Better Performance - latestest Mini or G5 Dual 2.0?

Discussion in 'PowerPC Macs' started by hoya87eagle91, Dec 24, 2009.

  1. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2005
    #1
    Hi looking for reliable data / experiance that tells me what is a faster or more productive machine for editing RAW photos in CS2 and editing video in i movie - A Powermac G5 dual 2.0 with 4G RAM (running leopard) or one of the newest Minis running Leopard and maxed out on RAM (4gs?)

    I don't want to go Snow Leopard yet as the Powermac isn't SL compatible. I have that Dual 2.o G5 and am looking to upgrade but feel the current Mac Pros are Overkill for me and that the Mini might be a solid upgrade???
     
  2. macrumors Penryn

    Eidorian

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Location:
    Cuidad de México
    #2
    For Universal applications every dual core mini is going to beat the old Power Mac G5 2.0 GHz. You're going to be more limited by the hard drive speed than anything else.
     
  3. macrumors 603

    63dot

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Location:
    norcal
    #3
    I vote for the latest Mac mini.

    I have a Mac mini, G4 1.42 GHz, with 32 megs of video RAM and it replaced my much older mac, which was a dual 500 G4 Power Mac with 16 megs of video RAM and a slower system bus. In 2005 the mini was a consumer machine and in 2000 the Power Mac was a pro desktop. But a lot happens in just a few years to the point a newer entry level machine is much more powerful than an older "pro" machine.
     
  4. thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2005
    #4
    hanks. So do you mean i will be limited by the drive speed of the Mini or by the G5? Ain't the G5 7200 RPM?
     
  5. macrumors Penryn

    Eidorian

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Location:
    Cuidad de México
    #5
    The minis still use 5400 RPM drives. The processors are going to smoke every G5 except for the quad. CS2 is also a PowerPC application so Rosetta is going to hurt.
     
  6. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2007
    Location:
    Cleveland, OH
    #6
    Like Eidorian said, stick with the G5 if you're going to use CS2.

    If you're willing to upgrade Photoshop, then I'd go for the mini:

    http://www.primatelabs.ca/blog/mac-benchmarks/

    Mac mini (Early 2009)
    Intel Core 2 Duo P8400 2.26 GHz (2 cores)
    Score = 3019

    Power Mac G5 (Late 2005)
    PowerPC G5 (970MP) 2.0 GHz (2 cores)
    Score = 1801

    This test only measures processor/memory performance, but the mini knocks the socks off of the PowerMac G5 2.0Ghz Dual Core.
     
  7. thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2005
    #7
    Thanks for the info everyone. I'll likely use something newer than CS2 soner or later, so looks like the MIni is the winner...and with the $ i save on a mini (vs an i mac or mac pro,) i can spend the leftover $ on a high quality monitor for accurate prints.
     
  8. macrumors 68000

    Badger^2

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2009
    Location:
    Sacramento
    #8
    macworld has some tests on the new minis -- think their Pshop test score was 41 seconds, and a Dual G5 2.0 was 1:49.

    I switched my studio from G5 Dual 2.0s (upgraded with faster drives and better video) to AL iMacs in late 2007.

    Night vs Day.

    iMacs smoked the G5s, doing everything 3-5X as fast, if not faster.

    Be careful of falling into the "mini is cheaper" trap.

    If you really are looking for something to smoke Photoshop or Aperture or Lightroom, you really would be way better off with an iMac with a dedicated video card. All of those apps are starting to rely heavily on the video card speeding up many of the processes.

    And there are some hidden costs with the mini, like ram. Want to go to 8 gigs of ram in a mini? Sure, no problem, $450 please. Want to go to 8 gigs in an iMac. Sure, $100 please. Big diff.

    And the iMacs have high-quality monitors already, but if you really didnt want to use the iMacs screen, not a problem, since the all support second screens. And we need to define "high-quality". You mean like a $1800 Eizo? Or more like a $600 Dell? Nothing cheaper would be acceptable in my book...
     
