Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > PowerPC Macs

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Nov 25, 2010, 11:42 AM   #1
Crugga
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Powermac g5 quad vs Intel iMac/ MacBook pro for audio production

Hi, thought I'd run this across if you don't mind.
In simple terms I had an accident with a coffee and my MacBook, luckily insurance have paid out minus an excess.
I've basically given myself a budget of 500. Looking at my options it seems I'd be able to get a g5 quad, keyboard and mouse or a used MacBook pro for this sort of money. Maybe an 09 MacBook.
Will be using it for mainly audio work, found the MacBook did struggle a bit but that was just an early dual 2ghz with 2gb ram.
Will use for light Internet but tbh ive got an iPad and love using that for browsing so it's pretty much a music machine.
I've checked and all the software I use is compatible with both.

Love to hear peoples views on this

Last edited by Crugga; Nov 25, 2010 at 12:42 PM.
Crugga is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 25, 2010, 07:51 PM   #2
rtrt
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crugga View Post
Hi, thought I'd run this across if you don't mind.
In simple terms I had an accident with a coffee and my MacBook, luckily insurance have paid out minus an excess.
I've basically given myself a budget of 500. Looking at my options it seems I'd be able to get a g5 quad, keyboard and mouse or a used MacBook pro for this sort of money. Maybe an 09 MacBook.
Will be using it for mainly audio work, found the MacBook did struggle a bit but that was just an early dual 2ghz with 2gb ram.
Will use for light Internet but tbh ive got an iPad and love using that for browsing so it's pretty much a music machine.
I've checked and all the software I use is compatible with both.

Love to hear peoples views on this
buying into the ppc architecture at this late stage could be seen as limiting.

there's unlikely to be much new software written or even updated & you can't go beyond leopard.

having said that, many people on here are very happy with their ppc machines - i'm happy to have both intel and ppc.

key question is what about your software needs, for today and for as long as you'll need to run the machine.

also the pm g5 water cooled versions had some issues with leakage - do some reading here and elsewhere, so you know what to avoid if you go that route.
rtrt is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 25, 2010, 08:13 PM   #3
iThinkergoiMac
macrumors 68030
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Terra
Even the current Mac Mini is generally more powerful than the G5s ever were, so I'd say finding the best used MBP or iMac for your money would be your best bet.
__________________
13" 2009 MBP, 2.26 GHz C2D, 8 GB RAM, 320 GB HDD; 2.2 GHz C2D MB, 6 GB RAM, 160 GB HDD; 32 GB iPod Touch 3G
-FWIW, my handle is iThink_ergo_iMac. There seems to be some confusion on this issue.-
iThinkergoiMac is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 26, 2010, 04:07 AM   #4
Crugga
Thread Starter
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Thanks for your views on that. Think I'm going to save a few hundred and open my options a bit more. Tbh the MacBook White I had was sufficient but I'd like something I can put 8gb of ram in, seems to be what matters in audio more so than the processor.
Gonna go have a read on the MacBook pro forum I think
Crugga is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 26, 2010, 05:30 AM   #5
occams razor
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Salem, OR
Why exactly can't you put 8gb of ram in a MacBook?
occams razor is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 26, 2010, 09:01 AM   #6
cherry su
macrumors 65816
 
cherry su's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by occams razor View Post
Why exactly can't you put 8gb of ram in a MacBook?
In some iterations of the MacBook, Apple's firmware and/or the Intel chipset does not recognize the full capacity of the RAM. I know that the 945G series chipset sees 4GB as 3.3GB.
__________________
MacBook Air 13/1.86/4/128 : Dell Streak 5 : Canon EOS 5D Mark II + 24-105L
MIT '14
My Blog
cherry su is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 26, 2010, 05:00 PM   #7
iThinkergoiMac
macrumors 68030
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Terra
Yeah. The current white MacBook recognizes 8 GB RAM. The previous gen and the aluminum MacBook seem to be iffy on all 8 GB. The generation before that recognizes up to 6 GB.
__________________
13" 2009 MBP, 2.26 GHz C2D, 8 GB RAM, 320 GB HDD; 2.2 GHz C2D MB, 6 GB RAM, 160 GB HDD; 32 GB iPod Touch 3G
-FWIW, my handle is iThink_ergo_iMac. There seems to be some confusion on this issue.-
iThinkergoiMac is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 26, 2010, 06:41 PM   #8
occams razor
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Salem, OR
Just cause it doesn't recognize it doesn't mean you can put it in there
occams razor is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 26, 2010, 08:44 PM   #9
iThinkergoiMac
macrumors 68030
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Terra
Quote:
Originally Posted by occams razor View Post
Just cause it doesn't recognize it doesn't mean you can put it in there
What good does putting in more RAM than your computer recognizes do?

