What is the best PowerMac G5?

[lucasfer899]

Hey all.
I need some help here,

So, I'm rockin' 3x 20" Alu ACD's, and a very powerful custom built PC.

However, I want a workstation, for doing school work, playing the odd, low-end game on.

For this, I want the most powerful PM G5 Quad core..
And I also want to know which is the best graphics card I can put in this PM also, will I need multiple graphics cards to run all of my displays?
Also, need info on ram, such as can it be any old DDR2 ram, or does it have to be special mac stuff?

Thanks alot!

(Storage is not of a concern, I have a big nas box.)

[Zotaccian]

Any Mac Pro will beat Quad G5 in CPU speed and app compatibility (for modern apps). I haven't checked prices but before purchase, make sure you know what you are paying for.

[GermanyChris]

What is it you expect the quad to do that the PC doesn't?

[rabidz7]

Originally Posted by lucasfer899

Hey all.
I need some help here,

So, I'm rockin' 3x 20" Alu ACD's, and a very powerful custom built PC.

However, I want a workstation, for doing school work, playing the odd, low-end game on.

For this, I want the most powerful PM G5 Quad core..
And I also want to know which is the best graphics card I can put in this PM also, will I need multiple graphics cards to run all of my displays?
Also, need info on ram, such as can it be any old DDR2 ram, or does it have to be special mac stuff?

Thanks alot!

(Storage is not of a concern, I have a big nas box.)

A late 2005 quad is the most powerful. Any desktop ddr2 will work in its 8 slots. It can take 16GB of ram in 8 2gb modules. The best vid card is a flashed 512MB 7800 GTX. There is one on ebay, make sure it is mac flashed. do not use any ebay filters to find it. the card is incredibly rare. Every xpansion slot is pci express, so no pci or pcix devices.

[mrkramer]

If you want a mac and don't want to spend too much money why not just turn your PC into a hackintosh? The G5s are old and you'll be disappointed by the performance. Also I'm pretty sure the quad G5s were liquid cooled which weren't the most reliable.

[lucasfer899]

Originally Posted by mrkramer

If you want a mac and don't want to spend too much money why not just turn your PC into a hackintosh? The G5s are old and you'll be disappointed by the performance. Also I'm pretty sure the quad G5s were liquid cooled which weren't the most reliable.

My PC uses AMD FX 8350. No hackintosh available for AMD.

Originally Posted by rabidz7

A late 2005 quad is the most powerful. Any desktop ddr2 will work in its 8 slots. It can take 16GB of ram in 8 2gb modules. The best vid card is a flashed 512MB 7800 GTX. There is one on ebay, make sure it is mac flashed. do not use any ebay filters to find it. the card is incredibly rare. Every xpansion slot is pci express, so no pci or pcix devices.

Thank you very much.
I will look out for all that you have said

Originally Posted by GermanyChris

What is it you expect the quad to do that the PC doesn't?

Nothing. I want a desktop workstation, of which is a mac.

Originally Posted by Zotaccian

Any Mac Pro will beat Quad G5 in CPU speed and app compatibility (for modern apps). I haven't checked prices but before purchase, make sure you know what you are paying for.

I think I'll look out for Mac Pro 1,1 and upgrade the socket 771 xeons.
Only if I can find one at the right price.

[rabidz7]

Originally Posted by lucasfer899

My PC uses AMD FX 8350. No hackintosh available for AMD.


Thank you very much.
I will look out for all that you have said


Nothing. I want a desktop workstation, of which is a mac.


I think I'll look out for Mac Pro 1,1 and upgrade the socket 771 xeons.
Only if I can find one at the right price.

I have the same cpu and its a hackintosh. I used ways that I cant discuss here. Google amd hackintosh.

[lucasfer899]

Originally Posted by rabidz7

I have the same cpu and its a hackintosh. I used ways that I cant discuss here. Google amd hackintosh.

Hmm, thanks.
Not really into the whole hackintosh scene anyway tbh.

[MisterKeeks]

Originally Posted by mrkramer

Also I'm pretty sure the quad G5s were liquid cooled which weren't the most reliable.

