PDA

View Full Version : G5 to Mac Pro Gains?




choreo
Jan 15, 2008, 08:21 PM
I currently have a...
Mac Dual 2-Gig G5 (about 4 years old)
4.5 Gig Ram
ATI X800 Video Card
(2) 250 Gig internal drives


I am looking at purchasing…
Mac Pro (early 2008) 2.8-Gig Dual Processor
10-Gig Ram total
ATI 2600 Video Card
(4) Sata II Internal Drives

I use primarily ALL the Adobe CS3 Apps
Lightroom
Aperture
Carrara Studio 3D
Lots of After Effects CS3
FCP 5.0

How much if any speed gains would I see and where? Right now one of the biggest bog downs is launching apps. Photoshop CS3 for instance takes about 45 seconds or more to launch because of all my plugins?



bigbossbmb
Jan 15, 2008, 08:38 PM
it'll probably launch in about half of the time. The largest gains you'll see is when you're encoding media out of AE, FCP, Compressor, etc.

Although you'll need to upgrade your FCP in order for it to run on an intel mac.

choreo
Jan 15, 2008, 08:58 PM
it'll probably launch in about half of the time. The largest gains you'll see is when you're encoding media out of AE, FCP, Compressor, etc.

Although you'll need to upgrade your FCP in order for it to run on an intel mac.

It appears that I actually have FCP 5.1.4 and the Apple Site says that it will work with Leopard. Not sure if there is a problem with the new Mac Pro hardware however?

Firefly2002
Jan 15, 2008, 09:12 PM
There are plenty of benchmarks available.... try www.barefeats.com for a start, they compare "old" G5s to the new Intel Macs. There really isn't any direct comparison between Dual G5s and the Mac Pros, though, it's mostly the Quad G5 vs. the Mac Pros.

This article though http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2816&p=1 does compare Dual G5s (even a 2.0!) to the then-new (Late 2k6) Mac Pros. Ignore the Photoshop benchmarks at the end.. that was pre-Universal Binary with CS2.

The latter article also illustrates how horrendously Apple has crippled the memory architecture of the Mac Pro with its awful FB-DIMMs. I think if anyone out there was using their heads they'd implement Dual-Channel DDR3-1600- which would A.) satisfy the 100% filled theoretical 1:1 bus:memory bandwidth B.) Cut down to two channels- easier for consumers, less expensive, and also more efficient- and, oh, yeah. C.) Be tremendously faster. And of course less expensive, since FBDIMMs cost too much, assuming unbuffered, non-ECC DDR3. Even dual-channel DDR2-800 would be faster than what they're doing now.

If app launches are a problem, that's related in large part to hard drive speed; in your case, your 250 GB drives are pretty fast, so you might want to look into optimizing them (meaning defragmenting, more or less). . . my guess is that your drives may be heavily fragmented. I just launched Photoshop CS2 in the same amount of time it takes you- only plugins being Alien Skin Image Doctor and Xenofex 2- but on a Beige G3 with a G4/500 card, 768MB RAM and a 120GB boot drive.... and that's accounting for the time it took two other hard drives to come out of sleep and spin up for use as scratch disks.

Actually, I *just* optimized the drive... it was severely fragmented.. and it had taken well over a minute to launch before. Of course, OS X launches things somewhat slowly anyway.. Photoshop 7.0.1 on OS 9 launches in about 17 seconds with about five plugin sets.

Mac OS X makes an absolute mess of our hard drives. My directory was 32% fragements (32%!).. and I've only had OS X installed on this partition for a couple months... and only ~15GB of stuff on it. I use DiskWarrior 4. Try that. You can also of course buy new drives for your current machine, and put them in a RAID array (may need to buy a card for that).

Also, assuming that Radeon x800 is PCI-express and compatable with the new Mac Pros, you['re going to want to use that instead of the 2600XT, as it's faster. Otherwise, you'll be gaming.. more slowly. Unless you don't care about 3D performance.

Hope this helps in some way.

echoout
Jan 15, 2008, 09:28 PM
The Leopard upgrade 8.0.2 for After Effects CS3 should be out any time now. If you use the Multiprocessing function the AE preferences or use the Nucleo Pro plugin, you need to have a ton of RAM to really take advantage of them, ideally 2 gigs per core. With that setup, AE will fly compared to it on your G5.

Here's some good stuff:
http://www.barefeats.com/octopro4.html
http://www.adobeforums.com/cgi-bin/webx/.3bc39457/13

choreo
Jan 16, 2008, 12:19 PM
There are plenty of benchmarks available.... try www.barefeats.com for a start, they compare "old" G5s to the new Intel Macs. There really isn't any direct comparison between Dual G5s and the Mac Pros, though, it's mostly the Quad G5 vs. the Mac Pros.

This article though http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2816&p=1 does compare Dual G5s (even a 2.0!) to the then-new (Late 2k6) Mac Pros. Ignore the Photoshop benchmarks at the end.. that was pre-Universal Binary with CS2.

