PDA

View Full Version : Mac Pro vs G5....What to buy????




confusedd
Oct 25, 2006, 03:56 PM
Anybody out there using Quark 6.5 with Adobe CS (or CS2) on a Mac Pro?

Any problems using these applications on a Mac Pro. I need to know
I'd rather buy the Mac Pro than a G5.
Your comments would be much appreciated!!!!

Thank in advance

PS I know Quark 7 is native to Mac Pro



Bill Gates
Oct 25, 2006, 03:59 PM
I have no personal experience with either of those applications, but have an opinion to share. Buy the Mac Pro. It's almost 2007, and the G5 is an extinct machine. Any applications that currently need Rosetta, such as the CS suite, will be universal in due time. In the meanwhile, they'll run somewhat slower, but acceptably, especially if you equip the Mac Pro with 2GB+ of RAM.

Shadow
Oct 25, 2006, 04:01 PM
For the money, I actually think a G5 is better. They go quite cheap on eBay, and the Mac Pro is only ~1.5x faster. Not that much if you think about it. Still, I wouldnt turn down a Mac Pro! :D

Bill Gates
Oct 25, 2006, 04:02 PM
For the money, I actually think a G5 is better. They go quite cheap on eBay, and the Mac Pro is only ~1.5x faster. Not that much if you think about it. Still, I wouldnt turn down a Mac Pro! :D
1.5x faster is "not that much?" That looks like a lot to me.

mac4evan
Oct 25, 2006, 06:47 PM
I'd take the Mac Pro without question:D

The Mac Pro is several times more future proof than the PM G5 is.

You can have like 10 SATA drives in it... According to hardmac.com

Chone
Oct 25, 2006, 06:56 PM
I have no personal experience with either of those applications, but have an opinion to share. Buy the Mac Pro. It's almost 2007, and the G5 is an extinct machine. Any applications that currently need Rosetta, such as the CS suite, will be universal in due time. In the meanwhile, they'll run somewhat slower, but acceptably, especially if you equip the Mac Pro with 2GB+ of RAM.

Yep, Photoshop is still fast in my Mac Pro and actually the only G5 that beats it is the Quad Core, Mac Pro is a lot faster in everything else and CS3 is coming out soon and once it does the Mac Pro will smoke the G5 in it.

dukebound85
Oct 25, 2006, 06:57 PM
Yep, Photoshop is still fast in my Mac Pro and actually the only G5 that beats it is the Quad Core, Mac Pro is a lot faster in everything else and CS3 is coming out soon and once it does the Mac Pro will smoke the G5 in it.


i think the macpro and the quad are about the same with photoshop if i remember correctly.

clintob
Oct 25, 2006, 07:28 PM
Photoshop is first and foremost a RAM whore. If you load up even a Dual 2.5 or 2.7 G5 with RAM (4GB) it will actually outperform a MacPro with moderate RAM (say 1-2GB).

This is mostly a product of the fact that Rosetta is also a bit of a RAM hog, so if you don't have enough RAM in your MacPro, the two will butt heads. This is where a lot of the complaints you've heard originate. If you load up your system with 4GB or more of RAM, you really wont notice much of any difference right now, and when CS3 comes out as a Universal all indications are that it will FLY on the MacPro.

Personally, since the display is separate anyway, if you make your living in Photoshop/Quark, I would get a Dual 2.5 G5 for the next 6 months. It wont depreciate that much between now and April, at which time you can sell it off for a small loss and get yourself an even newer MacPro just in time for CS3.

interpolic
Oct 25, 2006, 07:40 PM
i think the macpro and the quad are about the same with photoshop if i remember correctly.
The same, or less than half the speed?
The G5, the quad especially, will wipe the floor with a rosetta machine

http://www.macworld.com/2006/08/reviews/macprorev/index.php

Look at the photoshop benchmark in that, a standard Mac Pro is as fast as a Dual 1.42 G4
The Pro might be a bit faster when it has more than the 1GB ram it had there, but i hardly think its going to come close to the speed of those G5's

clintob
Oct 25, 2006, 07:45 PM
The Pro might be a bit faster when it has more than the 1GB ram it had there
Bingo... as I said above, Photoshop is a RAM hog and so is Rosetta. If you load up your system with RAM, you'll see a huge increase in Photoshop performance.

That said, the G5 will give you better performance for now, but come CS3, the MacPro will probably mop the floor with even the best Quad G5. So if you can find a cheap Dual G5, pick it up now, sell it in April, and get the best of both worlds.

interpolic
Oct 25, 2006, 07:59 PM
So if you can find a cheap Dual G5, pick it up now, sell it in April, and get the best of both worlds.
Perfect idea in my mind, cheap performance now and you wont take too much of a hit when you sell it since most of the value of the G5's has dropped already.

And when CS3 comes out, an updated Mac Pro might be here as well so you might end up with a better computer, that will definately be pretty much the fastest photoshop pc you can get (ram permitting of course)

SMM
Oct 25, 2006, 08:29 PM
Everybody's point is valid. How can that be? Because all are good choices. What you need to do is weigh the opinions based on what scenario best describes your situation.

It seems like many of us are in a constant lust for speed. It was really not that long ago the PowerMac G5 2.0 x 2 was hailed as the crown prince of the workstation world. Immediately people were looking for 3 GHz (did not happen) and then the dual core. The quad again set the high-water mark, but the Intel switch turned the focus on the Quad Xeon. This machine is barely out and people are calling for the Clovertown.

