Old Dual 2.0 G5 faster than new 2.66 Mini?

[bzollinger]

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

 

[snouter]

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.

 

[nanofrog]

The new Mini is faster.

 

[Transporteur]

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.

 

[Willis]

The Mini by far is faster. Plain and simple. I'll see if I can find any benchmarks

 

[bzollinger]

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!

 

[OttawaGuy]

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

 

[snouter]

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.

 

[LeeTom]

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

 

[bzollinger]

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!

 

[cluthz]

The new i5 iMacs does 7500 in geekbench btw..
It's really good value for the money!

 

[bzollinger]

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

 

[cluthz]

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.

 

[snouter]

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.

 

[21ce]

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.

 

[bzollinger]

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.

 

[bzollinger]

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...

 

[Macinposh]

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.

 

[Darth Maynard]

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.

 

[Transporteur]

The iMac i5 does actually outperform the low end Mac Pro in most tasks.

That's the i7 you're talking about.

 

[bzollinger]

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....

 

[bzollinger]

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.

 

[cluthz]

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/143970/2009/11/core15_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.

 

[Transporteur]

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.