. if only the Mac mini server with quad core cpu had the ATI graphics cards as well .. that would've been truly amazing performance for such a small footprint.

Tucom
Jul 20, 2011, 11:46 PM
Yeah, but there's other solutions from HP and Dell that are marginally (well, 2-4 times larger, but still super small relatively) but offer full blown PCIe2 graphics chips with 2GBs of graphics memory..but then again the build quality and fit and finish isn't nearly as high, but there are other options out there, though they aren't Macs :rolleyes::D :cool:

TA031
Jul 21, 2011, 09:08 AM
and can run BioShock, Portal 2, and any Valve games
On low settings.

Sad in a way, lol, but (not) true
Corrected.

Tucom
Jul 21, 2011, 11:57 AM
On low settings.


Corrected.


Ok are you suggesting a PPC machine will be faster than a new i5? An i5 or even a newer Core 2 Duo will leave a G5 in the dust more or less (at least an i5), and the new Radeon GPU in the new Mac Mini I'd bet is close than not if not as powerful as the 7800GTX one could get for a G5.


Forget the aspect of newer drivers too? :rolleyes: ;)

MovieCutter
Jul 21, 2011, 12:45 PM
TA031 is one particular poster who finds it amusing to quote people and change their statement to fit his/her agenda. I for one think any i5 or i7 would stomp a G5 Quad given all the various bus and speed bottlenecks.

thunng8
Jul 21, 2011, 04:40 PM
Ok are you suggesting a PPC machine will be faster than a new i5? An i5 or even a newer Core 2 Duo will leave a G5 in the dust more or less (at least an i5), and the new Radeon GPU in the new Mac Mini I'd bet is close than not if not as powerful as the 7800GTX one could get for a G5.


Forget the aspect of newer drivers too? :rolleyes: ;)

How many times do i need to say it? The fastest Core 2 duo available in a mac mini does not beat a G5 quad.. I did quite a few benchmarks last year

Tucom
Jul 21, 2011, 04:58 PM
How many times do i need to say it? The fastest Core 2 duo available in a mac mini does not beat a G5 quad.. I did quite a few benchmarks last year

Only if there are apps that are SMP compatible, otherwise processor per processor, the C2D will beat the G5.


Faster memory, faster processors, and now, faster or as fast GPU, and that Macs the Quad faster? It doesn't.

Plus, how fast can a G5 run the latest version of iLife 11 ;) :D

iThinkergoiMac
Jul 21, 2011, 06:50 PM
This discussion is now pointless. There is a small question about which is faster: C2D Mac Mini or Quad G5. There is absolutely no question whatsoever about which is faster: i5 Mac Mini or Quad G5. The G5 is, in practice, generally slower than a C2D Mini, and technically/theoretically faster than a C2D Mini for some specific software.

The new Core i5 Mini stomps the G5 in every way (with the possible exception of the GPU) and the high-end Mini has a faster GPU as well.

Again, there is absolutely no question at all about which is faster: the i5 Mini is faster, hands down. OP, you should get the new Mini, forget about the G5. Your wallet will thank you as well, considering how little power the Mini uses compared to the G5.

thunng8
Jul 21, 2011, 07:22 PM
This discussion is now pointless. There is a small question about which is faster: C2D Mac Mini or Quad G5. There is absolutely no question whatsoever about which is faster: i5 Mac Mini or Quad G5. The G5 is, in practice, generally slower than a C2D Mini, and technically/theoretically faster than a C2D Mini for some specific software.


It is not technically/theoretically faster .. it IS faster for some software. In fact, for the software I use, the G5 quad is undoubtedly faster .. and they are not some obscure software .. they are quite widely used software. I just had issues with some people's comments that any Core 2 duo would leave the G5 quad "in the dust".


The new Core i5 Mini stomps the G5 in every way (with the possible exception of the GPU) and the high-end Mini has a faster GPU as well.

Again, there is absolutely no question at all about which is faster: the i5 Mini is faster, hands down. OP, you should get the new Mini, forget about the G5. Your wallet will thank you as well, considering how little power the Mini uses compared to the G5.

