Review: Dual 2.5GHz Powermac G5

Discussion in 'Product Recommendations/Reviews' started by invaLPsion, Sep 12, 2004.

  1. macrumors 65816

    invaLPsion

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2004
    Location:
    The Northlands
    #1
    I haven't seen a review of this type on MacRumors as of yet so I thought that I would offer my own modest thoughts...

    Looks: The Dual 2.5GHz G5 is a GIANT. It is nearly a quarter of an inch wider than any other G5, presumably due to the addition of liquid cooling. It is very heavy as well. While those factors may be viewed as cons this computer certainly is an eye-catcher inside and out. It is very aesthetically pleasing especially when paired with JBL Invaders or other silver computer accesories.

    Performance: Averaging around 250 on xBench, this computer blasts through any task thrown at it. Final Cut Express and Garageband scream on this computer. Games like COD, AAO, WoW, and WC3 also perform exceedingly well. "The multi-tasking abilities will blow your mind!" The speed difference is very noticeable from a 1.5GHz G4.

    Sound/Temp: The computer is whisper quiet as long as you aren't running Folding@Home. When you do, the fans will occasionally kick up and sometimes into high gear. The CPUs idle between 50-60 degrees Celsius, and increase under load.

    Suggestions: Make sure you get at least a gig of ram. This computer eats ram for breakfast. A Radeon 9800 wouldnt be too bad of an idea either...

    Overall: Speed - 10
    Cost - 6(should get 1 gig ram and 9800 for $3000)
    Looks: 9
    Expandability: 8
     
  2. macrumors 6502a

    FuzzyBallz

    Joined:
    May 2, 2003
    Location:
    Home of Al-Qaida
    #2
    Can you measure the width of the 2.5? Apple lists the width of Dual 1.8G to 2.5G as 8.1 inches. The weight is 44.4 lbs.
     
  3. thread starter macrumors 65816

    invaLPsion

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2004
    Location:
    The Northlands
    #3
    8.2 inches by my measurements... :)
     
  4. macrumors 68030

    johnnyjibbs

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2003
    Location:
    London, UK
    #4
    250 on Xbench? Wow! That's 2.5 times the score my PowerBook 12" 1GHz gets (~100)... wait, you have 2.5 times the clockspeed...and dual processors, not to mention better graphics card and faster hard drive and more RAM (faster too)! Guess the G4 is faster than the G5, clock for clock. :p Still, that's not bad going, and the G5 towers look very nice.

    I wish I had one... :cool: :D
     
  5. macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location
    #5
    Yeah, I would have expected 350 to 400 or something. :cool:
     
  6. macrumors G3

    QCassidy352

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #6
    I'm actually a little surprised by that xbench score myself. But maybe it's not a linear progression? Or maybe xbench results aren't terribly relevant to real-world usage?
     
  7. thread starter macrumors 65816

    invaLPsion

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2004
    Location:
    The Northlands
    #7
    Well, my Xbench score was 252.19 to be exact... :D

    If you try this baby out, it seems a lot faster than 252.19, I can guarantee you that...

    But, yep, my G5 ranks among the top 2.5s in xBench scores... :cool:
     
  8. Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #8
    From memory...

    I'm sitting at home now on a Sun night with a glass of wine and this is from what I can remember about our three at work which we installed last week...

    As invaLPsion said: they're big -- needed endless desk rearranging.

    Beautiful build quality but plasticy fragile light-weight CD/DVD tray.
    I like little touches like the flush-mounted mains plug at the back and clear insert on inside.

    (Laughed when I saw the sticker on interior:
    If you see liquid, please consult manual...)

    Right... as if the manual is going to tell you what to do. :)

    Machine is very fast esp. with 74gb WD Raptors as boot drive.

    Mostly quiet except when throwing huge job at processors
    (ie. 600ppi A4 CMYK + Alpha Photoshop file transformations/filters)

    Finder functions: minimizing windows etc. still slightly juddery. Tiger a-hoy!

    We put 2.5gb ram in: could do with more...

