Poll: Best PowerMac G5 value? (rumored prices)

[MacRumors]

Vote: Poll: Best PowerMac G5 value? (rumored prices) (http://www.macpolls.com/?poll_id=319)

[shadowfax]

i think you can easily calculate this one conclusively with a performance/price graph. the dualie 1.8 at 2500 would be a clear winner.

[MacCoaster]

Purely statistically speaking and assuming that adding a second processor gives you 100% benefit, no doubt it'd be dual 1.8 GHz:

Dual 2.0 GHz = 4000 MHz / $2,999 = 1.3337779259753251083694564854952 MHz/$

Dual 1.8 GHz = 3600 MHz / $2,499 = 1.4405762304921968787515006002401 MHz/$

Single 1.8 GHz = 1800 MHz / $2,099 = 0.8575512148642210576464983325393 MHz/$

Single 1.6 GHz = 1600 MHz / $1,799 = 0.88938299055030572540300166759311 MHz/$

[Bunzi2k4]

the dual 1.8 sounds the best... but i'm in no position to buy a g5 anytime soon

[Fahd]

Err...what exactly do you mean by rumored prices?

[Fahd]

The dual 2 gigs have 1GHz FSB, while the others have 900Mhz or less. Also, the dual 2 gig has a better graphics card so I would say the dual 2 GHz has better overall value.

[Panda Genma]

Sure wish there'd been a Dual 1.8 back July when I bought my single 1.8. I was really hoping they'd release one shortly after that :confused: Grrr. Oh well, dual processor upgrades in the single slot anyone?

[ZildjianKX]

Originally posted by Fahd
The dual 2 gigs have 1GHz FSB, while the others have 900Mhz or less. Also, the dual 2 gig has a better graphics card so I would say the dual 2 GHz has better overall value.

Well, the FSB only indicates the memory thoughput, in this case there is a 2 to 1 memory throughput for each G5... which doesn't make the 2.0 GHz a clear winner by having a 1 GHz FSB. What it does indicate is that clock for clock the memory is 1/2 the speed of the CPU.

[arn]

Originally posted by Fahd
Err...what exactly do you mean by rumored prices?

http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/11/20031117160727.shtml

[punter]

$/MHz is a nice comparison, except it ignores the fact you could almost get two 1.6 machines for the price of one 2x2.0Ghz machine.

It depends if two separate machines is more valuable to you then one that's ~twice~ as fast (loose figures here!).

I'd go for two 1.6's. No I wouldn't, I can't afford any!

[Awimoway]

It's hard to quantify the performance boost of a dual over a single, though, because you won't always be using it.

[MattG]

No doubt the dual 1.8's...

I don't think .2ghzx2 is enough incentive to spend an extra $500.

[lind0834]

Maybe, stock of 2G chips is getting low and they know they won't be able to keep up with demand so introduce a new more affordable option, with 2x1.8G chips to save some 2G chips, or maybe they have to many 1.8G chips? I'm confused. But I'd be more confused as to who would buy a new 2x2G if the prices are right.

[boy]

us store is down.. lets see if the rumored prices were right.. :D

[Golem]

Originally posted by boy
us store is down.. lets see if the rumored prices were right.. :D

As is Australia.

As for why Dual 1.8. They have sold lots of dual 2.0's to those want all the speed they can get and lots of 1.6's to cheapskates like me but their has been little compelling reason to buy a 1.8 when for only $500 more you can get a dual 2.0

IN addition with IBM themselves selling 1.6 blades surely their must be a ton of 1.8's available.

But a dual 1.8 would make the next round of upgrades in 2004 interesting. Surely they wouldnt make a single 1.8 or single 2.0 the bottom if they allready are sellng Dual 1.8's mb then we can look forward to Dual 1.8,Dual 2.0 and Dual 2.4 for the 3 models?

[Bear]

Store is up. Dual 1.8 at $2499 US, but with the Video board differemnce, the effective price difference is less.

[Awimoway]

And the single 1.8 is no longer being offered. Too late to update the poll? :D

[arn]

I removed the Single 1.8GHz option... sorry for the 80 people who voted for it.

