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 Dec 5, 2009, 01:48 PM   #1
bzollinger
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Old Dual 2.0 G5 faster than new 2.66 Mini?

I've tried searching but this is somewhat of an unusual comparison. I've got an older Dual 2.0 PowerMac G5 w/ 3GB RAM, upgraded 1TB WD HDD. I use PS4, LightRoom, iWeb, iPhoto, iDVD, and it is also dual monitor out to a projector in my home theater. Upgrading to a new MacPro would be ideal but I can't spend $2300+ right now.

How do you think the new 2.66 mini w/ 4GB RAM compares to this old G5? I think the new mini can do dual monitor output. Other than that the mini would seem to suit my needs for faster CPU.

Can anyone give an opinion and/or point me to where I can read about this type of comparison?

thanks,
BZ
__________________
2010 MacPro 3.2GHz Quad | 16GB RAM | 2TB+1TB | RAID1 | 128GB OWC SSD | Canon 5D MKIII |
bzollinger is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2009, 02:49 PM   #2
snouter
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: May 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by bzollinger View Post
Can anyone give an opinion and/or point me to where I can read about this type of comparison?
Being able to run Snow Leopard along is worth maybe 5-10%?

I'm going to guess that the 2.66 Mini is faster?

One consideration is that the Mini uses laptop CPUs and the G5 is a desktop CPU.

However the Core2Duo was a tremendous advance in CPU.

Maybe try to find H.264 benchmarks or something that you could cross compare with?

The setups are kind of too different to make it likey you'll find any direct comparisons.

Maybe barefeats or someone has a comprehensive CPU list?

The mini is a surprising computer if you can live with what it offers. They are also very very quiet.
__________________
2013 MP 6c D500 64GB | 2011 Air 11" | 2011 MBP 17" | 2011 Cinema 27"
Win8 3770k 32GB HTPC C4d Team Render | Win8 4930k 32GB two 760GTX
32GB iPad4 - cracked & taped | 2001 iPod 5GB - retired
snouter is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2009, 03:05 PM   #3
nanofrog
macrumors G4
 
Join Date: May 2008
The new Mini is faster.
nanofrog is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2009, 03:15 PM   #4
Transporteur
macrumors 68030
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
The mini is approximately twice as fast as you old G5.

Geekbench scores of the two computers are about 1500 for the G5 and >3000 for the 2.66 Mini.
Transporteur is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2009, 03:15 PM   #5
Willis
macrumors 68020
 
Willis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: What feels like the middle of nowhere
The Mini by far is faster. Plain and simple. I'll see if I can find any benchmarks
__________________
MacMini 2.3GHz, 4GB Ram, 500GB
iPhone 5s 64GB
iPad 16GB Wifi (4th Gen)
Willis is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2009, 03:44 PM   #6
bzollinger
Thread Starter
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Thanks everyone this is helpful. Comparing separate benchmarks is a great idea.

Dang 1500 to over 3000!!! That's impressive! What was originally a novel idea is now becoming a real option!
__________________
2010 MacPro 3.2GHz Quad | 16GB RAM | 2TB+1TB | RAID1 | 128GB OWC SSD | Canon 5D MKIII |
bzollinger is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2009, 03:55 PM   #7
OttawaGuy
macrumors 6502a
 
OttawaGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
http://www.primatelabs.ca/blog/mac-benchmarks/
__________________
MRoogle
OttawaGuy is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2009, 04:10 PM   #8
snouter
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: May 2009
wow, I had a dual G5 2.0GHz and I remember thinking it was the fastest thing ever... lol

times change, lol

I sold it to a friend of mine and he's not a geeky geek. He still uses it and I'm sure he's fine with it.
__________________
2013 MP 6c D500 64GB | 2011 Air 11" | 2011 MBP 17" | 2011 Cinema 27"
Win8 3770k 32GB HTPC C4d Team Render | Win8 4930k 32GB two 760GTX
32GB iPad4 - cracked & taped | 2001 iPod 5GB - retired
snouter is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2009, 04:17 PM   #9
LeeTom
macrumors 65816
 
