Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > PowerPC Macs

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Oct 22, 2009, 09:16 AM   #1
Jackers008
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Powermac G5 2.5 GHz quad opinions?

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.
Jackers008 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 22, 2009, 09:33 AM   #2
gugucom
macrumors 68020
 
gugucom's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Munich, Germany
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.
__________________
MP4,1●3,33GHz Octad●2*160GB SSD●12GB RAM●Blu-Ray●FireDTV-S2●SL/Vista64
uMBP●SL/Vista64
TC 2TB iPhone●16GB

Last edited by gugucom; Oct 22, 2009 at 09:41 AM.
gugucom is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 22, 2009, 11:50 AM   #3
Jackers008
Thread Starter
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
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.
Jackers008 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 22, 2009, 11:55 AM   #4
Techhie
macrumors 65816
 
Techhie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: The hub of stupidity
Quote:
Originally Posted by gugucom View Post
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

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 ) based system.
__________________
flickr | twitter | "comprehensive geek" (setup)
Techhie is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 22, 2009, 11:57 AM   #5
gugucom
macrumors 68020
 
gugucom's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Munich, Germany
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$.
__________________
MP4,1●3,33GHz Octad●2*160GB SSD●12GB RAM●Blu-Ray●FireDTV-S2●SL/Vista64
uMBP●SL/Vista64
TC 2TB iPhone●16GB
gugucom is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 22, 2009, 12:17 PM   #6
Jackers008
Thread Starter
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Ok thanks for the advice
Jackers008 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 22, 2009, 04:02 PM   #7
California
macrumors 68040
 
California's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
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.
__________________
2.66ghz 13" MBP/1.67ghz Powerbook G5 15" DLHR/iPhone 16gb/30" ACD
California is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 22, 2009, 04:17 PM   #8
Jackers008
Thread Starter
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
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.
Jackers008 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 22, 2009, 04:57 PM   #9
300D
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Tulsa
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.
300D is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 22, 2009, 07:33 PM   #10
California
macrumors 68040
 
California's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
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.
__________________
2.66ghz 13" MBP/1.67ghz Powerbook G5 15" DLHR/iPhone 16gb/30" ACD
California is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 22, 2009, 07:46 PM   #11
gugucom
macrumors 68020
 
gugucom's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Munich, Germany
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.
__________________
MP4,1●3,33GHz Octad●2*160GB SSD●12GB RAM●Blu-Ray●FireDTV-S2●SL/Vista64
uMBP●SL/Vista64
TC 2TB iPhone●16GB
gugucom is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 22, 2009, 08:39 PM   #12
OrangeSVTguy
macrumors 601
 
OrangeSVTguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Northeastern Ohio
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.
__________________
Browsing the forums from my Powerbook G4
OrangeSVTguy is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2009, 06:48 PM   #13
California
macrumors 68040
 
California's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
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?
__________________
2.66ghz 13" MBP/1.67ghz Powerbook G5 15" DLHR/iPhone 16gb/30" ACD
California is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2009, 09:37 PM   #14
Dr.Pants
macrumors 65816
 
Dr.Pants's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by California View Post
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.
__________________
MacPro 4.1 | Powermac 11.2
Dr.Pants is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 24, 2009, 12:04 PM   #15
Jackers008
Thread Starter
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
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 Just waiting for it to be delivered now!
Jackers008 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
Looking for a PowerMac G5 Quad alexrmc92 Buying Tips and Advice 2 Aug 8, 2013 04:27 PM
Graphics card to get for Mac Pro 1,1 2.66 GHz quad core Synergy67 Buying Tips and Advice 5 Apr 20, 2013 10:14 PM
Is the 2.8 ghz Quad still a good upgrade from an iMac? SteelBlueTJ Mac Pro 36 Jul 12, 2012 07:07 AM
2.66 Ghz 1,1 Quad vs. 3.33 GHz 5,1 Hex akadmon Mac Pro 28 Jun 26, 2012 11:46 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:18 PM.

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

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