In other words, my computer recognizes a maximum of 6 GB RAM. I can put 6 GB RAM in it, or I could put 8 GB in, spend more money to get the 8 GB, and still only access 6 GB of it.
__________________
13" 2009 MBP, 2.26 GHz C2D, 8 GB RAM, 320 GB HDD; 2.2 GHz C2D MB, 6 GB RAM, 160 GB HDD; 32 GB iPod Touch 3G
-FWIW, my handle is iThink_ergo_iMac. There seems to be some confusion on this issue.-
iThinkergoiMac is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 26, 2010, 09:08 PM   #10
occams razor
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Salem, OR
He stated that you COULDN'T. Not that it wounldnt see it all. You can put it in there is what I was pointing out. Don't get your panties all in a bunch I was just giving hell
occams razor is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 26, 2010, 10:58 PM   #11
iThinkergoiMac
macrumors 68030
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Terra
Quote:
Originally Posted by occams razor View Post
He stated that you COULDN'T. Not that it wounldnt see it all. You can put it in there is what I was pointing out. Don't get your panties all in a bunch I was just giving hell
Hahaha. Well, in a way you can't. The RAM might physically fit, but the computer could get so unstable it's unusable. So, if you want to use the computer, you can't
__________________
13" 2009 MBP, 2.26 GHz C2D, 8 GB RAM, 320 GB HDD; 2.2 GHz C2D MB, 6 GB RAM, 160 GB HDD; 32 GB iPod Touch 3G
-FWIW, my handle is iThink_ergo_iMac. There seems to be some confusion on this issue.-
iThinkergoiMac is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 27, 2010, 01:00 AM   #12
occams razor
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Salem, OR
Haha no problem. It's like people saying I can't fit a .40 cal bullet in my xd45. I can do it. Just don't know how well it will work out lol. Newer macs can be had on craigslist for about what g5s go for. Atleast in my area all macs hold their value pretty well. I would say your best bet is to find The program you are most familure with and does what you want and choose a system based on that. I have a friend that is still using a b&w g3 450 and a hella old version of protools to do all this audio stuff and 9-10 people can't tell it was made on such a old system.
occams razor is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 27, 2010, 11:29 AM   #13
QuantumLo0p
macrumors 6502a
 
QuantumLo0p's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: U.S.A.
I would not buy a PowerMac unless you get it for nothing or next to nothing. As many MR posts have said, software is getting more and more scarce. There are no new OS's for Power and, I may be mistaken, but I think Apple no longer supports Power for security updates. Of course, if that is all your budget will provide then do what you can.


Quote:
Originally Posted by iThinkergoiMac View Post
Even the current Mac Mini is generally more powerful than the G5s ever were, so I'd say finding the best used MBP or iMac for your money would be your best bet.
On a side note...speaking from experience, my Mini only became faster than my old dual G5 LC after I upgraded the ram and hdd. Straight number crunching is a bit faster but the Mini's standard hdd is so slow my Grandma would be able to write faster. The stock hdd wasn't even in the race compared to my raid-0 setup in my old PowerMac; only ssd's can compete with it. I can't wait for what comes next. SSD cards are way faster than current sata ssd's. What difference we consider between storage and ram will blur and everything will be so much faster.
__________________
Mid-2010 Mini, 8GB ram, 23" ACD.
Custom build: Liquid cooled i7-3930K@4.8Ghz, 32GB ram, Samsung ssd with ram cache, GTX680x2 SLI, Win7 (I ditched Win8)
QuantumLo0p is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 27, 2010, 05:02 PM   #14
iThinkergoiMac
macrumors 68030
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Terra
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuantumLo0p View Post
On a side note...speaking from experience, my Mini only became faster than my old dual G5 LC after I upgraded the ram and hdd. [...] The stock hdd wasn't even in the race compared to my raid-0 setup in my old PowerMac
So what you're saying is that your Mini wasn't as fast as your upgraded G5 (running your OS off RAID 0 is certainly not the stock setup) until it was upgraded. My comment assumed stock for both
__________________
13" 2009 MBP, 2.26 GHz C2D, 8 GB RAM, 320 GB HDD; 2.2 GHz C2D MB, 6 GB RAM, 160 GB HDD; 32 GB iPod Touch 3G
-FWIW, my handle is iThink_ergo_iMac. There seems to be some confusion on this issue.-
iThinkergoiMac is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 28, 2010, 06:56 AM   #15
Crugga
Thread Starter
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Well this went a bit off track

