PDA

View Full Version : Upgrade Graphic Card or G5?




Beaniecheese
May 30, 2009, 12:15 PM
I currently have a G5 Power Mac Dual 1.8Ghz with 3GB Ram and 9600 Pro Graphic Card.

It will cost me about 180 to upgrade to 4GB Ram with the Geforce 7800 GS Graphic Card.

or

Sell my G5 and upgrade to a G5 Dual 2.5 or 2.7Ghz for about the same 180 cost.

If anyone knows which one will best please let me know.



robbieduncan
May 30, 2009, 12:16 PM
Which is better will depend entirely on what you do with the machine. Which you've not told us.

Hrududu
May 30, 2009, 12:34 PM
I'd be tempted to sell it and try for a dual 2.3 or better model.

Beaniecheese
May 30, 2009, 02:06 PM
I use my G5 for Photoshop, Illu and Indesign mostly for freelance work in CS3. Also I play WoW and I'm looking forward to SC2 in the near future.

robbieduncan
May 30, 2009, 02:09 PM
I use my G5 for Photoshop, Illu and Indesign mostly for freelance work in CS3.

Graphics card will do nothing for these, faster CPU will

Beaniecheese
May 30, 2009, 02:42 PM
Graphics card will do nothing for these, faster CPU will

Will the CPU help with fps in WoW?

robbieduncan
May 30, 2009, 02:47 PM
Will the CPU help with fps in WoW?

Somewhat, although a better GPU would probably help there. But then I was careful with my selected quote not to include WoW. My suggestion was based on the majority of uses listed...

Beaniecheese
May 30, 2009, 03:00 PM
Somewhat, although a better GPU would probably help there. But then I was careful with my selected quote not to include WoW. My suggestion was based on the majority of uses listed...

Yeah I noticed you missed out the WoW factor.

Does the GPU not help render images faster, which would help with Photoshop?

I know I have a long history with Macs as you can see with my new sig, but I've never bothered upgrading anything until I got my iBook [Which I forgot to add to my list, lolz], so my G5 has had a little pampering.

My G5 runs pretty well, however rendering large images can be a bind. So I thought the best graphic card on the market would help with that.

Would be interesting to see a test between the G5 1.8Ghz with Geforce 7800 GS and a G5 2.5Ghz with standard graphic card.

robbieduncan
May 30, 2009, 03:02 PM
Does the GPU not help render images faster, which would help with Photoshop?.

The GPU only renders the image for applications using an API that uses the card (basically meaning OpenGL on OSX). Photoshop does not so a faster GPU does nothing for it (well ignoring the very small number of GPU accelerated functions added to CS4).

Beaniecheese
May 30, 2009, 03:10 PM
The GPU only renders the image for applications using an API that uses the card. Photoshop does not so a faster GPU does nothing for it.

I'm glad I started the thread, thank you so much for your time and knowledge.

I won't bother with the GPU, I'll look at getting the G5 Power Mac 2.5 or 2.7Ghz Dual or even the 2.5Ghz Quad.

Am I correct in thinking that the 2.7Ghz is quickest with single apps and the Quad is quicker when multitasking?

robbieduncan
May 30, 2009, 03:12 PM
Am I correct in thinking that the 2.7Ghz is quickest with single apps and the Quad is quicker when multitasking?

Depends on the application. Aperture for example is multi-threaded so can spread itself across multiple CPUs/cores. On my MBP for example it can happily sit with both CPU cores maxed on it's own. Photoshop on the other hand is less good and this (some filters are multi-threaded, others are not).

Beaniecheese
May 30, 2009, 03:17 PM
Depends on the application.

It's normal for me to have several apps on the go jumping from one to the other. Does this affect the cores having multiple apps running in the background?

Dr.Pants
May 30, 2009, 03:19 PM
Yes. ALthough they will not be taking up as much processor time, they still take a sizable chunk of the processor cycles - depends on how many you have open.

chrismacguy
May 30, 2009, 03:20 PM
If you have lots of apps, then the Quad will be somewhat faster, as each application can be run to maximize the use of all the cores.

AlexMaximus
May 30, 2009, 06:52 PM
I'm glad I started the thread, thank you so much for your time and knowledge.

I won't bother with the GPU, I'll look at getting the G5 Power Mac 2.5 or 2.7Ghz Dual or even the 2.5Ghz Quad.

Am I correct in thinking that the 2.7Ghz is quickest with single apps and the Quad is quicker when multitasking?

Hmmm.... if you know the G5's as well as I do, belive me there is only one machine you really want to consider: That is the G5 Dual Core, late model with 2,3 Gig and PCI-E graphic bus. This is the fastest model with air cooling, but with the dual core and the PCI-E bus and faster memory bus.

The models you mentioned above are the early AGP models that have horrible graphic card options. On top of that they are the ones with the liquid cooling from Delphy. At all costs stay away from them unless you want to loose the machines because of cooling leaks!

Out of my experience with upgrading past and current macs, I felt the 10K Raptor start up drive did the most speedup for me..