Yes, no doubt about it, the new 2011 Mac minis are great.

Nameci
Jul 21, 2011, 07:29 PM
For those who are after processor speed, get yourself a life, buy the latest intel macs and leave the old stuff to us.

adcx64
Jul 21, 2011, 08:04 PM
For those who are after processor speed, get yourself a life, buy the latest intel macs and leave the old stuff to us.

Agreed.

iThinkergoiMac
Jul 21, 2011, 09:35 PM
It is not technically/theoretically faster .. it IS faster for some software. In fact, for the software I use, the G5 quad is undoubtedly faster .. and they are not some obscure software .. they are quite widely used software. I just had issues with some people's comments that any Core 2 duo would leave the G5 quad "in the dust".

For most people, the latest C2D Mini (the one originally in question) generally does leave the Quad G5 in the dust. Apart from PPC native apps that are built to take advantage of the specific technologies in the G5, apps will run faster on that Mini.

It's not fair to say that ANY Core2 Duo will beat the G5. Those 1.4 GHz C2Ds in the previous MBA generation are certainly slower than the Quad G5. However, in nearly all respects (especially if you're using current software) the latest C2D Mini does beat the G5.

Nameci
Jul 21, 2011, 09:41 PM
Almost anything current intel will beat the PMQG5 in numbers with a large margin. What more can you ask for a 6-year machine? Despite the fact that the PMQG5 has a 1GHz+ FSB, we must take into consideration the memory clock speed as well. Latest intel mac mini's were at 1+GHz, while the lowly PMQG5's were at 533MHz. Do we see the big difference?

As I have said if you want speed go for intel and leave the old stuff to us. There is no contest. But give the PMQG5 some respect.

thunng8
Jul 22, 2011, 06:32 AM
For most people, the latest C2D Mini (the one originally in question) generally does leave the Quad G5 in the dust. Apart from PPC native apps that are built to take advantage of the specific technologies in the G5, apps will run faster on that Mini.


Please provide some real world benchmark figures or just keep silent. I provided some numbers that show the G5Quad was quite a lot faster than the Mac mini Core 2 Duo. They were all the latest versions and were universal binaries, so not some obscure highly optimized software only for PowerPC.

OrangeSVTguy
Jul 23, 2011, 10:06 PM
My G5 Quad is unable to play my 1080p Blu-ray rips but my 2010 1.4ghz C2D Macbook Air played/streamed all my HD content with no hickups.

Now my G5 would crunch my DVD conversions like there was no tomorrow. 4 cores are definitely better when you have software optimized for what you are doing.

VanneDC
Jul 24, 2011, 12:48 AM
that mba has hd BR hardware decoding built in on the chip :)
gotta love it. :)

NZed
Jul 24, 2011, 01:22 AM
go for the 2011 mini, its a lot more powerful. choose the one with the good GPU. and your good to go not to mention that you'd be future proof.

iThinkergoiMac
Jul 25, 2011, 06:13 PM
Please provide some real world benchmark figures or just keep silent. I provided some numbers that show the G5Quad was quite a lot faster than the Mac mini Core 2 Duo. They were all the latest versions and were universal binaries, so not some obscure highly optimized software only for PowerPC.

Took a look at those benchmarks. You are correct that it does show the G5 to be a little bit faster in processor-intensive tasks. In none of the comparisons did the G5 blow the MBP out of the water. It certainly wasn't faster enough to warrant a purchase of the G5 over the C2D Mini.

Having used both a G5 and a late-generation Mini, I can say that the Mini feels faster. Benchmarks are great, but not everything.

that mba has hd BR hardware decoding built in on the chip :)

Macs do not have native BluRay decoding in the system or on "the chip" (which chip are you talking about, I'm assuming the GPU). Modern Macs have built-in H.264 acceleration, but that's hardly universal HD acceleration.

