PDA

View Full Version : How much faster would a 2.8ghz iMac be than a Dual PPC 1.8ghz G5 ?




sk8ordie
Dec 17, 2007, 03:51 PM
How much faster would a 2.8ghz 24" iMac be than a Dual PPC 1.8ghz G5 with 512mb ram?

Barely faster? Twice as fast? 10 times faster? Light years faster?


I couldnt find any tests so if you have input or test links let me know!



rdowns
Dec 17, 2007, 03:52 PM
The Intel chips run circles around the G5 with optimized software. Think of a foot race between Jobs and Ballmer.

psychofreak
Dec 17, 2007, 03:53 PM
This (http://macspeedzone.com/html/hardware/machine/performance_in_the_raw/07/10_29.shtml) seems to suggest it will be a LOT faster :)

BornAgainMac
Dec 17, 2007, 04:18 PM
The PPC G5 with 512 is something like $10 dollars in memory today. It could perform better.

GimmeSlack12
Dec 17, 2007, 04:21 PM
Definitely faster. Meaning, you would notice. Meaning, you would feel dumb if you got the PPC and then tried the Intel. Meaning, it matters.

sk8ordie
Dec 17, 2007, 05:43 PM
This (http://macspeedzone.com/html/hardware/machine/performance_in_the_raw/07/10_29.shtml) seems to suggest it will be a LOT faster :)

Wow, much faster indeed! 24" iMac is really tempting, especially considering Im on a CRT monitor....

sk8ordie
Dec 17, 2007, 05:43 PM
The PPC G5 with 512 is something like $10 dollars in memory today. It could perform better.

Yeah, Im considering buying some more RAM, 2 gigs possibly.

FF_productions
Dec 17, 2007, 06:58 PM
A Core Duo 2.0 Ghz would run circles around the G5.

Now, imagine a 2.8 Ghz Extreme iMac against the same G5.


Please, as I say with everybody, do not buy your ram from Apple.

Get it from www.macsales.com for like $100.

You end up with a 2.8 Ghz Beast with 4 gigs of ram.

The iMac's are nice as hell.

QCassidy352
Dec 17, 2007, 07:53 PM
A Core Duo 2.0 Ghz would run circles around the G5.

Not really. Core duos and G5s are pretty comparable in performance at the same clock. maybe the core duo is a little faster, and with the extra 200 mhz a bit faster on top of that.

But really, people are waaaay too quick to dismiss the G5. I've seen a poster claim that his core solo mini was faster than his dual 2.0 G5. Riiiight.

FF_productions
Dec 17, 2007, 08:34 PM
Not really. Core duos and G5s are pretty comparable in performance at the same clock. maybe the core duo is a little faster, and with the extra 200 mhz a bit faster on top of that.

But really, people are waaaay too quick to dismiss the G5. I've seen a poster claim that his core solo mini was faster than his dual 2.0 G5. Riiiight.

OK maybe I exaggerated the speed increase...

Yeah I don't know how people can think a core solo mini can beat a dual G5. Blows my mind.

benpatient
Dec 18, 2007, 02:02 PM
I can tell you that my dual G5 1.8 with 5GB of RAM was in all things faster than a base model C2D MacBook Pro that was purchased this past summer.

I don't know how much faster a 2.8 ghz imac is when compared to a macbook pro, but it seems like it can't be much more than just the difference in clock, because most of the elements are the same aside from the hard drive speed.

I think that you could spend a couple hundred bucks on your G5 and make it at least as fast as a current iMac, no matter what apple's "independent" benchmarks might claim.

In the real world, the architecture of a G5 tower is much more robust and scalable than the iMac, which is an up-sell on a laptop, made with laptop components.

You can stuff a LOT of RAM into a G5 tower, and you will benefit from it in everyday use if you actually use your machine for work. You can leave tons of heavy applications open and lots of documents in play.