:)

arn

[jkojima]

I have a running Excel spreadsheet I use to track my "ideal" G5 - for when I can actually afford one - which uses some fancy schmancy formulas to calculate the price/ total system performance of a system.

The dual 2.0 still wins out in stock config, but the dual 1.8 is practically equal in value (within 1%) to the 2.0 when configured with an equal video card.

When you consider that you could up the RAM and add a faster boot drive (or a RAID) to the dual 1.8 for the same overall price as the dual 2.0, the dual 1.8 wins out hands down.

[wdlove]

I voted for the dual 1.8. My purchases usually for for the mid level. So is sounds like my decisions have been sound.

[mactastic]

It will be interesting to see how this model does on benchmark tests, etc. And to those who have a single 1.8 machine, that's gonna be a rare computer real soon! I'd definetly go for the dual 1.8 now if I was in the market for a desktop computer. I hope it doesn't kill off too many of the high end sales though, this seems like it will be a popular machine.

[bousozoku]

Originally posted by arn
I removed the Single 1.8GHz option... sorry for the 80 people who voted for it.

:)

arn

You should have upgraded them to a dual 1.8 GHz machine. ;)

I already thought that the single 1.8 GHz was a much better buy than the 1.6 GHz machine, so I'm doubly impressed.

[MattG]

How could anyone vote for the 1.6 as being a good value?:confused:

[From Win to Mac]

we're not all insanely loaded. That's why Christmas is coming on January 7th for me... to get the new low-end G5 !

[Photorun]

Well the G5 1.8 is almost across the board, just by some numbers, 10% as zippy as the 2.0, it's 17% less though in price though, so it's definitely the better bargain if were talking bang for bucks.

And yes, it'd be wise to CO and do the upgrade to the 9600 video card from the choke-a-holic 5200... it's only another $80 or so bucks, worth every penny, the 9600 has twice the pipelines.

C

[shadowfax]

i hope you meant 100% rather than 10%, though neither is really true.

[mrsebastian]

i'll take a dual 1.8 please :D

[Buggy]

Why is the 1.6 the best value for me?

Because it is the ONLY G5 I can afford.

1.6 G5 = me with a new computer
dual 1.8 G5 = me staying with my existing G4 400
dual 2.0 G5 = me staying with my existing G4 400

So in my case the single 1.6 G5 is faster than both the dual 1.8 and the dual 2.0

:)

If I had the money I would have a dual 2.0 with a 24" monitor... hey why not make it two monitors and an iPod.

some of us save for years to buy a computer.. I still remember the day I finally had enough to retire my performa and buy the G4 400 that now proudly sits on my desk.

[SeaFox]

I picked the Dual 1.8, the benefits of a dual processor versus a single processor is like comparing a G3 to a G4 in Altivec enhanced apps.

The dual 1.8 only runs 10% slower than the dual 2.0, yet costs much less and we still get the PCI-X slots and higher memory capacity we woudn't with the single-1.6 G5.

[~Shard~]

I'd say they're all good machines for different reasons, as obviously different people who have different needs, but in the end, I think the dual 1.8 GHz comes out on top. I mean, for $100 more you get effectively twice the power! DPs are sooo nice with the G5s and Panther, as they really take advantage of the features and architecture. And compared to the 2.0 GHz machines, I think that extra 400 MHz combined, along with only a 100 MHz bump in the system bus is effectively neglible (and realize I am over-simplifying things here!)

So in the end, the DP 1.8 GHz wins out. Makes you wonder why Apple chose to do this - perhaps to get rid of a lot more 1.8s to make room for bigger and better things come MWSF? Perhaps then we will hear about a 2.0 GHz G5 becoming the low end PM, and 1.6 GHz G5s (or slower) being introduced into the iMacs? Just a thought...

[Nermal]

G5 price drops are good, as is the addition of the dual 1.8. I voted for the dual 1.8 as best value. But I'm not buying one! I'm about to order a 1.25 GHz G4 :)

[fredwick]

1.6 for a llitle over $1400 education discount with out superdrive is a good deal, but i voted dual 1.8