  9. macrumors 68040

    MacHamster68

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2009
    #9
    you have already a g5 and want leopard then max out the ram and give it a better graphics card and job done usable for the next couple years without trouble
    the powermac g5 is a pro computer the mini is a consumer thingy

    so i would go for the powermac any day instead of a mini , but i`m a powerpc processor fan
    the only thing that speaks for the mini is ..its cute
    and for the price of a mini you can get at least 2 more powermac g5 , with your existing one it means you would have 3 and could hook them together for combined processing power working as one and that would be hard to beat
    i just try that with a second g5 quad 2.5 i got in bits , when its finished i will link them together for combined processing power which will certainly fast enough for every day computing and will beat a mini too and all for the price less of a basic mini ;)
     
  10. macrumors regular

    Azrel

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2005
    #10
    As much as any geek admires the PowerPC architecture for being the only recent contender to x86, it's clear that those G5's are comparatively ancient machines. Performance of the Mini will be significantly faster than the PPC.

    If you're buying this as a work machine, then the choice is clear.Mini.

    If you're buying this for geek value, then the choice is the PPC.
     
  11. macrumors 68040

    MacHamster68

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2009
    #11
    you make that sound like powerMac g5`s have only sentimental values and are not of any use any more :(


    the mini is not meant to be a professional computer , its not bad for its size but its limited by its size
     
  12. macrumors 603

    63dot

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Location:
    norcal
    #12
    I had a dual 500 G4 running 9.2 and Jaguar, so does that make it better than the current iMac (a consumer machine)?. I also had a $4,400 dollar professional machine with 2 gigs of video RAM and RAM maxed out to 64 MB over the 4 megs it came with. You don't see me using that for anything. The 2 gigs of video RAM, at nearly $800 dollars, was an aftermarket addition to ramp up the less than 1 gig of video RAM that was stock for many 1990s era towers.
     
  13. macrumors 68040

    MacHamster68

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2009
    #13
    yes i prefer your old dual 500 g4 over a new imac
    like i said i`m a powerpc processor fan ,in my house you will not find intel not even as a gift i would take a i7 27" iMac (would sell it straight away to buy a TAM)
     
  14. macrumors 603

    63dot

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Location:
    norcal
    #14
    Ten years ago, I would also call myself a PPC fan.

    I am an Apple fan, and while I didn't originally like Intel, I think Apple's Intel powered machines are pretty decent.
     
  15. macrumors regular

    Azrel

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2005
    #15
    Well, if you're doing any serious work, then I would consider a Dual 2.0GHz G5 for purely sentimental value. :-(

    I keep a PPC Mac around because I have some Altivec code kicking around. Other than that, it's all i7 goodness :)

    Pros:
    You will get better CPU performance, an order of magnitude faster I believe.
    Snow Leopard support and future OS support.
    Smaller, quieter machine with Apple Care.
    Well supported graphics chip with OpenCL, HD Video and other features.
    Power Efficient.

    Cons:
    Less expandable (remember though, the G5 case only has 2 removable hard drives).
    No upgrade Path for graphics (however, you will need to find a G5 compatible graphics chip).
     
  16. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2009
    Location:
    Mexico City
    #16
    What about the graphics? I am given to understand that graphics can be upgraded in the PowerMac, is that the case for the Mini as well?

    I am not sure about it but, don't the Minis use Intel graphics (the worst)? I am not also sure about how graphics performance impact in the proposed software.

    Assuming I am correct in the graphics part I just wrote, and that you already have the PowerMac, since you are sticking for a while with PPC I'd suggest putting a good graphics card in the machine and use it rather than spending on a (possibly hard to upgrade) Mini.

    Thanks,
    Joe.
     
  17. macrumors 68040

    MacHamster68

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2009
    #17
    the mini hmm you cant upgrade graphics card , you are limited in the amount of harddrive space (only one drive fits in )

    10 years ago that was 1999 , sadly back then i had the privilege to own a intel pc with windows 95 on it :rolleyes:.. loved the blue screens ;) so much i changed to windows nt

    no the new intel mac`s are decent machines ,
    but for me apple lost that "think different ":(
    as everything in them you can find now in ordinary pc`s too
    and more and more people dont even bother any more
    to boot into osx and use mainly windows on them now
    and i find that worrying
    a lot of companys developing programs dont even bother
    any more to develop version for osx
    as they know people can run windows on mac`s without trouble
    so its not worth the effort any more to develop programs
    for a small percentage of people still using osx
    ....is the clock ticking for osx
     
  18. macrumors Penryn

    Eidorian

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Location:
    Cuidad de México
    #18
    The Mac mini sports the 9400M G. The best you can get for the Power Mac G5 is a flashed 7800GT or a X1900XT.