You should also consider a 10K RPM boot drive. Seriously. You add 4-6 GB of RAM and a 10K boot drive and you'll be smoking. The only problem then is the piddly graphics card. May be worth picking up a G5-compatible graphics card on ebay, too.

Think of it this way: An unmodified G5 tower is a solid frame with a powerful engine and lots of room to grow. It's practically 100% potential. There is a reason that pro drag racers are still using engines and from the early '70s.

An iMac is a pimped-out honda civic that is being pushed to its theoretical limits already.

My analogy calls apart somewhat because the G5 is more agile than the iMac, as well.

so the car analogy isn't quite right. But you get the idea.

imac=cool and smarmy and already being used to basically the full potential, out of the box.

g5 tower=calm and collected, gets the job done and fast if you give it the right tools.

iBunny
Dec 18, 2007, 02:15 PM
The G5 is old.

The Intel Core 2 Duo is the newest Chip Intel Has.

The Core 2 Duo is much better than a G5.

Do you see a pattern here.

I beleive that your a New iMac would run Circles around an old G5. It would do it Faster, Better, Cooler, Quieter, Sexier, and most importantly, you woudlnt be running old PPC Code which is HOPEFULLY going to die soon.

tersono
Dec 18, 2007, 02:21 PM
The iMac will be MUCH faster. I recently switched from a dual 1.8ghz G5 to a 2.4 Ghz 17" MBP and the difference is night and day.

sk8ordie
Dec 18, 2007, 06:23 PM
Well, I have a new 500gb Seagate 7200.11 hard drive to install, so I figure that with 2gigs of RAM should speed it up and hold me off on a new purchase for a while.

eRondeau
Dec 18, 2007, 06:37 PM
Overall, the 2.8GHz Intel C2D is twice as fast on Xbench testing. Although in some cases triple. However I suspect these numbers don't give you the whole picture -- it will probably feel about ten times faster!

http://db.xbench.com/merge.xhtml?doc2=140515

(I just bought one and my word is it ever fast!!!) :apple:

Blogger
Dec 19, 2007, 03:53 AM
I can tell you that my dual G5 1.8 with 5GB of RAM was in all things faster than a base model C2D MacBook Pro that was purchased this past summer.

I don't know how much faster a 2.8 ghz imac is when compared to a macbook pro, but it seems like it can't be much more than just the difference in clock, because most of the elements are the same aside from the hard drive speed.

I think that you could spend a couple hundred bucks on your G5 and make it at least as fast as a current iMac, no matter what apple's "independent" benchmarks might claim.

In the real world, the architecture of a G5 tower is much more robust and scalable than the iMac, which is an up-sell on a laptop, made with laptop components.

You can stuff a LOT of RAM into a G5 tower, and you will benefit from it in everyday use if you actually use your machine for work. You can leave tons of heavy applications open and lots of documents in play.

You should also consider a 10K RPM boot drive. Seriously. You add 4-6 GB of RAM and a 10K boot drive and you'll be smoking. The only problem then is the piddly graphics card. May be worth picking up a G5-compatible graphics card on ebay, too.

Think of it this way: An unmodified G5 tower is a solid frame with a powerful engine and lots of room to grow. It's practically 100% potential. There is a reason that pro drag racers are still using engines and from the early '70s.

An iMac is a pimped-out honda civic that is being pushed to its theoretical limits already.

My analogy calls apart somewhat because the G5 is more agile than the iMac, as well.

so the car analogy isn't quite right. But you get the idea.

imac=cool and smarmy and already being used to basically the full potential, out of the box.

g5 tower=calm and collected, gets the job done and fast if you give it the right tools.

benpatient, I think you are making numerous erroneous assumptions here.
Clock for clock the newer Intel processors do outperform G5s (assuming that you are using universal applications). Perhaps when you had your MacBook Pro you were comparing PPC apps that were running in Rosetta emulation. I really don't think $200 would make any Dual 1.8 G5 faster than a 2.8 Ghz imac.

