PDA

View Full Version : g4 vs. g5


boxcar
Jun 26, 2003, 02:20 PM
Does anyone think it's worth it to pick up the older g4 dual 1.2 for 1500$ or should i just get the g5.
i don't need the computer asap, but would like to have it sooner rather than later.
i'm doing basic audio work... recording studio stuff. running reason 2.5 and digital performer.
opinions?

boxcar
Jun 27, 2003, 09:59 AM
no opinions on this then?

Wyrm
Jun 27, 2003, 10:04 AM
If you have the money, and can afford to wait, go for the G5.
It is the next generation stuff.

Need it now, or need it cheap, $1500 for a current PowerMac is pretty good IMHO.

-Wyrm

djtet
Jun 27, 2003, 10:09 AM
i actually had a thread basically asking the same thing. got some decent feedback...although i would like a bit more.

unlike yourself i basically do need a computer sooner than later, but am stuggling financially. however, credit cards were made for a reason! i just don't know if it's better to get a single 1.25 for $1300, a dual 1.25 for $1600, or a 1.6 G5 without the superdrive for $1770. basically, what's the best deal??? i know that for the time being i could pick up a 2.6 Pentium 4 PC for about $800, but i really do want to use a mac.

if you get any feedback let me know and i'll do the same!

allpar
Jun 27, 2003, 10:10 AM
I know the G5 is newer, but how do you think the dual G4-1.25 compares with the G5-1.6 (bottom of the line)? $1,570 for a dual G4 sure seems nice now, and $1999 for the 1.6 would be a lot if it's notfaster.

Laslo Panaflex
Jun 27, 2003, 10:10 AM
I think that the g4s that they are selling in the apple store will be more than enough for what you are doing, that is unless you are going to have 30 plus tracks running live with 5+ plugins on each track, in that case get a G5. Really the G5 is for high end video and graphics, I am getting a dual 2gig personally becuase I use Final cut pro, and any thing that saves render time is great.

Peas.

iGav
Jun 27, 2003, 10:18 AM
My 'technical' answer to your query is...

Buy a G5 cos' it's cooler... :D :p :p

Dreamail
Jun 27, 2003, 10:19 AM
It's very early and benchmarks are rare, but from what I can gather it seems that the G5 CPU performs about linearely speed-wise in regards to integer number crunching and about 1.25 times to 1.5 times faster in regards to floating point calculations.

That said, if you use MS Office or other mostly integer apps a dual 2GHz G5 would be about 1.6 times faster than the dual 1.25GHz G4.

If you use 3D appls like Maya then performance should be about 2 times as fast on the dual 2GHz G5.

Add to that the fact that the G5 is heavily optimised for data throughput. So if you have an application that handles loads of data like music or video apps, then there should be a huge performance gain additional.

To sum it up:

Joe Average should ask himself whehter a 60% speed gain is something he wants to spend another $1500 on.

Ken Numbercruncher should ask himself whether twice the performance is worth twice the money.

Lenny Videomusicguy should definitely buy a G5 since it is so much better suited to handle his data volume.

allpar
Jun 27, 2003, 10:30 AM
Wouldn't the 800 MHz bus and serial ATA have a substantial impact? I'd expect the 1.6 G5 to run at least twice as fast as a 1.25 single G4. I am a power user but not a big video or audio person, and I need something that'll survive 5 years of program bloat. The dual G4 is looking attractive because it can do two things at once. The G5 looks good because it's current, powerful, and only about $200 more than a similarly configured dual G4.

Your thoughts? APpreciate your curren tpostings.