Managed to get a 2007 mac pro quad 3.0 with a free apple aluminium screen, keyboard, mighty mouse et for 650gbp on an eBay buy it now. Which trust me over here is a bargain, you'd pay 200 for the screen usually and probably 800 + for the mac, if you can find one.
Crugga is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 28, 2010, 07:35 AM   #16
iThinkergoiMac
macrumors 68030
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Terra
Awesome deal. Have fun with that computer, it's a beast.
__________________
13" 2009 MBP, 2.26 GHz C2D, 8 GB RAM, 320 GB HDD; 2.2 GHz C2D MB, 6 GB RAM, 160 GB HDD; 32 GB iPod Touch 3G
-FWIW, my handle is iThink_ergo_iMac. There seems to be some confusion on this issue.-
iThinkergoiMac is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 28, 2010, 08:32 AM   #17
occams razor
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Salem, OR
congrats bro!
occams razor is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 29, 2010, 10:55 AM   #18
Cox Orange
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
I know this topic is finished, but I would like to add a question.

I had nearly the same idea a year ago (for audio things, too). By the way I did not buy neither nor the other till now (am not as fast when making buying decisions). Now, for me, I would go for the iMac or next years iMac for several reasons.

And here is my question: I wonder, if the Quad G5 would use all cores, when you do the following things simultaneously: converting a video file, recording audio, working in photoshop and having firefox open (not being a real life scenario

I bet the Intel-system will do better in this scenario, because apple actually started optimizing software for multiple core use when they started with Intel (is that right?). The Quad G5 being a monster at the time, that the software couldn't make effective use of its architecture or take advantage of 4 cores, really. Logic Studio being the only PPC software optimized for multiple core use (and not doing that properly), as far as I read somewhere.

Any guesses? Any experience?

Last edited by Cox Orange; Nov 29, 2010 at 11:36 AM.
Cox Orange is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 29, 2010, 05:12 PM   #19
iThinkergoiMac
macrumors 68030
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Terra
You're more or less correct. Also modern Intel processors simply get more done per cycle than the G5s do.
__________________
13" 2009 MBP, 2.26 GHz C2D, 8 GB RAM, 320 GB HDD; 2.2 GHz C2D MB, 6 GB RAM, 160 GB HDD; 32 GB iPod Touch 3G
-FWIW, my handle is iThink_ergo_iMac. There seems to be some confusion on this issue.-
iThinkergoiMac is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 29, 2010, 05:15 PM   #20
OrangeSVTguy
macrumors 601
 
OrangeSVTguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Northeastern Ohio
Quote:
Originally Posted by iThinkergoiMac View Post
You're more or less correct. Also modern Intel processors simply get more done per cycle than the G5s do.
Also you can heat your home with a G5 I set the thermostat to 60*F and let the Quad do the rest.
__________________
Browsing the forums from my Powerbook G4
OrangeSVTguy is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 29, 2010, 06:29 PM   #21
occams razor
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Salem, OR
apple has been optimizing their software for dual processor/dual cores since the dual processor G4's. Yes windows has had dual core/dual processor support since XP, maybe even 2k but the programs are still playing catch up where as apple has been taking advantage of dual cpus/cores for 10+ years now
occams razor is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 1, 2010, 03:31 PM   #22
Cox Orange
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrangeSVTguy View Post
Also you can heat your home with a G5 I set the thermostat to 60*F and let the Quad do the rest.
how is your heating bill and electricity bill, now

Quote:
Originally Posted by OrangeSVTguy View Post
apple has been optimizing their software for dual processor/dual cores since the dual processor G4's. Yes windows has had dual core/dual processor support since XP, maybe even 2k but the programs are still playing catch up where as apple has been taking advantage of dual cpus/cores for 10+ years now
hm, ok that would mean that OS 9 and early OS 10 software were optimized for dual core use, too?
Cox Orange is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 1, 2010, 03:53 PM   #23
goMac
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cox Orange View Post
hm, ok that would mean that OS 9 and early OS 10 software were optimized for dual core use, too?
OS 9 was never dual core optimized. The second processor was pretty much useless.

Some software, like Photoshop, had some custom code that let just that software use the second processor during the OS 9 days.
goMac is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 1, 2010, 09:54 PM   #24
occams razor
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Salem, OR
It's mainly about the software taking advantage of it. ApPle drove their software delopers to put in code to many programs to support the second CPU. Where as ten years ago the only programs I remember using the second CPU on my dual p3 1ghz was adobe programs.
occams razor is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > PowerPC Macs

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Is the MacBook Pro (Mid 2012) strong enough for Audio/Video production? Elmzeh Digital Audio 8 Jul 9, 2013 12:34 PM
Looking to buy a new Macbook Pro for Audio Production, should I wait? cloudig Buying Tips and Advice 2 Apr 30, 2013 06:59 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:39 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC