PDA

View Full Version : How were some G5's considered high end back then?




rondocap
May 2, 2012, 09:53 PM
Ok, In 2003 the G5's were tauted as the fastest computers out. The quad g5 and the dual core ones were good - but how the heck did anyone ever work with the single 1.6, 1.8, and even the slower dual processors back then? They seem to struggle and go so slowly with most things that require some power.

Just seems like such a Long but short time ago!



tayloralmond
May 2, 2012, 10:01 PM
Ok, In 2003 the G5's were tauted as the fastest computers out. The quad g5 and the dual core ones were good - but how the heck did anyone ever work with the single 1.6, 1.8, and even the slower dual processors back then? They seem to struggle and go so slowly with most things that require some power.

Just seems like such a Long but short time ago!

Well I suppose it wasn't nearly as noticeable because the internet had much less multimedia back then; not to mention the fact that HD video was much more uncommon. My dual 1.25GHz MDD G4 still gets around just fine for day to day tasks, so I suppose it's not that hard to believe that a 1.6GHz iMac G5 was considered pretty fast in its day.

InuNacho
May 3, 2012, 12:23 AM
The most complex thing I was doing online in 2003 was watching the Numa Numa and some garbage flash videos on Atomfilms. Even then you didn't need much processing power for that as the PB 1.33 played those and THPS 4 quite well.

Hrududu
May 3, 2012, 12:24 AM
You have to consider what the compuer world as a whole was like at that time. Multiple cores didn't exist, and dual processors were impossible for Pentium owners. Processor power wasn't (and still shouldnt be) based on watching YouTube videos and playing online games. The G5 was far faster at floating point computation and real world apps like Photoshop, video, and audio production. The ability to break the 4GB RAM barrier was also a really big deal at the time. Also keep in mind most of the bragging Apple was doing was based around the performance of the dual CPU versions of the G5. The slower single CPU versions were never really bragged about that much. Finally, Mac OS wasn't nearly as resource hungry back then as it is now. Load up Mac OS 10.3 (or 10.2.7 on an original G5) and compare how it runs with an iMac or Powerbook of the same vintage and you'll see why the G5 really did scream.

ixodes
May 3, 2012, 12:29 AM
It was the horse & buggy days :)

minifridge1138
May 3, 2012, 12:30 AM
I have to agree tayloralmond.
They 1.6 G5 is just as fast as it ever was. It's the programs that have gotten bloated and the users (myself included) have gotten impatient.

For a moment, pause and consider what you're suggesting: that a computer capable of performing 1,600,000,000 operations per second is slow.

Files are getting bigger, the number of pixels is increasing, the number of programs running at the same time is increasing (the original Macintosh could only run 1 program at a time).

The old computers were very fast at doing the things we asked them to do. We're just asking for more today than we did yesterday.

Jethryn Freyman
May 3, 2012, 01:36 AM
My dual 1.8GHz G5 from 2004 can play 1080p just fine. It's got 7 USB 2.0 ports. It's getting an SSD one day soon-ish. It does everything I need it to. Hell, my C2D Macbook may technically be faster... but I still prefer using my G5 for a lot of stuff, a lot of which are reasons that I've added by upgrading it and PCI cards.

eawmp1
May 3, 2012, 02:26 AM
OP, how old are you?

When you've been around a few years you learn not to apply modern benchmarks to old technology. What is the latest and greatest today will be seemingly archaeic in 9-10 years. When I use the software that came with my iMac G4, it performs admirably (yes, it still runs). It is folly to compare it to my more modern machines (heck, my iPad surfs the net better). For perspective:


1993 - Macintosh Quadra 800 with 33 MHz 68040, 230 MB hard drive (optional 500 MB or 1 GB), 8 MB RAM.

1983 - one year before Macintosh. Most of us were rocking the Apple ][, but if you had about $10 k you could get a Lisa running at 5 mHz with 1 mb RAM.

1976 Apple incorporated with the Apple 1.

JoeG4
May 3, 2012, 02:44 AM
There's also a small thing that many people omit. It looks like this:

http://www.zilica.com/images/mg1264_dime_lowres.jpg

H.264 decoder, anyone? Most video cards have that feature as part of their system-on-a-chip these days. Those just started to hit the market when the G5s were being retired, so they don't have them. (Hardware decoding of H.264 is not supported by any PPC build of OS X).