Mr. MacPhisto
Jun 27, 2003, 10:37 AM
Well, I think there's going to be a PowerMac G4 revision when the 7457s come out. The only likely improvement is a 200MHZ FSB. Since the low-end G5 doesn't have DDR400, I doubt this one will, but it would be nice. I think it may be possible for Apple to offer a single and dual 1.5GHz G4 with the expanded L2 memory and 2MB of L3 per chip. This could make for a nice headless iMac - which we may also see with dual chips because of the 50% reduction in cost of the 7457.

irmongoose
Jun 27, 2003, 10:48 AM
Look, all I can say is, the low-end 1.6 G5 is not worth the money. If you need a machine soon (before September) and you're not ready to pay for the 1.8 or 2.0 G5, I see no reason why you shouldn't buy a current, cheaper G4.

On the other hand, if you can wait a few months and can afford at least the 1.8 G5, I would definitely get that. The G5 is just too cool to turn down, heh.



irmongoose

Dreamail
Jun 27, 2003, 10:55 AM
The problem is the mix of factors, which is difficult to predict unless you programmed an application yourself.

From initial benchmarks it seems that the raw CPU performance is linear in integer calculations, perhaps even a bit worse.
But that of course would only apply to calculations completely stored in the CPU's L2 cache.

Since RAM and HD performance is better on the G5 anything that is heavily influenced by these factors will improve more.
It really depends on how certain applications use resources.

I'd say the linear thing is the worst case scenario, but probably more likely something Joe Average will encounter.

But there are many more factors in the decision, each of which could be make or break for some:

How about noise? The G5 promises to be a lot quieter than even the very latest G4s. If noisy equipment is a problem for you, then don't even consider a G4.
How about FireWire 800? If you crave for speedy external extensions, then forget the G4.
How about internal expanability with a second CD drive or 3 HDs. Not possible on the G5, so go with the G4.
How about 'future proofness'? If you want something that will last you the next 3 years relatively comfortably go with the G5 since it has all the latest tech like FireWire 800, USB 2, PCI-X, digital surround audio. There will be a time when the Mac OS requires a G5 as a minimum.

The question is, how much money are these worth to you? If you don't have the money or are notoriously short for cash, then forget about it, go with the cheapest option, a G4.
If you have the money then make a list and try to value each point and see whether this is worth the cash for you and the apps you intend to use.

MacBoyX
Jun 27, 2003, 11:11 AM
Originally posted by Dreamail
The problem is the mix of factors, which is difficult to predict unless you programmed an application yourself.

From initial benchmarks it seems that the raw CPU performance is linear in integer calculations, perhaps even a bit worse.
But that of course would only apply to calculations completely stored in the CPU's L2 cache.

Since RAM and HD performance is better on the G5 anything that is heavily influenced by these factors will improve more.
It really depends on how certain applications use resources.

I'd say the linear thing is the worst case scenario, but probably more likely something Joe Average will encounter.

But there are many more factors in the decision, each of which could be make or break for some:

How about noise? The G5 promises to be a lot quieter than even the very latest G4s. If noisy equipment is a problem for you, then don't even consider a G4.
How about FireWire 800? If you crave for speedy external extensions, then forget the G4.
How about internal expanability with a second CD drive or 3 HDs. Not possible on the G5, so go with the G4.
How about 'future proofness'? If you want something that will last you the next 3 years relatively comfortably go with the G5 since it has all the latest tech like FireWire 800, USB 2, PCI-X, digital surround audio. There will be a time when the Mac OS requires a G5 as a minimum.

The question is, how much money are these worth to you? If you don't have the money or are notoriously short for cash, then forget about it, go with the cheapest option, a G4.
If you have the money then make a list and try to value each point and see whether this is worth the cash for you and the apps you intend to use.

You don't need FW 800 for speedy external extentions most things don't even saturate FW400's band width and it will be a VERY long time before the G5 is the minimum for Mac OS.

I say go with the G4 as most of us do not need the speed of the G5. The Dual G4 will be kick ass for what you are most likely doing.

Just my opinion, I could be wrong!