The dual 1.8 G5 was not a hell of a lot faster than the dual 1.5 G4.
By the time you have purchased more memory, a better graphics card (you'd better be quick, they are all discontinued) and irritatingly noisy, small and over-priced 10k hard drives, you really should have put your money towards a new Mac Pro, and sold the G5. You'd be surprised.

xUKHCx
Dec 19, 2007, 04:03 AM
Not really. Core duos and G5s are pretty comparable in performance at the same clock. maybe the core duo is a little faster, and with the extra 200 mhz a bit faster on top of that.

But really, people are waaaay too quick to dismiss the G5. I've seen a poster claim that his core solo mini was faster than his dual 2.0 G5. Riiiight.

Negating the fact that this is a core 2 duo. The iMac has an extra 1GHz so even if they are comparable at the same clock the iMac will streak past the G5.

bradc
Dec 19, 2007, 12:16 PM
I can tell you that my dual G5 1.8 with 5GB of RAM was in all things faster than a base model C2D MacBook Pro that was purchased this past summer.

I don't know how much faster a 2.8 ghz imac is when compared to a macbook pro, but it seems like it can't be much more than just the difference in clock, because most of the elements are the same aside from the hard drive speed.

I think that you could spend a couple hundred bucks on your G5 and make it at least as fast as a current iMac, no matter what apple's "independent" benchmarks might claim.

In the real world, the architecture of a G5 tower is much more robust and scalable than the iMac, which is an up-sell on a laptop, made with laptop components.

You can stuff a LOT of RAM into a G5 tower, and you will benefit from it in everyday use if you actually use your machine for work. You can leave tons of heavy applications open and lots of documents in play.

You should also consider a 10K RPM boot drive. Seriously. You add 4-6 GB of RAM and a 10K boot drive and you'll be smoking. The only problem then is the piddly graphics card. May be worth picking up a G5-compatible graphics card on ebay, too.

Think of it this way: An unmodified G5 tower is a solid frame with a powerful engine and lots of room to grow. It's practically 100% potential. There is a reason that pro drag racers are still using engines and from the early '70s.

An iMac is a pimped-out honda civic that is being pushed to its theoretical limits already.

My analogy calls apart somewhat because the G5 is more agile than the iMac, as well.

so the car analogy isn't quite right. But you get the idea.

imac=cool and smarmy and already being used to basically the full potential, out of the box.

g5 tower=calm and collected, gets the job done and fast if you give it the right tools.


I hate to break it to you but a 2.8ghz imac will render/do anything faster than your 1.8ghz G5. It's simple evolution man, it's not just processors but the whole architecture.

andypress
Dec 19, 2007, 10:14 PM
Intel Macs are incredibly faster than G5's; my Core (1) Duo macbook will export 1280x720 h.264 in half the time of my Dual 1.8 G5. Night and day.

flyinmac
Dec 19, 2007, 10:49 PM
How much faster would a 2.8ghz 24" iMac be than a Dual PPC 1.8ghz G5 with 512mb ram?

Barely faster? Twice as fast? 10 times faster? Light years faster?


I couldnt find any tests so if you have input or test links let me know!


Depends on the task. If it's not a processor intensive task, then don't expect to see any improvement.

My Mac Pro (see my signature for specs) really doesn't feel any faster than my Mac Mini G4 1.25 GHz with 1 GB of RAM when performing daily tasks.

However, on my more intensive operations, it turns a 7 or 8 hour processing time into a 1 hour processing time (such as encoding video with iDVD).

Aside from my CPU intensive tasks, I really wouldn't be able to tell the difference between my old G4 mini and the my Mac Pro.

FF_productions
Dec 20, 2007, 09:55 AM
Depends on the task. If it's not a processor intensive task, then don't expect to see any improvement.

My Mac Pro (see my signature for specs) really doesn't feel any faster than my Mac Mini G4 1.25 GHz with 1 GB of RAM when performing daily tasks.