LeeTom's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Get a Mac Mini, put an SSD in it for your boot drive and working files, and a FW-800 drive for external storage and you won't believe how much faster it is
__________________
iPhone 3GS <- iPhone 3G <- iPhone 8GB
MacBook Pro 2.5 <- PowerBook G4 1.67 <- PowerBook G4 1.25 <- iMac G3/400 <- Mac LC <- Mac Plus
LeeTom is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2009, 04:29 PM   #10
bzollinger
Thread Starter
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeeTom View Post
Get a Mac Mini, put an SSD in it for your boot drive and working files, and a FW-800 drive for external storage and you won't believe how much faster it is
That's a good idea. I've been wanting to get a SSD for a long time!
__________________
2010 MacPro 3.2GHz Quad | 16GB RAM | 2TB+1TB | RAID1 | 128GB OWC SSD | Canon 5D MKIII |
bzollinger is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2009, 04:31 PM   #11
cluthz
macrumors 68040
 
cluthz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Norway
Send a message via MSN to cluthz
The new i5 iMacs does 7500 in geekbench btw..
It's really good value for the money!
__________________
-tb
MacBook Air 13" i5 osx10.7.5
HackPro 4.3GHz, 16GB RAM, GTX780GHz Edition, 3x SSD , win7+osx10.9.2
cluthz is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2009, 04:45 PM   #12
bzollinger
Thread Starter
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by cluthz View Post
The new i5 iMacs does 7500 in geekbench btw..
It's really good value for the money!
Dang that's fast!! But then I'm back to the $2000 mark
__________________
2010 MacPro 3.2GHz Quad | 16GB RAM | 2TB+1TB | RAID1 | 128GB OWC SSD | Canon 5D MKIII |
bzollinger is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2009, 05:45 PM   #13
cluthz
macrumors 68040
 
cluthz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Norway
Send a message via MSN to cluthz
Quote:
Originally Posted by bzollinger View Post
Dang that's fast!! But then I'm back to the $2000 mark
True, but the iMac will give you a nice screen, more HD, more RAM and it will last a lot longer than the mini.
The iMac i5 does actually outperform the low end Mac Pro in most tasks.
__________________
-tb
MacBook Air 13" i5 osx10.7.5
HackPro 4.3GHz, 16GB RAM, GTX780GHz Edition, 3x SSD , win7+osx10.9.2
cluthz is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2009, 05:50 PM   #14
snouter
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: May 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by cluthz View Post
True, but the iMac will give you a nice screen, more HD, more RAM and it will last a lot longer than the mini.
The iMac i5 does actually outperform the low end Mac Pro in most tasks.
Screen is glossy, so... that's a no go for some folks.

The nice thing about the mini is you buy it for $600, use it for a year or two, sell it for $350 or something.
__________________
2013 MP 6c D500 64GB | 2011 Air 11" | 2011 MBP 17" | 2011 Cinema 27"
Win8 3770k 32GB HTPC C4d Team Render | Win8 4930k 32GB two 760GTX
32GB iPad4 - cracked & taped | 2001 iPod 5GB - retired
snouter is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2009, 06:32 PM   #15
21ce
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
I think the big thing to note in making your switch is the RAM upgradability. With the amount of work you listed, it seems that you may be able to bog down a mac mini easily.
21ce is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2009, 07:53 PM   #16
bzollinger
Thread Starter
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by 21ce View Post
I think the big thing to note in making your switch is the RAM upgradability. With the amount of work you listed, it seems that you may be able to bog down a mac mini easily.
That's a concern for sure. Right now the 3GB gets eaten up pretty quick when really digging into the photos. 4GB in the mini would be better but I think that too would get all used when working.
__________________
2010 MacPro 3.2GHz Quad | 16GB RAM | 2TB+1TB | RAID1 | 128GB OWC SSD | Canon 5D MKIII |
bzollinger is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2009, 08:07 PM   #17
bzollinger
Thread Starter
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by snouter View Post
Screen is glossy, so... that's a no go for some folks.

The nice thing about the mini is you buy it for $600, use it for a year or two, sell it for $350 or something.
I wish the minis were that cheap. In order to make it worth while to "replace" the G5 the mini would cost about $1000...
__________________
2010 MacPro 3.2GHz Quad | 16GB RAM | 2TB+1TB | RAID1 | 128GB OWC SSD | Canon 5D MKIII |
bzollinger is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 6, 2009, 03:02 AM   #18
Macinposh
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Kreplakistan
Quote:
Originally Posted by bzollinger View Post
That's a concern for sure. Right now the 3GB gets eaten up pretty quick when really digging into the photos. 4GB in the mini would be better but I think that too would get all used when working.
I had the older (08) mini at the studio as a secondary computer for lightroom previews and light photoshopping. 1Gb of memory and the 5400rpm 160Gb HDD.
I thought that it would beat the living ***** of the old 2x2.0 G5 that was there.

Nope.It was slow as heck,because of the lack of memory and slow hdd.