MacBoyX

allpar
Jun 27, 2003, 12:28 PM
I think I *do* need the speed of the G5. I'm trying to figure out if a single 1.6 G5 will be faster than a current dual 1.25 G4, and if so, what the difference is. The price difference seems to be only about $200 if you configure the same way. How much will I regret getting a G4 today, in other words?

How 'bout a 1.8 G5...do ya think?

Jimong5
Jun 27, 2003, 12:28 PM
From what I've seen, the G5 is just more future ready and full of marketing fluff. Serial ATA! oh wait.. HDs cant even saturate an ATA 100 Bus yet, all serial does is increas the celing oon HD size from 180 to 250.
AGP 8X! even the Mighty Radeon 9800 cant saturate 4x.
the 1.6 uses the same DDR 333 as the G4.
the 1.6 doesnt have PCI-X, and has one less slot then the G4. It also has half the internal HD bays and only one optical slot. both can be expanded to 4 GB of RAM, with a gig stick in each slot.
the FX 5200 isnt anything to look at either, i beleve its on par with the 9000 for things. as I see it the only advantage to the G5 I see now is the CPU, however, duals a re very nice, and Apple has designed the G4 very well to deal with the bottleneck it has now. Id say at this point the G4 is perfect for the budget conscious.

macphoria
Jun 27, 2003, 12:35 PM
Go for G4 for now because version of the softwares you use designed to take full advantage of G5 won't come out for another couple of years. By that time, newer and faster G5 will come out and you can get G5 with the right software.

djtet
Jun 27, 2003, 12:36 PM
Someone else just posted that the g4 prices have gone up on apples website...

not really a problem, since you can just reconfigure your specs and get the same deal (dual 1.25 for $1599)

the only problem is the fact that you get the system for $1599, then you have to spend at least another $100 for more RAM, since 256MB is a joke! then sales tax and you're almost up to $1800 - $1900. So for not much more you can get a 1.6 g5 with the combo drive, instead of the superdrive!

why can't apple make this easier?!?!

Jimong5
Jun 27, 2003, 12:44 PM
Originally posted by djtet
[B] then you have to spend at least another $100 for more RAM, since 256MB is a joke! then sales tax and you're almost up to $1800 - $1900. [B] Wheres your figues of the G5s own tax and G5s RAM prices, because the G5 comes with a silly RAM limitation that it is installed in pairs. so it would actually cost more to upgrade the RAM in the G5. and when you apply Tax, the gain is moot, and i have a feeling the G4 is just fine. Id prefer Duals personally, they are so much nicer then singles, in the fact they have a bigger horsepower thing.

djtet
Jun 27, 2003, 01:02 PM
Originally posted by Jimong5
Wheres your figues of the G5s own tax and G5s RAM prices, because the G5 comes with a silly RAM limitation that it is installed in pairs. so it would actually cost more to upgrade the RAM in the G5. and when you apply Tax, the gain is moot, and i have a feeling the G4 is just fine. Id prefer Duals personally, they are so much nicer then singles, in the fact they have a bigger horsepower thing.

you are correct...overall, no matter what, you're going to pay more for the g5. and yes, you'll probably have to up the ram and pay taxes, etc on the g5 as well...

i'm trying to figure out if i should buy a g4, g5, or nothing. i do need something but i'm trying to find out what's the best deal...as is boxcar, allpar, etc...

allpar
Jun 27, 2003, 01:21 PM
Agreed. 'Course the fast bus will be good for booting, making CDs while working, etc. But I'm now leaning more to the dual 1.25. I'll note that the difference between an identically configured dual-1.25 and 1.6 is $200 - almost exactly.

Dont Hurt Me
Jun 27, 2003, 01:48 PM
for those considering the dual g4 1.25 remember this will your favorite app use that 2nd cpu???? also you can look at other world computing they show a lot of benches on many machines and upgrades so you can get a better idea on a machine or upgrade. In most cases that 2nd cpu isnt doing that much. for example in wolfenstein a single 1.33 can hang with a dual 1.25 but in other test it may not.