I used to think Adobe Flash was just terribly written for PPC Macs, but if you've ever used HTML5 youtube, you'll notice that's even worse.

That, and using a single processor G4 or G5 after using a dual processor machine is like going from a Corvette to a Toyota Corolla. PAINFUL!

Finally, the G5 came out almost 9 years ago (1 month to go). Let's put it this way: 9 years before that Windows 95 still hadn't hit the market. In 1994, very few people had cellphones, and I think you were pretty well off if you had a 14.4 modem...

Starfighter
May 3, 2012, 03:24 AM
I agree with every answer, so I don't need to comment the main question.

But I DO agree that it seems not so long ago. It's baffling how fast we get used to new milestones in technology. I think my 2TB of storage is just enough, but when I think about it - I remember when I thought a couple of floppy disks (1.4MB) were more than enough to store my important stuff.

JoeG4
May 3, 2012, 03:27 AM
I remember one day getting annoyed at the idea that it'd take me 26 minutes to transfer 35gb of data between my desktops. That was like 4 years ago :]

G51989
May 3, 2012, 06:54 AM
Ok, In 2003 the G5's were tauted as the fastest computers out. The quad g5 and the dual core ones were good - but how the heck did anyone ever work with the single 1.6, 1.8, and even the slower dual processors back then? They seem to struggle and go so slowly with most things that require some power.

Just seems like such a Long but short time ago!

The computer world was a lot different than what it is.

Until the G5's came out, the only systems that Dual Processors and more than 4gb of Ram, were Super High end work stations and servers. They were typically Intel Itaniums ( Spellcheck that? ), or AMD Optrons. The G5's were the first computers of their performance level that the average person could go out and buy off the shelf. They weren't cheap tho. The Tower alone for a Dual 1.8 would run you 3500 dollars.

You also gotta remeber, really cheap computers that were useable didn't exist yet, even a super low end Dell at that time period would still run you 600-700 dollars for a full setup. Hell, not long before that my father paid 1,200 dollars for a HP Tower with a 633mzh Celeron Processor, 256mb of ram and Windows ME. Oh how far we've come.

So at the time, the G5's were by far the fastest computers the average person could go out and buy. Sure there Itanium and Optron workstations that were as fast, but those would run you 6000 to 10000 dollars. And if you wanted windows, you were stuck on windows server edition.

Typical 2003 Computer:

Pentium 4 or a Athlon, single cores baby. ( I still have my old Athlon 64 box )
Gig of ram typically
Video Card: Something like a Geforce 4 or a Geforce FX, the 6 series was just starting to exist.
hard drive? 500gb MAX unless you really wanted to start spending a ton of money.
Compare something like that, that came in a Green or Grey case. to a mid range G5, the G5 looked amazing, and performed amazing.

G5s were super high end for their day. And what a day it was, I remember those days, hell I'm not that old, but I remember when Windows ME came out....holy **** I'm getting old ( Im only 24 lol )

----------

I have to agree tayloralmond.
They 1.6 G5 is just as fast as it ever was. It's the programs that have gotten bloated and the users (myself included) have gotten impatient.

For a moment, pause and consider what you're suggesting: that a computer capable of performing 1,600,000,000 operations per second is slow.

Files are getting bigger, the number of pixels is increasing, the number of programs running at the same time is increasing (the original Macintosh could only run 1 program at a time).

The old computers were very fast at doing the things we asked them to do. We're just asking for more today than we did yesterday.

This.

It's not that its a " slow " computer. But by modern standards, they are slow. But not slow. If that makes sense lol.

Doesn't seem like it was that long ago that I was wide eyed at a G5 on the cover of PC Magazine, now you can pick up a decent for 200 bucks, and it gets destoryed by a generic 800 dollar dell box :(

thorns
May 3, 2012, 10:43 AM
Itanium is not workstation material. Xeon is. Opteron is. Both were in the same ballpark with the G5 dollars/performance-wise.

rondocap
May 3, 2012, 10:54 AM
The change from PowerPC to intel is a
Big divider. My 2006 Mac Pro is still very fast - upgraded with ssd and ram to 12gigs so hopefully It will stay like that for the near future.

tayloralmond
May 3, 2012, 02:47 PM
The change from PowerPC to intel is a
Big divider. My 2006 Mac Pro is still very fast - upgraded with ssd and ram to 12gigs so hopefully It will stay like that for the near future.