Anonymous Freak
Jul 25, 2011, 07:02 PM
The 7800GT, 7800GTX, and ATI Radeon X1900XT Pro (check "Pro") will mop the floor with the 320...

http://www.extremetech.com/computing/77000-radeon-x1950-pro-benchmarks/2: X1950 Pro (not the 1900 Pro,) 5135 in 3DMark06.

http://hothardware.com/Reviews/ATI-Radeon-X1K-Refresh-X1950-XTX-X1900-XT-256MB-X1650-Pro-and-X1300-XT/?page=12: X1950 XTX, 6149 in 3DMark06.

http://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Radeon-HD-6630M.43963.0.html, Radeon 6630M (in the just-released mini,) average 6950 in 3DMark06.

The X19xx cards were benchmarked on the then-top-of-the-line systems. High-end Core 2 extremes, Athlon 64FX, etc. The 6630M is an average of a bunch of laptops. And the 6630M isn't known for being in high-end laptops.

Yes, the GeForce 320M is slower, http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GT-320M.25099.0.html, 4706 in 3DMark06 on average. But that's still within spitting distance of the X1950 Pro.

Even the Intel HD 3000 graphics score in the 3600-range: http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-HD-Graphics-3000.37948.0.html. (The entry for the quad-core mobile chip, like in the mini Server, is 5275 - better than the X1950 Pro.)

ForI
Jul 25, 2011, 11:02 PM
Sorry, no. The HD3000 is much weaker than the old 320M and it doesn't hold a candle to an X1900.

Even the MOBILE X1900 scores better in every category than the 6630m.

MacSince1990
Aug 7, 2011, 12:30 PM
The Mac Pro is in my studio, i use the G5 for daily nerding and playing doom3 and Kotor, and playing around with installs and crap.

Pretty much cant afford my mac pro to have downtime due to me stuffing or corrupting it due to playing games/crap on it :)


You know you might want to think about just getting another hard drive and installing another OS for backup if it's that critical... always good to have a backup on any computer.

MacSince1990
Aug 7, 2011, 12:34 PM
Oh, and guys... stop comparing memory speed. If you run out of RAM with an 8GB setup, I don't care if you're running 5.33 GHz DDR4, you're going to do better with 16 GB of PC4200 DDR2.

Why? Common sense. Fast or not, when you run out of RAM you hit your hard drive... suddenly, your RAM is only as fast as your mechanical (or SSD, if you're lucky) storage. And that's slow.

Shame the G5s don't recognize 4 GB DIMMs.

Tucom
Aug 9, 2011, 02:38 PM
Oh, and guys... stop comparing memory speed. If you run out of RAM with an 8GB setup, I don't care if you're running 5.33 GHz DDR4, you're going to do better with 16 GB of PC4200 DDR2.

Why? Common sense. Fast or not, when you run out of RAM you hit your hard drive... suddenly, your RAM is only as fast as your mechanical (or SSD, if you're lucky) storage. And that's slow.

Shame the G5s don't recognize 4 GB DIMMs.

True enough, but it all depends on the task, and for audio work 8GB of the faster stuff will be better to far better than 16GB of slower RAM, not that PC-4200 even by todays standards is really all that bad for audio work (not sure if it would be that noticeable either).


And the Quads can take 32GB with only 8 DIMM slots.

Tucom
Aug 9, 2011, 02:38 PM
Sorry, no. The HD3000 is much weaker than the old 320M and it doesn't hold a candle to an X1900.

Even the MOBILE X1900 scores better in every category than the 6630m.



Why was this guy banned? This post is sound and legit :confused:

VanneDC
Aug 9, 2011, 03:07 PM
No only is it legit, it was spot on.

iThinkergoiMac
Aug 9, 2011, 10:05 PM
Oh, and guys... stop comparing memory speed. If you run out of RAM with an 8GB setup, I don't care if you're running 5.33 GHz DDR4, you're going to do better with 16 GB of PC4200 DDR2.