Dreamail
Jun 27, 2003, 01:53 PM
Once read in a thread that a dual CPU Mac makes a huge difference as opposed to a single CPU machine. OS X reportedly runs so much smoother on it.

If your options are either a dual 1.25 G4 OR a single CPU G5 and if you're not using it for video or music editing (and if none of the new G5 features are a 'must have' for you, things like quiet operation, PCI-X, etc) then by all means go for the G4! Your experience in day to day work will be a lot smoother on a dual 1.25GHz G4 than with a 1.6 or 1.8GHz G5.

However if you're thinking whether it's worth to spend twice as much money for the dual 2GHz G5 as opposed to a dual 1.25GHz G4 - then things are more complex and I would lean towards the G5 because the dual 2GHz seems like a good value for its money (if you have the funds available).

allpar
Jun 27, 2003, 02:22 PM
...would have been nice if Apple had posted some real-world comparison of the G4 to the G5, it's all speculation now. I did notice on their performance PDF that the 1.6 G5 outperforms a 3 GHz Pentium IV. Does the dual-G4 do that?

dabirdwell
Jun 27, 2003, 02:23 PM
Arrgg..

i am trying to make this decision also, what to replace the dual 867 with...

anyone want a MDD 867 with a buttload of software?

allpar
Jun 27, 2003, 02:29 PM
Actually, yes, that would do quite nicely for a while, and letme wait for the second generation of G5s.

boxcar
Jun 27, 2003, 03:11 PM
I figure if i get the dual 1.25 g4 it gives me a couple of years to get used to mac os, and the software i'd be running. By that time i'll be able to get a g5 (or higher) with all the kinks worked out. i really wouldn't be able to get the dual 2ghz g5 for financial reasons. I could get the 1.8, but that would mean i'd lose some of my audio equipment.. and it seems the 1.6 g5 and the dual 1.25 are fairly comparable in specs, etc...
i will be doing audio work, but nothing hugely strenous.... i don't imagine i'd be recording too many tracks simultaneously, and i doubt i'd drop more than 12tracks total anyway.
i've got a soundproof cabinet for the g4 so noise shouldn't be an issue either....
i think it's really a matter of patience. I really don't want to wait an undetermined amount of time to put some material out there.

do we think there will be further drops to the g4 price? and do we think that g4 powermacs are finished? (i.e. no more updates)

Dont Hurt Me
Jun 27, 2003, 03:25 PM
like to make a little point, a dual g4 1.42 is making about 96 frames per second in quake 3 at 1024 x 768 with radeon 8500. A dual 2 gig g5 is doing 337 according to apple on a ati9800. so if a 1.6 with the 9800 does close to half we are still looking at 150-160 fps maybe a little more. 150 vs 96 for dual 1.42. a big leap if you consider quake 3 is optimised for duallies. They didnt give us that many benches for the 1.6.

allpar
Jun 27, 2003, 03:33 PM
Guess I'm just being impatient for September 3 (current shipping date). I also think the 1.6 and 1.8 aren't very far apart - PCI-X seems like something I won't use, the RAM upgradeability doesn't bother me too much, and the performance of both seems fairly similar.

Dont Hurt Me
Jun 27, 2003, 03:45 PM
allpar i noticed this also in the technology overview. I think there will be a large difference between a dual 1.42 and single g5 1.6. i'm starting to lean that way with a ati9800. should make a great gaming system.

Dont Hurt Me
Jun 27, 2003, 03:54 PM
Originally posted by allpar
...would have been nice if Apple had posted some real-world comparison of the G4 to the G5, it's all speculation now. I did notice on their performance PDF that the 1.6 G5 outperforms a 3 GHz Pentium IV. Does the dual-G4 do that? In one word ( No )!

allpar
Jun 27, 2003, 06:29 PM
...then it looks as though a single 1.6 is quite a bit more powerful than a dual 1.25.

Dreamail
Jun 27, 2003, 10:55 PM
Originally posted by allpar
...then it looks as though a single 1.6 is quite a bit more powerful than a dual 1.25.

I'd guess it's the ATi 9800 which is stealing the show here.

This test doesn't show the performance of the 9800, but according to Tom's Hardware the 9700 runs already about 300% (!) faster than the 8500 in some tests:
http://www17.tomshardware.com/graphic/20021218/vgacharts-04.html

A single 1.6GHz G5 CPU might actually not be faster than a dual 1.25GHz G4. In some apps which cannot use dual CPUs surely, but probably not on the ones that do.

G3-Pwnz-G4
Jun 28, 2003, 01:32 AM
ok, so hang on a minute...the Geforce 3 is FASTER than a Geforce 4?????

now, am i the only one who thinks that is a tad backwards??

daveg5
Jun 28, 2003, 02:04 AM
Originally posted by boxcar
Does anyone think it's worth it to pick up the older g4 dual 1.2 for 1500$ or should i just get the g5.
i don't need the computer asap, but would like to have it sooner rather than later.
i'm doing basic audio work... recording studio stuff. running reason 2.5 and digital performer.
opinions?
The best article on this can be found here. www.lowendmac.com
most people find the duals fine with logic, dp etc.
i use cubase sl in osx, logic and vst in os9 and like both although on my old machine osx is slightly slower but still gets the job done.
i wish they had test a dual g4 1.42 with logic 5.5 in os9 and osx vs a p4 3.06 with logic 5.5 with no optimazations for any that would have been better.
personally I say get duals or nothing.
the dual 2GHZ would be my first choice and the dual 1.25 would be my second. (i still use OS9 every day along with osx for some select programs)
So it depends on what you will use it for.
there have been no tests between g3/g4 and i gather that since most 32bit software is not optimized to run on the G5 it will be seen as just a faster MHZ G4 to most programs.
everything Apple benchmarked was optimized. even with panther the G5 apps will still need to be recompiled. i believe logic, photoshop, mathmetical and most apple apps will be first and panther wont be out for a while. for most general non highband with things i believe the dual 1.25 will do better then the single G5, like mp3 ripping quicktime encoding, final cut pro, and osx in general will run faster with 2*1.25=2.50GHZ and 2*2L3 cache =4MB L3 cache.
also doing manythings at once will be much better on the dual. and remember you have to get at least the 1.8 @2399 model to get pcix and 8GB memory. and you give up 1 optical drive bay and 2 hard drive bays. and regardless of the bandwidth a cd or a dvd can only be read and burned to and from the drive so fast and sata drives are no faster then ata drives ati claims 8X agp is just for bragging as no cpu can saturate a 4X buss yet. remeber though 3d games and rendering type things where you walk away and come back should be better on the G5. i cant wait to see the duall 1.42 go up against the new G5. mac vs mac.
i suspect a lot of people will be suprized at how well the duals G4 does. they shouldnt though as software will take a while to be optimized for the G5.
That said . I want the dual 2GHZ G5

daveg5
Jun 28, 2003, 02:12 AM
i do much more then that on my old BWG3 oc@600 G4.
I suspect even the low end single G4s 1.0-1.25 at 1149 and 1299 will do you just find and all are upgradable, that said you shoul get a dual if at all possible 1.25 xtra for only $300 more is worth it. for game playing i think the G5 will be better for bandwith which is the G4+ main week point slow fps.

daveg5
Jun 28, 2003, 02:24 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dreamail

How about noise? The G5 promises to be a lot quieter than even the very latest G4s. If noisy equipment is a problem for you, then don't even consider a G4.
How about FireWire 800? If you crave for speedy external extensions, then forget the G4.
How about internal expanability with a second CD drive or 3 HDs. Not possible on the G5, so go with the G4.
How about 'future proofness'? If you want something that will last you the next 3 years relatively comfortably go with the G5 since it has all the latest tech like FireWire 800, USB 2, PCI-X, digital surround audio. There will be a time when the Mac OS requires a G5 as a minimum.