That's about the situation I'm in. Unfortunately, Apple's giving us MacPro 1,1 owners the big middle finger with Mountain Lion.

G51989
May 3, 2012, 02:49 PM
Itanium is not workstation material. Xeon is. Opteron is. Both were in the same ballpark with the G5 dollars/performance-wise.

I'm not talking about now, I'm talking about then, ( when G5s were new ). Hell, theres still a few Itanium2 Work stations where I work, and they used to be more common place, Itanium2 workstations were beastly for back in the day.

vohdoun
May 3, 2012, 03:54 PM
Typical 2003 Computer:

Pentium 4 or a Athlon, single cores baby. ( I still have my old Athlon 64 box )
Gig of ram typically
Video Card: Something like a Geforce 4 or a Geforce FX, the 6 series was just starting to exist.
hard drive? 500gb MAX unless you really wanted to start spending a ton of money.
Compare something like that, that came in a Green or Grey case. to a mid range G5, the G5 looked amazing, and performed amazing.

I remember that. My Athlon XP3200+ can't even play 720p smoothly as the cpu usage is pegged at 100% trying to play it. The Athlon 64 X2 laughs at it. I do miss the NVIDIA nForce 2 Soundstorm.

When I got my Dual G5 in 05 it only came with a 250GB drive.

G5s were super high end for their day. And what a day it was, I remember those days, hell I'm not that old, but I remember when Windows ME came out....holy **** I'm getting old ( Im only 24 lol )

----------



This.

It's not that its a " slow " computer. But by modern standards, they are slow. But not slow. If that makes sense lol.


Don't you find todays society is so impatient? no tolerance and very insecure. I always keep ready arguments on forums over such little things even computers. Facebook and Twitter has a lot to answer for this change in culture.

That's about the situation I'm in. Unfortunately, Apple's giving us MacPro 1,1 owners the big middle finger with Mountain Lion.

It must be frustrating, to think how really it's no different to PPC. But worse you're still on Intel.

G51989
May 3, 2012, 04:07 PM
I remember that. My Athlon XP3200+ can't even play 720p smoothly as the cpu usage is pegged at 100% trying to play it. The Athlon 64 X2 laughs at it. I do miss the NVIDIA nForce 2 Soundstorm.

When I got my Dual G5 in 05 it only came with a 250GB drive.



Don't you find todays society is so impatient? no tolerance and very insecure. I always keep ready arguments on forums over such little things even computers. Facebook and Twitter has a lot to answer for this change in culture.



It must be frustrating, to think how really it's no different to PPC. But worse you're still on Intel.

Yeah man, I actually have the following, a Sempron 3100+ Palermo Core ( these things were almost as fast as their higher end counter parts ), 2 gigs of ram, a ATi HD 4600 something, on a horrible Maxtor 80gb hard Drive.

I use it all the time, it cant do 1080p, it manages 720 just fine though, probably because of the video card. I use it, because its ACTUALLY underwater, distilled water, in a sealed plexiglass case, heat pipes out the top, big ole heatsink with a fan to get rid of the heat lol.

My G5 is pretty nice tho, I remeber when I was a teenager staring Wide Eyed at the 20 page Artical in PC Magazine, so when I had the chance to get one, I didn't care how slow and incompatible it is. I bought it.

Well its not impatient, For my job I need a VERY fast computer to get things done in a short manner.

And yeah, impatient is a bit of it. But the fact is, today you can buy a 700 dollar dell box with a Moniter, Keyboard, tons of ram and a video card that will blow the hell out of a top end G5, so theres just no point anymore lol

minifridge1138
May 3, 2012, 04:20 PM
...

My G5 is pretty nice tho, I remeber when I was a teenager staring Wide Eyed at the 20 page Artical in PC Magazine, so when I had the chance to get one, I didn't care how slow and incompatible it is. I bought it.

...
so theres just no point anymore lol

Agreed, the only point is to say "I have one".

I got my first G5 a few weeks ago. I don't need it, I just wanted one to play with. I paid $100 and I'm having fun. That's the point.

G51989
May 3, 2012, 04:30 PM
Agreed, the only point is to say "I have one".

I got my first G5 a few weeks ago. I don't need it, I just wanted one to play with. I paid $100 and I'm having fun. That's the point.

Mines a little more than a " toy ", I don't use it as a Main Machine, but I do use it pretty often. Its still a highly useful computer.

eyoungren
May 3, 2012, 05:43 PM
Mines a little more than a " toy ", I don't use it as a Main Machine, but I do use it pretty often. Its still a highly useful computer.

My work G5 also is not a toy, or slow. There's no way in heck my boss is going to be buying me a new Mac any time soon so my G5 continues to output everyweek. We put out two weekly community newspapers, merge editorial and advertising content to do that, build ads and "fix" customer submitted files. The increased performance of machines/software has resulted in an increased complexity level of the average PDF.

Acrobat 6 Pro and Enfocus PitStop Pro are still working for me even though I have Acrobat 9 Pro as well. At any given time I'm juggling 8 or more open apps all calling for massive amounts of ram. No issues handling that and my G5 isn't even a dual. It's 1.8Ghz.

Sorry if I am repeating myself, but this issue seems to keep coming up.

sysiphus
May 3, 2012, 07:58 PM
It really is just all relative to what was being done on personal computers at the time. When I bought my dual 1.8GHz G5 in 2004, it was a $2000 computer, before the $500 graphics card or ~$300 of RAM was thrown in. And for the time, it screamed--it blew through Flash MX development, Photoshop CS2 renders, and could play the original WoW really smoothly (keep in mind this is when the game was new). Heck, a dual G5 with a Geforce 6800 or ATI X800 was the only Mac that could run Halo smoothly on high settings for quite some time. Keep in mind this machine shipped with Panther, and was best suited for Tiger--both of which were much less demanding than anything out there today.

The G5s were never great home computers in the sense of being so hot/power hungry, but for sheer performance, they were a very solid value for the first couple years ('03,'04). By 2005 they'd hit a roadblock for speed/value/heat vs what Intel could do, but if you took a dual G5 from 2004 and put it up against any Intel home computer of the same age, it'd do just fine. As for your concerns about speed of video playback...consider that Youtube didn't even exist back when the G5 was the hot new thing. Kind of a funny thought, no?

Giuly
May 3, 2012, 09:51 PM
I remember that. My Athlon XP3200+ can't even play 720p smoothly as the cpu usage is pegged at 100% trying to play it. The Athlon 64 X2 laughs at it.
An Athlon64 3400+ (1st gen) plays 720p along with a GeForce 2 MX perfectly fine. If you wanted 1080p, you had to throw in something that is capable of hardware decoding (aka GeForce 7). The same goes for 720p on a PowerMac G4 and probably even on a G5.

JoeG4
May 3, 2012, 10:01 PM
The problem is as I stated, even with a Geforce 7 card you wouldn't get hardware decoding on the Mac because it was never supported on PPC builds of OS X.

Fiveos22
May 3, 2012, 11:20 PM
Truth, I still remember my single 1.8 G5 fondly. To start with, it was a thing of beauty design-wise with that monstrous aluminum case and plastic wind baffle that displayed the meticulously well-designed innards. Secondly (and more importantly) the interconnection speeds of the G5 series were off the charts. Can anyone dig up the leaked specs of the G5 (I think in December of the year prior) where people looked at the FSB and balked.

That still is the case today: I am in the mood to purchase a new iMac (hopefully waiting until the next revision is released) for the apparent speed increase almost solely due to solid state drive technology (admittedly 2 years old now). So many facets go into "speed" of the computer beyond raw processor speed, and the G5 was where it appeared as though this was first truly being recognized by Apple. Or perhaps it was just when they finally stopped playing the megahertz-gigahertz game that dominated the late 1990s.

Hmm, now I wish I still had my G5.

----------

As for your concerns about speed of video playback...consider that Youtube didn't even exist back when the G5 was the hot new thing. Kind of a funny thought, no?

Wow, I had to fact check that one myself... first appears in 2005 at the Internet Archive (http://web.archive.org/web/20050428014715/http://www.youtube.com/).

Whargoul
May 4, 2012, 06:30 AM
but how the heck did anyone ever work with the single 1.6, 1.8, and even the slower dual processors back then?

Seriously, that has to be one of the dumbest questions ever asked on this forum.
Are you going to ask why a quad core 2.5ghz G5 isn't as fast as a quad core 2.5GHz imac?

rondocap
May 4, 2012, 08:14 AM
That's not what I meant; I just meant that they still unusually slow for "pro" use. Obviously the ones today are much faster.

