PDA

View Full Version : Powermac G5 2.5 GHz quad opinions?




Jackers008
Oct 22, 2009, 08:16 AM
I recently sold my powermac g5 dual core 2.3 ghz as I required more processing power. I'm considering a quad 2.5 ghz model now but just wanted to know how much quicker this model is and if its worth the price asked for them these days? Can any owners help me out?

Thanks.



gugucom
Oct 22, 2009, 08:33 AM
The Quad has liquid cooling system which has a design flaw that saw many machines leaking and prematurely die.

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=311800

I would not recommend it. Besides a high powered iMac now beats it easily in Performance.

If you definitely need a quad go for a 2008 MP model or the iMac late 2009. They are good for many years in terms of having the most modern firmware and being able to run future developments.

Jackers008
Oct 22, 2009, 10:50 AM
Yeah I noticed that thread earlier. Not very positive! What about the dual 2.7 GHz model? What would the difference be between this and 2.3 GHz one? I would like a Mac Pro but its way out of my price range.

Thanks.

Techhie
Oct 22, 2009, 10:55 AM
The Quad has liquid cooling system which has a design flaw that saw many machines leaking and prematurely die.

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=311800

I would not recommend it. Besides a high powered iMac now beats it easily in Performance.

If you definitely need a quad go for a 2008 MP model or the iMac late 2009. They are good for many years in terms of having the most modern firmware and being able to run future developments.

The quads of 2005 cannot even be compared to those of today, as I am sure you are well aware gugucom :D

Even a dual core 2008 Mac could outperform that PMG5, I would suggest buyign something more recent. Besides, if you don't want a defective liquid coolant system and want to actually run recent editions of Final Cut, get an Intel (maybe Xeon :rolleyes:) based system.

gugucom
Oct 22, 2009, 10:57 AM
The 2.7 is also liquid cooled but only a dual CPU with single core. The quad was a dual core, dual CPU machine.

The dual core you sold is really the fastest G5 with air cooling. From there you can only commit to a Mac Pro. The cheapest models (2006 2,26 Quad) will go by 1100 or 1200$.

Jackers008
Oct 22, 2009, 11:17 AM
Ok thanks for the advice :)

California
Oct 22, 2009, 03:02 PM
I've owned all the G5s except the 1.6 and the G5 Powermac Quad kicks butt over the 2.3.

Best bang for the buck, considering Mac Pro prices. Quads did not have the same failure liquid cooling rate.

Jackers008
Oct 22, 2009, 03:17 PM
So a 2.5 ghz quad would be worth it if one could be had a good price? I know some of them have faults but I'd be willing to chance it if the performance jump is worth it.

300D
Oct 22, 2009, 03:57 PM
The dual core 2.3 is also faster than the dual cpu 2.7 due to architecture and technology upgrades.

Forget the G5. Look for a 2006 Mac Pro.

California
Oct 22, 2009, 06:33 PM
That could be true about the 2.3 dual core (GREAT MACHINE) being faster than the 2.7ghz dual processor, I was just going by geek bench scores.

A G5 Quad Powermac is a great machine.

I've owned two.

Also three 2.3' dual cores

Two 2.0 dual cores

One 2.5ghz dual processor

One 2.7ghz dual processor

One 1.8ghz single processor with eight gigs of ram

The 2.3s and the Quad are my faves.

gugucom
Oct 22, 2009, 06:46 PM
I fell for the same seduction in January and bought two G5s.

One DP 1,8 GHz with a defect CPU which I upgraded by fitting two 2,0 CPUs.

One dual core 2,3 with 16 GB RAM. I sold that shortly before Snow Leopard for a 2006 MP.

I have never looked back. Even the lowest Mac Pro is much more usefull to me then a Quad G5 which may have a catastrophical failure any time and has a hard time to handle H.264/1080p.

OrangeSVTguy
Oct 22, 2009, 07:39 PM
The dual-core models also had PCIe and cheaper but faster DDR2 memory. I heard people replacing the corrosive liquid with mineral oil so in case it does leak it won't ruin everything :).

But I'd stick with Intel if you need more processing power. Considering you can get 2006 Mac Pros for around the $1000 mark, it just makes sense unless you can get a quad for $500 but people still seem to sell them for 2006 MP prices...

Amazing how PPC still holds value while the Intel prices just keeps plummeting.

California
Oct 23, 2009, 05:48 PM
I just got another Quad last night.

I need PPC machines to run my old software when needed.

The Quad has the upgraded video card, it is perfect and I am very happy. I sold my last one with the upgraded quadro card for $1300 two months ago to a composer who also needed legacy software ability, plus power.

I think the ram for the Mac Pros is very expensive?

Dr.Pants
Oct 23, 2009, 08:37 PM
I think the ram for the Mac Pros is very expensive?

For the models no longer in production. They used fully buffered memory which was not cheap.

However, FB-DIMMs were mainly DDR2, and nobody AFAIK is developing FB for DDR3. The newer models can use standard DDR3 RAM.

My Quad is a good machine. Have to keep it on in the coming winter months, though. I got it for what a 2006 MP costs now, unfortunately, but I'm satisfied with its performance. Just be aware that for a PCIe card being installed it needs to be both OpenFirmware compatible and generally have a PPC driver.

As for my satisfaction? Very high. It satisfies my need for a tower that runs OSX without violating EULAs or mucking about in a legal gray area on-the-cheap with a moderate amount of power. I'll be running it until I upgrade in a few months to an Intel machine. It beats the pants off of the iMacs I used in previous experiences.

Jackers008
Oct 24, 2009, 11:04 AM
Well I purchased an early 2008 Mac Pro with 2 x 2.8 GHz xeon's and 6GB Ram. Think I made the right decision and I got it for a great price so I'm happy :D Just waiting for it to be delivered now!