firewire 800 and usb cards are already avail for that extra pci slot on the G4, the g5 throttles back to 1.3GHZ when idle and gets noisier when really working but should be quieter than the g4's although apple has fix some of that maudio has the rev 7.1 24/192 card for$69.
the g5 may not be upgradable for years . just look at all the g4 upgrades not to mention moto says they will deliver a 2GHZ g4 by years end, but that is moto talking so maybe 2years. and sata drives have been provev not to be anyfaster then ata100/133 drives sometimes slower. but the cables are very small like an internal firewire no master slave junkand 17MBS more bandwith but the fastest sata drive the $150 36GB 10000 rpm WD Raptor only does 63 tops,

pianojoe
Jun 28, 2003, 02:29 AM
Go for the small G5! Don't invest in being-phased-out tech.

The 1.6 G5 will have the biggest resale value if you should decide to get a faster machine in a year or two.

Performancewise you'll need everything you can afford, and for Audio, even if the apps are not G5izised, you'll notice a huge performance gain.

Remember that lately some apps showed up (iDVD, QT MPEG2 encoder) that required a G4 and wouldn't run on the G3. How long will it take that a cool reverb plug-in will require a G5?

daveg5
Jun 28, 2003, 06:30 AM
Originally posted by pianojoe
Go for the small G5! Don't invest in being-phased-out tech.

Dave:go for the phased out technology the dual 1.25 will have the best resale value os9 and osx and most upgrade options and has been proven not the first rev of the g4 yikes. the 1.6 g5 is have new , halve old pci 4 slots

The 1.6 G5 will have the biggest resale value if you should decide to get a faster machine in a year or two.

Dave: i doubt that 4 less ram slots no pcix one less cpu and these might not be upgradable if you outfit the 1.6 exactly like the 2GHZ dual the prices are even closer $2299 vs $2999 thats only $ $700 for pcix and a 4 total ghz 2*2 2*1GHZ bus as opposed to a lonely 1.6GHZ 800FSB and 4 extra ram slots. the dual will have the best resale value if both are equipped the same.

Performancewise you'll need everything you can afford, and for Audio, even if the apps are not G5izised, you'll notice a huge performance gain.

Dave : you will notice litlle if any gain with the 1.6 over the dual 1.25 at least until panther and apps are optimized for 64bit. you will notice the smoothness of duals right away in osx, and there are many apps optimized like logic. i suspect you will get more tracks with a dual g4 then a single 1.6 g5, but you may get more reverbs with the g5 memory bandwidth.

Remember that lately some apps showed up (iDVD, QT MPEG2 encoder) that required a G4 and wouldn't run on the G3. How long will it take that a cool reverb plug-in will require a G5?

Dave:both G4 and G5 have altivec no diff here.
the main diff in the g5 is bandwidth and 64bits and since the g5 runs both natively it will be a long time years before apple makes an app that 99.9%, 100% now can use only on a G5 powermac and no other mac. one reverb plug in does not require a g5 the logic test showed 100+tracks plus 5 reverbs on each track, i doubt if one reverb will ever need that much power by itself and if it did the program would be almost useless and wasteful

Dont Hurt Me
Jun 28, 2003, 06:51 AM
Originally posted by G3-Pwnz-G4
ok, so hang on a minute...the Geforce 3 is FASTER than a Geforce 4?????

now, am i the only one who thinks that is a tad backwards?? a 3 is faster then a 4mx, the 4 titanium is faster then the 3. Also the 5200fx card is low end like the mx series. I guess will have to wait for the machines. Apple was sorry in the technology overview only showing the top end card in the top end machine. Apple is allways pulling this crap with benches, why not just show all 3 machines and let the consumer choose Apple? so we have to wait till sept to get to the facts.