I must admit, I too have participated in the feeding frenzy (I have one of each machine mentioned). However, I have now drawn the line (somewhat). I am going to buy an Xserve in 2007. But, I am not going to buy another MP until a new bus is developed.

So, you have some options. I think the key is whether you want to make one investment, or make this a two-part buying project. If a single purchase, I think the others have made a compelling case for the Mac Pro. If you could consider the other options, then I think the decision might be based on how sweet a deal you can make on a G5 (especially a Quad).

dukebound85
Oct 25, 2006, 10:37 PM
The same, or less than half the speed?
The G5, the quad especially, will wipe the floor with a rosetta machine

http://www.macworld.com/2006/08/reviews/macprorev/index.php

Look at the photoshop benchmark in that, a standard Mac Pro is as fast as a Dual 1.42 G4
The Pro might be a bit faster when it has more than the 1GB ram it had there, but i hardly think its going to come close to the speed of those G5's


haha whats 40 seconds anyways? allows you to get a drink haha. id get a pro for the fact its not so far behind and will be awesome with cs3

slughead
Oct 25, 2006, 10:49 PM
I'm having a problem with adobe photoshop CS

I can't open graphics except through the open in the file menu.

dragging into dock icon, double clicking on adobe docs, and draggin into the app icon don't work

confusedd
Oct 26, 2006, 07:05 AM
I'm having a problem with adobe photoshop CS

I can't open graphics except through the open in the file menu.

dragging into dock icon, double clicking on adobe docs, and draggin into the app icon don't work



Do you have a Mac Pro????????
If so, what other programs are you using? Quark? Illustrator CS? Flash?

MacRumorUser
Oct 26, 2006, 05:36 PM
I had a powermac G5 dual 1.8ghz with 3.5gb ram

I upgraded to a Mac Pro 2.66 with 3gb ram

Photoshop CS2 is definetly a lot faster on my mac pro than it was on my G5 and it leaves me wanting CS3 ASAP just to see the real speed difference when rosetta is out of the equation, but so far I'm mightly impressed with the mac-pro.

drm
Oct 26, 2006, 10:43 PM
I sold my Quad G5 (5GB RAM) this week for $2500. I am now running a 2.66 Mac Pro with 5GB RAM. Photoshop *IS* slower on the Mac Pro but is still very usable.

I had the Quad and the Mac Pro sitting side by side for a week and ran several tests. On Photoshop, the Quad is quite a bit faster. But, when they update Photoshop in a few months, I am positive it will be faster than the G5, especially if Lightroom is any indication.

I process images from my 1DsII regularly. At 17MP they kill any machine, but the MP handles them fine, even in Photoshop. Adobe Lightroom is a Universal app and performs very nicely on the MP and is faster than my Quad on the same files.

My thoughts:

Positive:
- Most of the new software is Universal so the future software will be nice and speedy on the Mac Pro.
- The existing Universal apps are VERY quick, even when compared to the G5 Quad.
- The Mac Pro uses less electricity
- The rumor is that we might be able to upgrade the processors to quads
- The Mac Pro is MUCH more quiet. Other than the 1900XT fan I can only hear the occasional hard drive access. The G5 Quad was related to a dust buster ;)

Negative:
- 4GB of RAM is outrageous. I paid $800 and Apple charges > $1000.


I would personally much rather have the Mac Pro. It gives you a platform that will be viable for several years to come instead of one that is in decline.

Get a 2.66 with 3GB of RAM then upgrade the RAM later when prices fall (if they ever fall...)

Good luck!

Mark

apfhex
Oct 27, 2006, 01:58 AM
I've having horrendous stability issues with Illustrator CS2. If I were depending on this machine for daily work (I will be later on after CS3 is released) I would find it unacceptable. When it works it's fast enough though.

TheFuzz
Oct 27, 2006, 09:39 AM
i haven't had any problems with cs. definitely get 2+gigs of ram. even when running PS, illy, and AE this machine runs quite well. i still could use more ram. i'm 100% satisfied with the mac pro.

Superlat
Oct 29, 2006, 05:15 PM
AT an apple mac store, I compared the last rev MBP Core2 2.16 to a Quad G5 in what matters to me most, rendering a 30-second HD edit in Final Cut Pro and then exporting it as a Quicktime movie. The G5 had about a 15% advantage in rendering and exporting the movie. I must've done something wrong, cuz this didnt make much sense to me, but I checked it over and over again. It prob had something to do with the optimization of the new FCP suite.

The article the G5 proponent above quotes states clearly that the G5 is a hot-running machine in comparison and had space for only two HDs, whereas the Mac pro has space for 4+.

I'm upgrading and I do photography and photoshop for a living, and while I want my Pshop to go quickly, it's hardly as demanding on CPU as 3D and video or even multitrack audio. I'm looking for speed as well as lots of HD space. The benchmarks show that the Mac Pro is equivalent to the G5 Quad on updated software.

G5s will be history real soon, and good luck replacing that cooling system. I dont think upgrading a Mac Pro of today will be that hard, though they gotta change the RAM situation, which is something that makes me wonder about MacIntel in general. Lots of people getting the beachball on the more pro apps, and hear lots of anecdotes about instability and weirdness, which was predicted with the switch to Intel. Makes me scared to get one of the new machines. Stupid Motorola and IBM couldnt make the next G4 (G6!) chip, stable and the mac we knew - bulletproof. I'm taking the plunge but I may have to buy it from someone with a 30-day return policy.