But.
If you would up the memory to 4Gb and put in a 7200rpm hdd and/or use a external FW disk for scratch,then things would be different.
__________________
Rom..Rom...Rom...
Macinposh is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 6, 2009, 05:42 AM   #19
Darth Maynard
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
To the OP:

I have the same machine that you do and have come to the same conclusion. I run Photoshop,Garageband and Pro Tools, iMovie, Sibelius and a few more apps that tend to tax my G5. I was impressed by the new iMacs but the glossy screen kind of bums me out. Then I realize I can't afford an upgrade like that, and I already have a monitor that will get me through for the immediate future. Something else I considered was that these machines, while good for some, won't be considered as a sound investment by most due to their "vintage" status. I've been watching the store for a refurb, they'll be showing up I'm guessing in the next few weeks, couple of months. Combined with my educator discount, I can justify upgrading a perfectly functioning, capable machine; not to mention being able to get the best resale price for the G5. But that window won't stay open for very long.
Darth Maynard is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 6, 2009, 06:25 AM   #20
Transporteur
macrumors 68030
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by cluthz View Post
The iMac i5 does actually outperform the low end Mac Pro in most tasks.
That's the i7 you're talking about.
Transporteur is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 6, 2009, 01:27 PM   #21
bzollinger
Thread Starter
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Maynard View Post
To the OP:

I have the same machine that you do and have come to the same conclusion. I run Photoshop,Garageband and Pro Tools, iMovie, Sibelius and a few more apps that tend to tax my G5. I was impressed by the new iMacs but the glossy screen kind of bums me out. Then I realize I can't afford an upgrade like that, and I already have a monitor that will get me through for the immediate future. Something else I considered was that these machines, while good for some, won't be considered as a sound investment by most due to their "vintage" status. I've been watching the store for a refurb, they'll be showing up I'm guessing in the next few weeks, couple of months. Combined with my educator discount, I can justify upgrading a perfectly functioning, capable machine; not to mention being able to get the best resale price for the G5. But that window won't stay open for very long.
It's a tough situation right? So you're saying that the mini won't work because of reasons mentioned in this thread? I think I agree. How much do you think you're going to spend on a refurb? And what do you think you'll get for your G5?

Cause I've got the same situation. Buy a refurb on .edu discount, and sale the G5 to offset the cost.

Also I might wait for the next round of MacPro updates next year....
__________________
2010 MacPro 3.2GHz Quad | 16GB RAM | 2TB+1TB | RAID1 | 128GB OWC SSD | Canon 5D MKIII |
bzollinger is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 6, 2009, 01:29 PM   #22
bzollinger
Thread Starter
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macinposh View Post
I had the older (08) mini at the studio as a secondary computer for lightroom previews and light photoshopping. 1Gb of memory and the 5400rpm 160Gb HDD.
I thought that it would beat the living ***** of the old 2x2.0 G5 that was there.

Nope.It was slow as heck,because of the lack of memory and slow hdd.


But.
If you would up the memory to 4Gb and put in a 7200rpm hdd and/or use a external FW disk for scratch,then things would be different.
Yah, the RAM will make a difference but the HDD is tied right in there because of the app loading times, scratch disks and such.

Interesting that out of the gates that mini was that slow.
__________________
2010 MacPro 3.2GHz Quad | 16GB RAM | 2TB+1TB | RAID1 | 128GB OWC SSD | Canon 5D MKIII |
bzollinger is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2009, 10:14 AM   #23
cluthz
macrumors 68040
 
cluthz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Norway
Send a message via MSN to cluthz
Quote:
Originally Posted by Transporteur View Post
That's the i7 you're talking about.
According to macworld.com, the i5 is faster than the low end MacPro in several tasks.
http://www.macworld.com/article/1439...re15_imac.html
The standard graphics on the i5 is very much faster than the mediocre standard graphics on the Mac Pro, which really helps the i5.
__________________
-tb
MacBook Air 13" i5 osx10.7.5
HackPro 4.3GHz, 16GB RAM, GTX780GHz Edition, 3x SSD , win7+osx10.9.2
cluthz is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2009, 10:22 AM   #24
Transporteur
macrumors 68030
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
That benchmark has been discussed earlier and it does not reflect the real speed of the machines at all.

The i5 is considerably slower than the base Quad MacPro that uses an i7 XEON processor.
If you're running serious multithreading applications, the XEON is definitely faster.
And yes, as you said, the graphics card are not comparable in base Pro and the iMac. The GT120 is indeed pretty slow.
Transporteur 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 it me or does a dual boot MBP seem to be faster tymaster50 MacBook Pro 7 Jan 3, 2014 07:05 AM
How do Apps use dual or quad cores - and which are faster ajaan Mac mini 1 Dec 20, 2013 07:16 AM
Mini's faster than 2012 imacs? iamthedudeman Mac mini 43 Nov 20, 2012 05:18 PM
iPad Mini: Can't do it, will wait for faster Retina iPad Mini Jinzen iPad 2 Nov 7, 2012 11:03 AM
iPad Mini: Mini have faster processor than iPad 2? Dlanod iPad 30 Oct 30, 2012 08:30 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:56 AM.

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

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