    To be honest even for the Intel Mac Pros the GPU upgrade options are limited. If you want to live on the edge you can always try some of netkas' drivers to support more video cards.
     
  19. thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2005
    #19
    ok lots of good ideas suggested here. Thank you. I forgot to say that I have to buy something because we have a new family member coming to live with us for a year that needs computer access, so i either 1) give them my dual 2.0 G5 and Dell monitor and I get a new setip , or 2) i keep the Powermac and get something for them that I can use in a year (desktop & monitor or a macbook that i really won't want)

    So What I'm angling for is HD home video editing and accurate and fast photo printouts after large file photoshop precessing. I know that some video editing with my Flip HD cant be done on a Power PC- based Mac unfortuntely.

    I was going to drop about $1500 - $2K FOR a Mini + a high quality monitor like NEC or Eizo, or keep the Dual 2.0 G5 and just buy a NEC/ Eizo monitor for it. Imacs w/ glossy screens are out. Can't work on any glossy screen.
     
  20. macrumors Penryn

    Eidorian

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Location:
    Cuidad de México
    #20
    I'm debating as well as to who is getting my MacBook Late 2007 once I'm done with it.

    The Mac mini will be fine since and an improvement over what you have. 4 GB or RAM and a faster hard drive might be all you need from the base models. I'd wait for the machines to be updated one more time or if it's really necessary a refurbished one.

    160 GB + 2 GB of RAM on the entry model is depressing for 2009.
     
  21. macrumors 68040

    MacHamster68

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2009
    #21
    ok you have to remember it needs the most expensive ram on the market ddr3 , ok on the other hand we in the uk should get 2 gb more then the usa as we pay more then £100 ($160)more for the base mini and no we are not all members of the royal family or millionaires ,and live in castles , some people here in the uk still work to earn a living and are lucky if they can afford a shared flat
     
  22. macrumors 68000

    Badger^2

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2009
    Location:
    Sacramento
    #22
    You have more answers in the other post you have.

    http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=839569

    Have you even *looked* at an iMac in any location besides the Apple store or a Best Buy? (two of the worst places to do so with crappy indirect flourescent lighting).

    Did you even read those 2 threads (there were a lot more if you just look) where "professional" photographers were using glossy screen iMacs and loving them? So How do you know you cant work on them, when they can?

    http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=33945286

    http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=33962659

    Come on hamster, you cant do "pro" work on a mini cause its too limiting? then a MB "Pro" is "too limiting" too? They pretty much share the same interior workings. mini will take 8 gigs of ram and 1TB internal drives. Heck, last year Macpros only shipped with 2 gigs ram and a 320 gig drive, where is the "pro" in that. Dunno why Im even debating these points with someone who thinks a Dual 500 is better than an i7. Hey, Ive got a Dual G4 1.25 that will OS 9 BOOT, fastest OS 9 Mac ever made. Yours for only $1900. Free shipping. :rolleyes:

    Look at my last post in your other thread, bang for buck, longest usage, best color, future proof choice you can really make...
     
  23. macrumors 603

    Max(IT)

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2009
    Location:
    Italy
    #23
    Late 2009 Mini with 4 gb of RAM and a Scorpion Blue 500gb hard drive is waaaay faster than a PowerMac G5, professional computer or not.
    Huge difference
     
  24. macrumors 603

    Max(IT)

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2009
    Location:
    Italy
    #24
    The last MINIs use Nvidia 9400M, not Intel, and it's a graphic chipset better than what you can have on a PowerMac G5, integrated or not.
    BTW he' going to use Photoshop, so he need cpu power, fast memory and hard drive, not a graphic card ...
     
  25. macrumors 68000

    Badger^2

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2009
    Location:
    Sacramento
    #25
    latest versions of Photoshop use the power of the video card to help speed up many actions.
     

Share This Page