    Odd to think this'll be considered slow in 2-3 years time...
     
  9. macrumors member

    mr_mac

    Joined:
    May 1, 2004
    Location:
    Quebec, Canada
    #9
    Don't compare speeds with Xbench. My G5 DP 2GHz in reduced speed is barely faster than my ibook according to xbench... i say WHAT?????

    even in reduced speed, my G5 is like 10 times faster than my ibook 800MHz.

    It opens photoshop 500MB files in a snap and applies filters like nothing else... even in reduced speed. My iBook? a 500MB file?? ROTFL.

    Xbench is serious crap. And why the hell is my RAID 0 barely as fast as a stock G4 drive?? (according to xbench again) when in real life, it's about 5 to 6 times faster?? (3x160GB Serial ATA)

    Anyway, i love my G5.. and the 2,5GHz is probably even faster!!
     
  10. macrumors 6502a

    FuzzyBallz

    Joined:
    May 2, 2003
    Location:
    Home of Al-Qaida
    #10
    What is this reduced speed you keep bringing up?
     
  11. macrumors member

    Corrupted

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2004
    Location:
    Lewisville, TX
    #11
    Having the processor set on automatic instead of highest in the energy saving preference.
     
  12. macrumors 6502a

    FuzzyBallz

    Joined:
    May 2, 2003
    Location:
    Home of Al-Qaida
    #12
    WTF? I thought that's a notebook only option.
     
  13. macrumors member

    mr_mac

    Joined:
    May 1, 2004
    Location:
    Quebec, Canada
    #13
    I have 3 settings..

    automatic,
    highest
    reduced...
     
  14. macrumors G4

    Mord

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2003
    Location:
    Old York
    #14
    xbench sucks people stop useing it, it scores a radeon 9800 slower than a rage 128, you get like 400 on a ram test for no reason and the disk tests are ill representative, it is not g5 optimized or even aware of dual cpu's.
     
  15. macrumors G3

    Chip NoVaMac

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    #15
    Yeah, but some XBench tests of the G5's have not been this good up till now. We'll have to see the average of the dual 2.5's to get a real sense. If this is true, I think I have found my next computer (despite how nice the new iMac G5's are).
     
  16. macrumors G3

    Chip NoVaMac

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    #16
    XBench quick look

    After thinking about it I decided to look at the dual 2.0 and 2.5 XBench results. The average for the 2.0 is about 200 and the average for the 2.5 is about 250. That compares to 97 that I got on my 1.2gb PB 1ghz rev B.

    A quick look at other systems on the XBench site, it appears that there is a correlation between CPU speed and the XBench score.

    I did notice a better performance increase when I tested an eMac 1.25ghz verses my PB rev. B in a real world situation.

    Given that, is there a benchmark test that gives a "real world test"? Back in my old PC days I thought there were tests that showed the results one could realistically expect.

    For me the important tasks of performance is PS CS. InD CS, and Acrobat. Looking at some of the data, I have to decide what the difference based on the XBench test are worth; unless there are better test results out there.
     
  17. macrumors 6502a

    FuzzyBallz

    Joined:
    May 2, 2003
    Location:
    Home of Al-Qaida
    #17
    Damn xBench, gave my system a score of 204. Makes me wonder if the scores are predetermined by processor speed, or just model number.
     
  18. macrumors 603

    Mechcozmo

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2004
    #18
    Are you running the updated version of xbench? It has been updated to allow for G5s and Dualies. Just to let ya know.
     
  19. macrumors 6502a

    FuzzyBallz

    Joined:
    May 2, 2003
    Location:
    Home of Al-Qaida
    #19
    Lastest version from the source.
     
  20. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 27, 2004
    Location:
    Seattle Wa.
    #20
    xbench...*sigh* makes you wonder when a RAM disk gets about 20 lower in just the hard disk test than a regular hard drive. granted the hard drive is 7200 RPM but it still shouldnt be faster than a RAM disk should it? :rolleyes:
     

Share This Page