Strangely enough, the Quad was a pretty reliable machine despite the LCS. Here is part of an article from LowEndMac (yes, they actually have articles ).

G5/1.6 single (June 2003), D- (24%, logicboard, hard drive)
G5/1.8 single (June 2003), D+ (19%, logicboard, video card)
G5/2.0 dual (June 2003), F (32%, video card, logicboard)
G5/1.8 dual (Nov. 2003), F (27%, logicboard, optical drive)
G5/1.8 dual (June 2004), D+ (19%, logicboard, optical drive)
G5/2.0 dual (June 2004), C- (17%, logicboard, hard or optical drive)
G5/2.5 dual (June 2004), F (26%, logicboard, hard drive)
G5/1.8 single (Oct. 2004), D+ (19%, hard drive, logicboard)
G5/2.3 dual (April 2005), B- (11%, logicboard, power supply)
G5/2.7 dual (April 2005), D (22%, logicboard, power supply)
G5/2.0 dual-core (Oct. 2005), C- (18%, power supply, logicboard)
G5/2.3 dual-core (Oct. 2005), C- (18%, power supply, logicboard or optical drive)
G5/2.5 quad-core (Oct. 2005), C- (17%, logicboard, power supply)

The Quad has a 17% failure rate, tying for 2nd.

[cocacolakid]

So the person who wants to start selling brand new Power PC Macs that IBM would somehow make isn't even using a Power PC Mac.

[rabidz7]

Originally Posted by cocacolakid

So the person who wants to start selling brand new Power PC Macs that IBM would somehow make isn't even using a Power PC Mac.

Yes I am.
Power Mac G5 quad, 2.5 GHz, 16 GB RAM, 1 Tb HDD,
128 Gb SSD, 512 Mb 7800 GTX, 32" monitor
Osx Mountain lion via cpu emulation on linux
Geekbench= 4700

[MisterKeeks]

Originally Posted by rabidz7

Yes I am.
Power Mac G5 quad, 2.5 GHz, 16 GB RAM, 1 Tb HDD,
128 Gb SSD, 512 Mb 7800 GTX, 32" monitor
Osx Mountain lion via cpu emulation on linux
Geekbench= 4700

Get me the Linux GeekBench on that. Boot times would be nice as well.

[ybz90]

Originally Posted by rabidz7

Osx Mountain lion via cpu emulation on linux

How do you get 4700 on Geekbench? I recently acquired the exact same PowerMac and with a fresh install and SSD, it gets just north of 3500. My instinct was that 64-bit gives a bump to scores over 32-bit, but since you're using some kind of "CPU emulation", the performance degradation should eliminate that many times over.

Speaking of which, would you care to elucidate? I can't imagine any sort of CPU emulation that would result in an even remotely usable system, let alone one that can score 4700 on Geekbench.

I'm not calling you a liar, but to me, this does not look right. Things don't add up at all. Please feel welcome to correct me, I would be eager to find out how you squeezed that kind of performance out of the G5 machine, since as I mentioned, I just got one myself.

EDIT: Oh wait, you're this guy - http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1525892. Should've figured as much. If it looks like BS, sounds like BS, you get the idea.

[MisterKeeks]

Originally Posted by ybz90

How do you get 4700 on Geekbench? I recently acquired the exact same PowerMac and with a fresh install and SSD, it gets just north of 3500. My instinct was that 64-bit gives a bump to scores over 32-bit, but since you're using some kind of "CPU emulation", the performance degradation should eliminate that many times over.

Speaking of which, would you care to elucidate? I can't imagine any sort of CPU emulation that would result in an even remotely usable system, let alone one that can score 4700 on Geekbench.

I'm not calling you a liar, but to me, this does not look right. Things don't add up at all. Please feel welcome to correct me, I would be eager to find out how you squeezed that kind of performance out of the G5 machine, since as I mentioned, I just got one myself.

32 bit tops out at 3614. 64 bit tops out just above 3700. This one is from a user here (Nameci).

So, I agree. 4700 is impossible on a G5.