However, on my more intensive operations, it turns a 7 or 8 hour processing time into a 1 hour processing time (such as encoding video with iDVD).

Aside from my CPU intensive tasks, I really wouldn't be able to tell the difference between my old G4 mini and the my Mac Pro.


You are 100 percent correct.

Why do you think everyone jokes around saying "Is that going to make safari snappy"

LOL, you don't need a 4-Core Monster to surf the web and listen to iTunes and check your Mail.

Naimfan
Dec 20, 2007, 12:19 PM
Depends on the task. If it's not a processor intensive task, then don't expect to see any improvement.

My Mac Pro (see my signature for specs) really doesn't feel any faster than my Mac Mini G4 1.25 GHz with 1 GB of RAM when performing daily tasks.

However, on my more intensive operations, it turns a 7 or 8 hour processing time into a 1 hour processing time (such as encoding video with iDVD).

Aside from my CPU intensive tasks, I really wouldn't be able to tell the difference between my old G4 mini and the my Mac Pro.

+1

I just went from a 2.16 GHz C2D iMac to a 1.33 GHz 15" PB. For most things, there is no perceptible difference. The things I see a big difference on are what you expect--iMovie, mainly. Office and iWork 08 are a touch slower in certain respects, but for web, mail, iTunes, etc., I don't see any difference. I will say this--getting a 50 minute movie ready to burn took about 30 minutes on the iMac, and is (effectively) an overnight proposition on the Powerbook.

deathshrub
Dec 20, 2007, 02:51 PM
I can tell you that my dual G5 1.8 with 5GB of RAM was in all things faster than a base model C2D MacBook Pro that was purchased this past summer.

A desktop, faster than a laptop?

I DON'T BELIEVE IT.

BornAgainMac
Dec 20, 2007, 03:04 PM
It is true. A Powermac G5 is easily beaten by the Mac Mini, Macbook, and all the other Macs. It is amazing it was considered a pro machine.

FF_productions
Dec 20, 2007, 03:17 PM
It is true. A Powermac G5 is easily beaten by the Mac Mini, Macbook, and all the other Macs. It is amazing it was considered a pro machine.

Depends on which G5 we're talkin about.

The last line of G5's are still very competitive with the Intel Machines.

The 1.6/1.8 G5's, no chance in hell.

klute
Dec 20, 2007, 06:26 PM
How about a G5 Quad VS a new iMac?

Blogger
Dec 20, 2007, 06:52 PM
The iMac will stay drier.

Naimfan
Dec 20, 2007, 07:34 PM
This isn't a comparison between iMac and Quad G5, but the Quad G5 does OK on Universal apps--the Mac Pro is obviously faster, and significantly so, but that suggests to me a Quad G5 is roughly as fast as a new iMac, which means it's no slouch. I'd be curious to see a comparison between a Quad G5 running CS2 and a Mac Pro running CS3. (Yes, I understand the comparison would be inexact, but I think it would be quite informative!).

Oh, here (http://www.barefeats.com/quad06.html) it is.

termina3
Dec 20, 2007, 07:53 PM
The iMac will stay drier.

Haha! Yes! It most definitely will.

Blogger
Dec 21, 2007, 02:18 AM
Haha! Yes! It most definitely will.

I'm glad somebody got that!

chaosbunny
Dec 21, 2007, 02:53 AM
Like someone else mentioned, "faster" depends on what you are doing. I can't tell a difference between my 2,8 ghz iMac and my 1,67 ghz pb G4 in iTunes, Safari, Mail, iCal,... even opening vector graphics in Illustrator CS3 or not too complex documents in InDesign CS3 is about the same speed.

The difference becomes noticeable when Photoshop documents go beyond 150 - 200 mb, which they often do. ;)
Or when rendering a complex image in Cinema 4D, the iMac will do it in 20 seconds where the pb needs 3 minutes.
And of course when converting homemade movies, where a 6 hours job on the pb lasts 30 minutes on the iMac.