The latter article also illustrates how horrendously Apple has crippled the memory architecture of the Mac Pro with its awful FB-DIMMs. I think if anyone out there was using their heads they'd implement Dual-Channel DDR3-1600- which would A.) satisfy the 100% filled theoretical 1:1 bus:memory bandwidth B.) Cut down to two channels- easier for consumers, less expensive, and also more efficient- and, oh, yeah. C.) Be tremendously faster. And of course less expensive, since FBDIMMs cost too much, assuming unbuffered, non-ECC DDR3. Even dual-channel DDR2-800 would be faster than what they're doing now.

If app launches are a problem, that's related in large part to hard drive speed; in your case, your 250 GB drives are pretty fast, so you might want to look into optimizing them (meaning defragmenting, more or less). . . my guess is that your drives may be heavily fragmented. I just launched Photoshop CS2 in the same amount of time it takes you- only plugins being Alien Skin Image Doctor and Xenofex 2- but on a Beige G3 with a G4/500 card, 768MB RAM and a 120GB boot drive.... and that's accounting for the time it took two other hard drives to come out of sleep and spin up for use as scratch disks.

Actually, I *just* optimized the drive... it was severely fragmented.. and it had taken well over a minute to launch before. Of course, OS X launches things somewhat slowly anyway.. Photoshop 7.0.1 on OS 9 launches in about 17 seconds with about five plugin sets.

Mac OS X makes an absolute mess of our hard drives. My directory was 32% fragements (32%!).. and I've only had OS X installed on this partition for a couple months... and only ~15GB of stuff on it. I use DiskWarrior 4. Try that. You can also of course buy new drives for your current machine, and put them in a RAID array (may need to buy a card for that).

Also, assuming that Radeon x800 is PCI-express and compatable with the new Mac Pros, you['re going to want to use that instead of the 2600XT, as it's faster. Otherwise, you'll be gaming.. more slowly. Unless you don't care about 3D performance.

Hope this helps in some way.

Great info! You brought up a point that I had not considered however... Are you saying that I may be able to migrate my ATI X800 from my current G5 to the new Mac Pro? ...and at the same time (if it IS indeed compatible) that it will be FASTER than the new ATI 2600? I did purchase the X800 as a retail card just over a year ago for about $400.

Also, if this is the case, I wonder how the X800 stacks up against the new NVIDIA 8800?

desenso
Jan 16, 2008, 12:30 PM
The performance gain will be very noticeable.

I had a Dual 2.7 G5 back in the day. It was very comparable to my Core Duo MacBook Pro (which I've since replaced with a Core 2 Duo). The Mac Pro is significantly faster than my MacBook Pro. This is especially true given that I have a 10,000rpm Raptor in it, but trust me, it felt much faster before I put the Raptor in.

bigbossbmb
Jan 16, 2008, 01:13 PM
The x800 is not a PCIexpress card. It will not work in the Mac Pro.

The 8800 will smoke the x800.

I've got an x800 and can't wait til I can grab a new MP with an 8800.

choreo
Jan 17, 2008, 02:22 AM
The x800 is not a PCIexpress card. It will not work in the Mac Pro.

The 8800 will smoke the x800.

I've got an x800 and can't wait til I can grab a new MP with an 8800.

Wonder how the ATI 2600 will compare to the X800 I am used to. I run 3 monitors and the Apple Store told me last night that I cannot mix the Nvidia 8800 in Slot 1 with and ATI 2600 in Slot 2 - that the drivers are not compatible when mixed on the new Mac Pro? So, I caved and ordered 2 ATI 2600s for now.

cal6n
Jan 17, 2008, 03:13 AM
Wonder how the ATI 2600 will compare to the X800 I am used to.

*snip*

The 2600 should show a significant improvement over the X800.

Tom's Hardware VGA 2007 (http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=742&model2=858&chart=308)

This is for windows machines but it should translate reasonably well.

(It does put the 8800 series into perspective, too.)

Firefly2002
Jan 17, 2008, 01:43 PM
The x800 is not a PCIexpress card. It will not work in the Mac Pro.

The 8800 will smoke the x800.

I've got an x800 and can't wait til I can grab a new MP with an 8800.

Ah. My bad. I was under the impression that it was a PCI-E.... since I forgot that the original G5s shipped with AGP 8x Pro and not PCI-E... PCs had by that time migrated primarily to PCI-E, so I guess I got it mixed up.

The 2600 should show a significant improvement over the X800.

Lol, maybe you ought to check the benchmarks before you post them.... the X800 is faster in almost all the tests. It loses in 3DMark06 because... it's a benchmarking program taking advantage of the latest hardware; since the 2600XT is two gens newer, the X800 has to compensate with older hardware. However, this doesn't usually translate into games, as you can see from the rest of the benches.

The 2600 generally wins at 1024x768... but who games at 1024x768 anymore?

The x800 was a high-end card at the time, the 2600XT is only a low-midrange card (and now a gen old, as the Radeon 3850 has replaced it, and is much, much faster... I wish Apple had used them, they only go for ~$150 PC-side).

And yeah, a 8800 would run circles around the 800.. and the 1900 would crush the 800 as well.