G5 imac not even that much faster than a g4?

Discussion in 'Buying Tips, Advice and Discussion (archive)' started by CaptainCaveMann, Mar 18, 2005.

  1. CaptainCaveMann macrumors 68000

    CaptainCaveMann

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    #1
    Is this true? I heard one of the magazines did a test and the iMac g5 wasnt even that much faster than a g4. If this is so then wouldnt everyone be better off buying a mini?
     
  2. mrgreen4242 macrumors 601

    mrgreen4242

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2004
    #2
    It depends on the task, really. When comparing the iMac G5 and G4 there isn't much that the G4 even comes close in speed wise. I suggest that you take a look at barefeats.com's benchmarks, here's one to start with http://www.barefeats.com/imacg5.html. They're a pretty reliable source.

    The mini seems to perform very well in "day to day" type of work, and some iLife applications compared to the iMac G5's, but they do relatively poorly in graphics applications (9200 GPU with 32mb VRAM) and also have even more limited upgradability that the iMac (one DIMM slot, the HD bay is 2.5", etc). Barefeat has some good benchmarks on that as well.
     
  3. andiwm2003 macrumors 601

    andiwm2003

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #3

    when i saw on barefeats that the g5 imac was only between 0% and 30% faster than my 1.5 GHz G4 PB i decided to wait for revision b.

    i was surprised that the 4x faster FSB had almost no impact. the 30% speed increase can be explaind mostly by the g5 clockspeed.

    let's see what the next revision can do.

    andi
     
  4. Darwin macrumors 65816

    Darwin

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2003
    Location:
    round the corner
    #4
    I guess it depends on what you do with the computer

    Not all things are able to fully take advantage of the G5 proccessor so they just use the extra speed boast instead, once that is addressed then the G5 should do better
     
  5. Lord Blackadder macrumors G5

    Lord Blackadder

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Location:
    Sod off
    #5
    This statement is logically fallacious, but I can't remember the name of the fallacy and too lazy to look it up. :D

    It is true that in some circumstances the G5 iMac shows little performance improvement over certain G4 systems, but on the whole it is a faster computer and as more software becomes optomized for the G5 the difference will continue to increase in the G5s favor. The Mac mini is slower than an iMac G5 in every way. The G4 they were referring to was doubtless another G4 (MDD Powermac or Powerbook)
     
  6. Pismo macrumors 6502

    Pismo

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2002
    Location:
    NH
    #6
    I'm sure if you maxed the G5 with RAM, it might show a bigger spread in performance. But, it really depends on what you're using it for.
     
  7. combatcolin macrumors 68020

    combatcolin

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2004
    Location:
    Northants, UK
    #7
    APPLE MAC G5 + PANTHER = NICE BUT, YOU KNOW.

    Put it another way.......

    Mercedes dealership

    SALESMAN
    "This, Sir, is the new S type which had twice the power of the last model"

    INTRESTED BUYER
    "Wow"

    SALESMAN
    "Of course the petrol you need isn't avaible for another year"

    INTRESTED BUYER
    "OK, see you then!"

    Which is why i've put off buying a Mac untill Tiger is released.
     
  8. jackieonasses macrumors 6502a

    jackieonasses

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    Location:
    the great OKLAHOMA....
    #8
    If you are referring to Tiger.... it isn't going to be overwelmingly fast... Way faster then Panther (for 64bit) but if you want a G5 now... i'd get it. But with that said... If you want an iMac - i would get one now. Those things are mighty fast. I am sure if Captaincavemann actually tested one of the iMac's, he would have no qualms either about speed...

    kyle
     
  9. Beck446 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2003
    #9

    Panther isn't going to do much better utilizing the G5.
     
  10. rosalindavenue macrumors 6502a

    rosalindavenue

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2003
    Location:
    Virginia, USA
    #10
    I think I have read that the G5 does a lot better with Garageband. Its my understanding that that the mini/ibooks struggle mightily with Garageband. As someone who will never buy anyother desktop, this is probably the reason I dont already have a g4 book of some kind. :(
     
  11. jackieonasses macrumors 6502a

    jackieonasses

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    Location:
    the great OKLAHOMA....
    #11
    My Powerbook (1ghz and 1.25 gigs of ram) really runs it well. I have about 8 and 9 tracks at a time running. No lag. RAM is Panther's greatest friend. if you get a 1.67 powerbook with max ram - you will run it no problems.

    kyle
     
  12. donniedarko macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #12
    As I undeerstand the iMacs dont take advantage of the CORE Graphics deal and the video cards are shiot relatively speaking, and not upgradable-
     
  13. jackieonasses macrumors 6502a

    jackieonasses

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    Location:
    the great OKLAHOMA....
    #13
    Yes they do? i am like 99% sure that the fx5200 pro works with core video. And your graphics chip is non upgradable too..

    kyle
     
  14. Littleodie914 macrumors 68000

    Littleodie914

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2004
    Location:
    Rochester, NY
    #14
    Yep, the FX5200 that comes in the iMac G5 does/will work with Core Image. (Or Core Video, whatever it's called.) I remember checking a while back when Apple had the list up, and it was on there.
     
  15. Pismo macrumors 6502

    Pismo

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2002
    Location:
    NH
    #15
    The iMac G5 should take advantage of all of the CORE features in Tiger. The graphics card can't be upgraded and I'm sure people know that.
     
  16. combatcolin macrumors 68020

    combatcolin

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2004
    Location:
    Northants, UK
    #16
    I've decided to out off buying a G5 Mac untill mid 2006, by then the 4th gen G5 will be out :)

    Bought some extra RAM and a decent sound for my PC, a Lacie triple inteface 500GB :eek: , for future compbatibility and am looking at the tasty 24"Dell monitor that has everyone so excited about.

    That should keep my old 2000XP 64MB 8500 going a bit longer.

    Of course i still have my original iMac, gets us now and then :)
     
  17. CaptainCaveMann thread starter macrumors 68000

    CaptainCaveMann

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    #17
    Funny you should say that when the mac mini actually has the exact same fsb as the powerbook and the 1.42 model is actually faster than last years 1.33 powerbook. The mac mini is basically a powerbook with an ibook video card.
     
  18. Lord Blackadder macrumors G5

    Lord Blackadder

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Location:
    Sod off
    #18
    Which is why it is slower than an iMac G5...

    The G5 iMac's GeForce 5200 may be regularly crapped on in these forums (with good reason) but it is clearly superior to the mini's Radeon 9200. Barefeats tests have the 1.8 GHz Mac G5 beating a 1.5GHz Powerbook G4 in all non-game tests. A few tests were somewhat close, but others were not. The Powerbook, by the way had the Radeon 9700M.

    The only G4 computers that are faster than the iMac G5 are MDD Powermac G4s, with their faster hard drives, dual CPUs and (if they have the 9700) better video cards.

    There's no way the Mini outperforms the iMac except in the bang for the buck competition, where it does rather well. ;) I'm not trying to deprecate the mini, but anybody who claims that the iMac G5 does not outperform G4 iMacs/minis/Apple laptops on a regular basis is not giving the iMac G5 a fair shake.
     
  19. Chaszmyr macrumors 601

    Chaszmyr

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2002
    #19
    Yes, the FX5200 has the pixel-level programming required to support CoreImage. Unfortunately, while it does support CoreImage, it is a slow GPU and therefore supports it poorly.
     
  20. Chaszmyr macrumors 601

    Chaszmyr

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2002
    #20
    And without a display, keyboard, trackpad, battery, or standard airport or bluetooth. Guess that's why it costs 1/3 as much, eh? :rolleyes:
     

Share This Page