G5 Quad vs. iMac c2d

Discussion in 'PowerPC Macs' started by Alari, Mar 30, 2007.

  1. macrumors newbie

    Alari

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2006
    #1
    I have a chance to replace my iMac 20" c2d with a G5 Quad with 4GB of memory,
    how do they compare performance-wise ?
    I like the expandability of the Quad, hard-drives, memory, etc. but i'm not sure about going back to PPC, as it's no longer used by Apple.
    Any suggestions before i make the switch ?
     
  2. macrumors demi-god

    Zwhaler

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2006
    #2
    The G5 will outperform the iMac in just about everything, as it is simply a faster machine. But unless you are doing anything native to intel, I would recommend it all the way. I don't know much about it's expansion, so you will have to ask someone else. But it will outperform even the next generation Santa Rosa Macs, so you don't have to worry about it being slow. May I ask you what the conditions of the trade-off are? Just because I'm curious.
     
  3. macrumors 603

    netdog

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2006
    Location:
    London
    #3
    Anybody else? My understanding was that outside of running Rosetta apps, the C2D iMac was actually faster.
     
  4. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2007
    #4
    the quad.

    Four 2.3GHz cores are better than two 2.16GHz cores, 2 hd slots are better than one, better graphics cards(ATI radeon x1900 is avalible for g5) is better than x1600, and of course 4gb ram is better than 1gb
     
  5. thread starter macrumors newbie

    Alari

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2006
    #5
    I have a buyer for my iMac with the same price as the Quad.
     
  6. macrumors member

    Chasealicious

    Joined:
    May 6, 2005
    Location:
    Fayetteville, AR
    #6
    QUAD. Quad quad quad.





    ...quad.
     
  7. Retired

    psychofreak

    Joined:
    May 16, 2006
    Location:
    London
    #7
    More polite replies please...

    The iMac does have some advantages...IMO it looks a lot nicer. It takes up less space. Will you have to buy a screen and speakers? If so, do you have the money to buy nice ones?
     
  8. thread starter macrumors newbie

    Alari

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2006
    #8
    I'm gonna get a 30 incher, probably Dell, as it's a lot cheaper.
     
  9. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2006
    #9
    The fastest machine i had used prior to the new towers released was a Quad G5 w/4GB of ram. And this was when everything else but the towers had switched to intel. It left a lasting impression on me hence why i waited till the Mac Pro's came out. Even now for some reason i dont think my Mac Pro is as fast as that G5 was and i have 4GB in it. The G5 was that fast.
     
  10. macrumors 65816

    dartzorichalcos

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2007
    Location:
    Atlantis
    #10
    Get the PowerMac G5 Quad. It's one of the fastest machines there is. The only Macs that beat it in performance are 2.66GHz and 3.0Ghz Quad Xeon Mac Pros.
     
  11. macrumors 65816

    Lovesong

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2006
    Location:
    Stuck beween a rock and a hard place
    #11
    Ummm... has anyone actually run a G5 next to an iMac C2D? Any of you?
    I'm running a Dual G5 with 5GB of RAM, and an XT800. Rendering 1000 frame image stack in a house- written analysis program gives me ~70fps on the G5 and 248fps on the iMac. Yes, it's not a loaded Quad, but what kicks my G5's butt is the 4MB L2 cache. Add to that the 667MHz RAM, and you have something that outperforms most anything PPC.
    I'm sure this post will get cruched, but if I were you I'd stick with the C2D iMac.
     
  12. macrumors 68030

    risc

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    #12
    The iMac Core 2 Duo will be as fast or faster than most low end dual CPU or dual core G5 Power Macs but it isn't going to come close to the speed of a quad G5 with mutlithreaded apps.

    My iMac Core 2 Duo flogs my old dual G5 1.8 but I'd never want to put it up against a quad. :)
     
  13. macrumors 65816

    macenforcer

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2004
    Location:
    Colorado
    #13
    PowerPC is dead.
     
  14. macrumors 68040

    dornoforpyros

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2004
    Location:
    Calgary, AB
    #14
    glad somebody said it
     
  15. macrumors 65816

    dartzorichalcos

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2007
    Location:
    Atlantis
    #15
    No, not the G5 computers. G5 computers are still good, especially the PowerMac G5 Quad.
     
  16. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2006
    #16
    I have a quad G5 with 4GB of ram as well. I use it for video editing.

    I was thinking in getting an Intel buy a friend of mine who works with video big time told me there is not that much difference yet in the real world.

    Now, between an iMac and a quad G5 I would take the G5 just because I can expand and replace basically everything on this computer.

    I have the original 256GB hard drive and I added a extra internal 600GB drive.

    I am planing to use this computer for live shows, I mean to take it on the road because I have a software for live presentations that can handle up to 7 video outputs. All I have to do is to add 3 more video cards to this computer and the footage will run from the extra hard drive using the entire bandwith of the logic board.

    I really like the iMacs but their value is less. A quad G5 (in this case) still a competitive computer beyond of what the iMac can offer.

    Think about this. You can add an internal blue ray drive to the G5 now days with no problem.
     
  17. macrumors 65816

    vohdoun

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2006
    Location:
    Far away from Earth.
    #17
    Your definition of dead isn't very good. Yes it's dead for new production but if it was dead Apple wouldn't be making Leopard PPC compliant, same goes for Creative Suite 3. And many others that are still making PPC software as well as Universal.
     
  18. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2004
    #18
    My guess is that your house-written program is, intentionally or not, heavily optimized for x86 and/or SSE. The vast majority of Mac software, including Universal Binary software, is optimized fairly well for PowerPC and AltiVec. As a result, most software runs as fast on a later-model G5 as it does on the current Core Duo and Core 2 Duo CPUs. [EDIT: note that I am not talking about the Mac Pros!]

    The G5 was (and is) a fearsome chip...the problem was (and is) that the G5 has no future. The G5 is a very powerful dead end. The Core roadmap has years of faster chips on the horizon. In addition, the Core architecture delivers the same performance at a lower temperature and with less electricity.

    For most every commercial application...Final Cut, Maya, and probably CS3 when it ships...4 G5s will beat 2 Core 2's.
     
  19. macrumors 65816

    Chone

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2006
    #19
    Don't make your post lose credibility, we all know clockspeed is not a defining factor, a single 2.0ghz Core 2 core would completely crunch quad 3.0 ghz quad netburst cores if they existed...

    As for the OP, I suggest you stay with the iMac C2D, the G5 will be faster for some apps but overall I'd just recommend staying with Intel, PPC is not dead but many stuff will stop supporting it eventually, better to stay with the mainstream, plus the C2D consumes less energy, is cooler and I bet performance is pretty much right up there with the Quad on some stuff and may even surpass it on others (especially non-multi thread apps).

    Thats just my recommendation.
     
  20. macrumors 68020

    someguy

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2005
    Location:
    Still here.
    #20
    Hm. My PowerBook is still very much alive and kicking.
     
  21. macrumors 65816

    MIDI_EVIL

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2006
    Location:
    UK
    #21
    Here, here!!!

    Rich.
     

Share This Page