SuperJudge
May 4, 2012, 09:48 AM
That's not what I meant; I just meant that they still unusually slow for "pro" use. Obviously the ones today are much faster.

Your framework for judging this is terribly, terribly skewed.

You're not making a fair comparison. For example, you have to consider that the 1.6/1.8GHz G5s were engineered for a price point to fill a niche for users that wanted more than what an iMac offered, but less than what a high-end user would need. Kind of the niche that the Mac mini fills now, but not quite.

Also compared to contemporary Pentium 4 procs, those G5s were smoking and the ability to address more than 4GB of RAM in a machine that didn't cost tens of thousands of dollars was HUGE in 2003. I don't think this can be stressed enough. I remember thinking at the time that it would be ages until that would actually be fully relevant/usable. I was almost right.

SimonUK5
May 4, 2012, 10:33 AM
Its completely dependant on what your using it for.

Last year my photography set-up was a Canon 1d mark1 ( 2001) and a MDD. With Photoshop CS, and it ran amazing, cut through all my RAW's like butter, and i was running a pair of 19'' screens...

Use old stuff with old computers, and match accordingly. Don't expect your G5 to play BlueRay, don't expect your i7 MacbookPro to run a dot matrix printer...

Simples.

vohdoun
May 4, 2012, 10:49 AM
An Athlon64 3400+ (1st gen) plays 720p along with a GeForce 2 MX perfectly fine. If you wanted 1080p, you had to throw in something that is capable of hardware decoding (aka GeForce 7). The same goes for 720p on a PowerMac G4 and probably even on a G5.

Athlon 64. Athlon XP is 32bit.

skinniezinho
May 4, 2012, 11:50 AM
An Athlon64 3400+ (1st gen) plays 720p along with a GeForce 2 MX perfectly fine. If you wanted 1080p, you had to throw in something that is capable of hardware decoding (aka GeForce 7). The same goes for 720p on a PowerMac G4 and probably even on a G5.

In my house there is a 3000+ with 7800gt and it doesn't play 1080p well, it is watchable but not nice tho.

QuantumLo0p
May 4, 2012, 01:34 PM
You have to consider what the compuer world as a whole was like at that time. Multiple cores didn't exist, and dual processors were impossible for Pentium owners. Processor power wasn't (and still shouldnt be) based on watching YouTube videos and playing online games. The G5 was far faster at floating point computation and real world apps like Photoshop, video, and audio production. The ability to break the 4GB RAM barrier was also a really big deal at the time. Also keep in mind most of the bragging Apple was doing was based around the performance of the dual CPU versions of the G5. The slower single CPU versions were never really bragged about that much. Finally, Mac OS wasn't nearly as resource hungry back then as it is now. Load up Mac OS 10.3 (or 10.2.7 on an original G5) and compare how it runs with an iMac or Powerbook of the same vintage and you'll see why the G5 really did scream.

I second the comment on floating point processing. I seem to remember my G5 DP LC had similar power to Xeon workstations at the time. How often have you heard the "macs are more expensive than pc's" statement? Obviously not true when you factor in all the hugely successful core apps as well as the overall user experience. However, hardware for hardware my G5 DP LC was actually cheaper than its Dell Precision counterpart.

I'm kind of sorry to say but my old PowerMac has seen better days; I have tracked down my hardware error to a ram slot or the ram itself. Lately I have been pondering using the case, which arguably PowerMacs and Macpro cases are still at or near the top, for a high end cad/cam/gaming rig. If my problem is simply bad ram I could still get a couple hundred bucks for it but a case of that caliber is easily worth that. I am also considering re-working the Delphi liquid cooler for use on an Intel six core, sans the corrosive oem coolant.

bengi
May 4, 2012, 02:42 PM
When I got my first G5 in 2003 (2GHz x2) I came from a PB Aluminium G4 1.25 and I did non feel a vast improvement. While when in 2008 I moved to a Mac Pro (early 2008, 3.2 GHz) I really had the impression of a much faster machine.

However, back in 1995 I did my biggest upgrade, from a Mac Classic (heavily accelerated though) to a PowerMac 7200/90 and I felt as it was a ripoff. I replaced it a year later with a 7600/132, a much better machine.

I believe that the combination of OS, available software and true raw power make a gestalt that has to be consided. For instance in 1995 I used the horrible Word 6 version for PowerPC on the 7200/90, System 7.5.2 was terrible and the Mac Classic with system 6.0.7 and Word 4 really screamed compared to it!