Good luck with your nice G5 project !!
:apple:

Dr.Pants
May 30, 2009, 07:38 PM
I'm running a time bomb right now (2.5 quad), but I like it. I haven't played any games on it - in fact, I don't want to put games on it as I would not get any work done. :D

I personally do not know what would be better - my 2.5 quad with a 7800GT or a 2.7 with higher-end AGP card... WoW, I assume, is a single-threaded process more then anything....

gugucom
May 30, 2009, 07:52 PM
The 2,5 Quad also runs on a dry heat sink and uses the faster bus and memory. So that definetely is the cream pie of G5s. It beats the 2,7 water cooled in single thread apps because of the higher memory band width. It naturally beats it in multi thread enabled apps anyway.

Dr.Pants
May 30, 2009, 09:58 PM
The 2,5 Quad also runs on a dry heat sink and uses the faster bus and memory. So that definetely is the cream pie of G5s. It beats the 2,7 water cooled in single thread apps because of the higher memory band width. It naturally beats it in multi thread enabled apps anyway.

:eek: I could have SWORE that my G5 quad was liquid-cooled. Late 2005 Quad G5... If this is the case, I'll finally stop feeling guilty about leaving it on while rendering.

awmazz
May 30, 2009, 10:17 PM
:eek: I could have SWORE that my G5 quad was liquid-cooled. Late 2005 Quad G5... If this is the case, I'll finally stop feeling guilty about leaving it on while rendering.

You swear correctly. Both the first dual processor 2.5 and 2.7 PCI-X and the later dual processor dual core 2.5 (quad) PCIe G5s are liquid cooled. Basically anything 2.3 or below is not, anything above, is. This is why I bought a DP 2.3 myself.

gugucom
May 30, 2009, 11:17 PM
Apologies all round. I used to own a dual core and may have read somewhere that the quad used the same heat sink. I have now conducted a google search and come across reports of quad owners who lost their machines due to coolant leaks. Dr.Pants is right. I should have be less assertive. A bit egg on the face. :eek:

Dr.Pants
May 31, 2009, 12:02 AM
No problem, we all do it from time-to-time. Personally, I was holding out on hope for a moment. :p

However, a project I want to do is replace the water-cooling system with an air-based system. I haven't found a guide to crack open the huge heatsink, but I would like to look at it... If sockets for IBM processors are like that of Intel and AMD ones, there should be a standard for attaching a heatsink. And I know that the quad 2.5 Powerstation (Linux machine) is air cooled - potentially, it could be a simple upgrade. Potentially, the heatsink connections are proprietary, thus not-so-much-fun.

But it works. I'm not going to fool around with the heatsinks until there is a problem or I get a MacPro. If there was a guide on their replacement on the internet somewhere *sigh*

Beaniecheese
May 31, 2009, 08:51 AM
So if I can't get my hands on a quad, the next best would be the DC 2.3Ghz or the DP 2.7Ghz?

gugucom
May 31, 2009, 09:03 AM
So if I can't get my hands on a quad, the next best would be the DC 2.3Ghz or the DP 2.7Ghz?

The DC 2,3 should make you happier considering the reliability. Performance wise the 2,7 DP should be slightly ahead.

Beaniecheese
May 31, 2009, 03:35 PM
The DC 2,3 should make you happier considering the reliability. Performance wise the 2,7 DP should be slightly ahead.

Just read this test by barefeats...
http://www.barefeats.com/threeway.html

In a nut shell the conclusion is as follows:

I'm puzzled as to why the G5/2.5GHz Power Mac beat the G5/2.7GHz Power Mac in EVERY graphics intensive test.

One reader did some calculations with front side bus versus memory bus ratios. It appears the G5/2.5 does memory transfers 12% faster than the G5/2.7. In other words, the G5/2.7's poor FSB/memory ratio causes it to waste time. Since graphics intensive applications require frequent transfers of the memory contents across the system bus to the graphics processor, that could explain why only graphics intensive apps are adversely affected by the poor ratio.

I'm getting more confused by the minute!

So it looks like a 2.5Ghz Quad or 2.5Ghz Dual or even the 2.3Ghz DC?

dr. shdw
May 31, 2009, 03:56 PM
Save up and by a Mac Mini Core 2 Duo 9400M..

It'll run circles around G5s, dual or otherwise..

gugucom
May 31, 2009, 04:06 PM
The PCIe grafic cards are generally faster than the AGP 8x cards. I seem to remember that they made the jump from 130 to 110 nm node width at that time and few of the fastest cards ever made it to AGP. They had to have bridge ICs to run them with the slow AGP bus. AGP simply didn't have the band width the new cards required.

In the end it really depends of your usage, but your best compromise for reliability and performance is probably the dual core 2,3 GHz. I used to have one and found out that it had problems to run H.264 at very high band width without slight hesitations. The quad would not have such issues.

Dr.Pants
May 31, 2009, 09:57 PM
Save up and by a Mac Mini Core 2 Duo 9400M..

It'll run circles around G5s, dual or otherwise..

I considered a Mini... But in the end I went Powermac as I could fill it with RAM to my heart's content, as well as PCI-E slots... Being a PC builder, I guess I had an irrational fear for lack of expansion. That and I wanted to do RAID with a Mac in the first place :p And trust me, a G5 with a RAID array would run circles around a mini. But that is, shall we say, expensive.

However, the OP is using single-threaded apps that won't take up more RAM then he can put in the Mini, and since C2D can be considered better then the PowerPC "clock-for-clock", the mini might be for him/her. Furthermore, I am tempted to say WoW will run better on a 2.26GHz C2D with 9400m graphics then my 2.5 970MP with a 7800GT. And I am also pretty sure the OP can get along with external HDs for storage expansion.