You're right that more RAM is faster than not enough RAM, even if it's slower RAM. However, which is faster when you're not running out of space? Oh, right, the faster RAM. Besides, if you're going to go over 8 GB RAM, there's absolutely no way you'd even be considering the Mac Mini, as the OP is.

Faster RAM is better, unless you need more RAM than the machine can hold. Also, the new RAM is far, far cheaper. 16 GB RAM for a PowerMac G5? Ridiculous.

So, yes, I will compare speeds. It's a comparison of speed, not capacity. Your argument is all about capacity, not speed.

Why was this guy banned? This post is sound and legit :confused:

Most likely he didn't get banned for that post. I imagine he posted in other threads beside this one.

rock15478
Aug 17, 2011, 11:53 AM
Now, I haven't done any specific benchmarking or anything (not worth my time) but take this for what it's worth...

I am the owner of a recording studio and we recently just replaced our aging Power Mac G5 from mid 2005 with a new Mac Mini Server. As of right now, I'm just using the MMS with the stock 4GB of ram. The G5 was a dual core 2.3, 8GB RAM, fast internal drives, dedicated audio drives, and ran Pro Tools and Logic. Had both Tiger and Leopard (different partitions) running Logic Pro 8 and 9. A session that wouldn't even PLAY BACK (literally, you hit the space bar and it would drop out - sometimes you got maybe a second out of it) on the G5 plays back flawlessly on the new Mac Mini Server with the CPU usage showing about 40% in Logic. This specific session is loaded with plugins and pushing 100 tracks. It's a huge session but the Mini handles it without any problems.

Now, I don't know why, nor do I really have the time to care or debate it... I simply know that the new Mini Server SMOKES my old G5. Yes, I realize that this isn't the exact comparison of this thread, but thought I would at least share my experience. I am MUCH more happy now. It's incredible how much faster the new minis are than 5-6 year old power machines.

KurtangleTN
Aug 17, 2011, 01:06 PM
For what it's worth according to Geekbench the G5 Quad is at 3284 and the Mini 5839..

There really truly is only one benefit to a G5 and that is expandability. Even then you're better off with a first gen Intel Mac Pro considering the G5 is unreliable, unsupported, and still relatively expensive.

thunng8
Aug 18, 2011, 12:22 AM
Took a look at those benchmarks. You are correct that it does show the G5 to be a little bit faster in processor-intensive tasks. In none of the comparisons did the G5 blow the MBP out of the water. It certainly wasn't faster enough to warrant a purchase of the G5 over the C2D Mini.


44% in one of the benchmarks is fairly significant in my books.



Having used both a G5 and a late-generation Mini, I can say that the Mini feels faster. Benchmarks are great, but not everything.


Most likely due to the faster single threaded performance on the Core2Duo processor. There are still a lot of tasks that are still single threaded.

VanneDC
Aug 18, 2011, 06:53 PM
maybe just drop this thread as sure we can agree to disagree. Minis faster for some apps, PM is faster for others...

iThinkergoiMac
Aug 19, 2011, 06:10 AM
44% in one of the benchmarks is fairly significant in my books.

Missed that one. Anyhow, those benchmarks don't mean a lot with the new Mini, I'd love to see some benchmarks comparing those two.

luke.mac1
Oct 7, 2011, 05:36 AM
an additional benefit of the quad 2.5 is that it can help to heat a small home. I had 2 dual 2.7s in my home office, and I seriously considered installing vents to feed that heat to the rest of the house. You can store a chocolate bar on top of a mac mini (not a guarantee!)


Definitely the funniest thing I've read on the net in a while. I've just been sat on my own, laughing out loud to myself!

philipt42
Oct 8, 2011, 04:00 PM
Definitely the funniest thing I've read on the net in a while. I've just been sat on my own, laughing out loud to myself!

+1

Really though, anyone reading this: go with the mini. Please. My Power Mac is sooo slow these days!

Nameci
Oct 8, 2011, 06:35 PM
That is your powermac right there in your sig? You only have 512mb on there. Might need to increase its size, and it will not be so slow anymore.