No internet on the Classic, but my reference was MS Word...

Still today Word 4 on a PowerBook 100 (yes, the slower 68000 based) lauches faster than Word 2008 on a MacBook..l

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-6CXn-4Jjc&feature=youtube_gdata_player

(www.webalice.it/beniamino.cenci.goga/68k/Macintosh_Classic_XLR8d.html)

(www.webalice.it/beniamino.cenci.goga/68k/Power_Macintosh_7600.html)

G51989
May 4, 2012, 03:25 PM
That's not what I meant; I just meant that they still unusually slow for "pro" use. Obviously the ones today are much faster.

There are no G5s today, they've been gone for a long time. At least new ones.

G5s back at the time were very fast machines. Not as fast as Workstations, but still very very fast.

blackhand1001
May 4, 2012, 05:51 PM
It really is just all relative to what was being done on personal computers at the time. When I bought my dual 1.8GHz G5 in 2004, it was a $2000 computer, before the $500 graphics card or ~$300 of RAM was thrown in. And for the time, it screamed--it blew through Flash MX development, Photoshop CS2 renders, and could play the original WoW really smoothly (keep in mind this is when the game was new). Heck, a dual G5 with a Geforce 6800 or ATI X800 was the only Mac that could run Halo smoothly on high settings for quite some time. Keep in mind this machine shipped with Panther, and was best suited for Tiger--both of which were much less demanding than anything out there today.

The G5s were never great home computers in the sense of being so hot/power hungry, but for sheer performance, they were a very solid value for the first couple years ('03,'04). By 2005 they'd hit a roadblock for speed/value/heat vs what Intel could do, but if you took a dual G5 from 2004 and put it up against any Intel home computer of the same age, it'd do just fine. As for your concerns about speed of video playback...consider that Youtube didn't even exist back when the G5 was the hot new thing. Kind of a funny thought, no?

It was not only intel was beating the g5 with the crappy netburst architecture but the athlon 64 was literally crapping all over both of them. It got even worse when the dual core athlons started shipping not to mention there was already dual socket opterons in 2003. Those machines still run new version of windows with ease today and can play full 1080p video without breaking a sweat.

rondocap
May 4, 2012, 11:08 PM
OK guys, I actually have an interesting update and have followed the discussion here with interest.

I would like to rephrase my statement to include really only the single core 1.6 and 1.8 G5 machines. Why?

Out of curiosity, I picked up a late 2005 2.3ghz dual core G5 with a good amount of ram. It's significantly fast than my 1.8 single G5. In fact, it feels similarly to my 2.0ghz core 2 duo iMac. (They both geek bench within a few hundred points)

It's definitely a pretty fast machine, but I still maintain that the 1.6/1.8 singles are very slow, even for their time they struggle a bit. Basically the ram and hard drive were OK, my biggest issue was maxing out the processor too easily. 1.8 single cpu really maxes out with medium use. The dual 2.3 is much better.

Having said that, going back to my Mac Pro feels amazing - it just flies. It could also be my SSD drive, I may pop an SSD drive in the 2.3 and see how it responds.

Jethryn Freyman
May 4, 2012, 11:52 PM
Yeah there's a huge gap between the single and the dual models, I know there's a massive performance gulf between my single 1.8 iMac and dual 1.8 Power Mac. I'm planning on a 240GB SSD sometime in the next few months, too, so that'll be interesting.

Nameci
May 5, 2012, 12:18 AM
Having said that, going back to my Mac Pro feels amazing - it just flies. It could also be my SSD drive, I may pop an SSD drive in the 2.3 and see how it responds.

SSD will breathe a new life to your dual core.

Jethryn Freyman
May 5, 2012, 12:48 AM
SSD will breathe a new life to your dual core.
Quotes like this really tempt me to spend the money right now on the SSD... since I've already got one in my Macbook and love it :)

Nameci
May 5, 2012, 08:11 AM
You already have a proof and experienced what an SSD upgrade could positively affect an old machine's performance. Go ahead and dive in.

rondocap
May 6, 2012, 01:27 PM
I've been running this 05' 2.3 dual core G5, and it's actually pretty quick for normal tasks and even some moderate ones. That 1.8 G5 I have does not compare, I'm even wondering if something may be wrong with the hard drive as it struggles with even Safari, while the 2.3 handles it closer to what my Mac Pro does. (although not as quick)