What is faster, 1.6Ghz G5 or Dual 1.25 G4?

Discussion in 'Macintosh Computers' started by Rezet, Aug 26, 2003.

  1. Rezet macrumors 6502a

    Rezet

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2003
    Location:
    Connecticut, United States of America
    #1
    Hey I was going to buy myself a decent desktop computer for now since laptops aren't coming out for a while, and I can live w/o them for now...

    I was wondering, should I get Single 1.6 G5 or DUAL 1.25 G4 loaded?
    I like G4 design better, and it would fit on my desk w/o moving anything, but that's not the most important thing...
    Can you tell me overall which would be faster, and which will have an advantage over another in different cases....
    If possible maybe you could provide some websites for me to check out...

    Thanks...

    Considering from the site below, G4 seems to be a bit faster:
    http://www.barefeats.com/g5sum02.html

    P.S. And BTW, how come I can't find DUAL 1.42 anywhere? It's like blown off the face of the earth or something... Even ebay only offer 2... I think 1.42 may become a collectable comp. in the future :)
     
  2. Lanbrown macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2003
    #2
    The current G4 offering is the old style; the 1.42GHz was the new offering and sported FW800. It looks like Apple cancelled all over clocked G4 processors in their systems. The probably didn't want the G4 getting to close to the G5 in terms of clock speed and performance. The 1.25GHz chips are probably cheaper as well.
     
  3. jxyama macrumors 68040

    jxyama

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2003
    #3
    what apps will you be using it for? dual processor aware ones will run faster on dual g4 while g5 optimized one will run faster on g5...

    i think dual g4 1.42 was terminated as soon as g5's came out... apple only kept the os 9 bootable g4's currently offered after g5 announcement...
     
  4. Rezet thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Rezet

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2003
    Location:
    Connecticut, United States of America
    #4
    OK lets see, outside of usual thingslike browing, burning and word processing etc, I will be dealing with Authoring, Digital imaging and perhaps some digital movie editing (nothing too heavy)...
    I can put G4 with better stuff...I can only spend around 1800 bucks... But with ed discount G5 1.6 comes for about same price but with less bang i guess... what do you think?
     
  5. MacsRgr8 macrumors 604

    MacsRgr8

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2002
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    #5
    It seems that Apple is merely using the "2002" version of the Dual 1.25 GHz (with 2 MB Lavel 3 cache), and for the Single the "2003" one. But with no FW 800, it seems the "2002-model" 1.25 GHz MDD G4 is what is now available.
    Don't forget that this one still can boot OS 9.

    I agree with jxyama: Dual processor optimized apps will run (a bit) quicker on the Dual 1.25, but apps in need of a faster FSB, higher clock frequency, faster RAM, faster Disk... and so on: G5. When the apps will get G5 optimized, well... then definitely the G5.
     
  6. Rezet thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Rezet

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2003
    Location:
    Connecticut, United States of America
    #6
    But why is this test site saying that 1.6 G5 perfomed worst in this second test already??? http://www.barefeats.com/g5sum02.html

    I really don't worry too much abour fw 800, and hdd i can also buy my own... FSB can be an issue with g4, but for some reason those dual processor g4 always seemed pretty snappy and performed quite nicely... I'm askign because I don't know anything about G5 really... and i guess most don't... but still nice to know opinions... right now im leaning towards g4 cuz of price, dual processor, looks and space... But again.. that's not as important as performance.. I'm open to suggestions...
     
  7. MacsRgr8 macrumors 604

    MacsRgr8

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2002
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    #7
    Well, check this: http://www.barefeats.com/g5sum.html

    I have a Dual 1.25 (2003-model), and it's gr8! It is very snappy, especially running Panther beta.... I'm very happy with it, so would you. But then.... I couldn't choose between this one and a G5. :D
     
  8. Rezet thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Rezet

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2003
    Location:
    Connecticut, United States of America
    #8
    wait how do i know which is 2002 and which 2003?
     
  9. MacsRgr8 macrumors 604

    MacsRgr8

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2002
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    #9
    2002-model can boot Mac OS 9, 2003 can't.
    2003 models include: 1.42 GHz, FW 800, and are bluetooth "ready", meaning no need for USB-Bluetooth adaptor.
    But the processors are exactly the same, as the FSB. So there are no speed differences, except:
    The 2002 model of the Dual 1.25 has 2 MB Level 3 cache, and the Dual 1.25 of 2003 only 1 MB Level 3 cache.

    So in short:
    The NEW Dual 1.25 Ghz G4:
    Dual 1.25 Ghz G4
    2 MB Level 3 cache per processor
    NO FW 800
    NOT Bluetooth ready
    Mac OS 9, Mac OS X

    The 2003 model:
    Dual 1.25 Ghz G4
    1 MB Level 3 cache per processor
    1 x FW 800
    Bluetooth ready
    Mac OS X only

    The 2002 model:
    The NEW Dual 1.25 Ghz G4:
    Dual 1.25 Ghz G4
    2 MB Level 3 cache per processor
    NO FW 800
    NOT Bluetooth ready
    Mac OS 9, Mac OS X
     
  10. macrumors12345 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2003
    #10
    Re: What is faster, 1.6Ghz G5 or Dual 1.25 G4?

    It depends on what you are doing.

    If you are running just one single threaded application, the G5 will definitely be faster.

    If you are running a memory bandwidth constrained appliation, the G5 will definitely be faster.

    If you are running multiple threads that use primarily integer and/or Altivec operations and are not constrained by memory bandwidth, the Dual G4 will be faster.

    If you are running multiple threads that use primarily floating point operations and are not constrained by memory bandwidth, the G5 may or may not be faster.


    You should note that Cinebench has not yet been recompiled for the G5. From the Maxon developer's comments, the recompiled version of Cinebench looks like it would score near the Dual G4/1.25 when running on a single G5/1.6. Also note that Cinebench is not memory bandwidth constrained and scales to 2 processors much better than most other multithreaded applications, so in some sense this is one of the best case scenarios for the Dual G4 (yet it still does not decisively beat the single G5). On the other hand, it is FP intensive, so it is not the absolute best case scenario for the G4.
     
  11. iPC macrumors 6502

    iPC

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2003
    Location:
    East Windsor, CT
    #11
    1.6GHz G5 for sure. Cram it full of memory. Any new apps will be G5 optimized, having a G4 will be a dis-advantage in 2 years.
     
  12. MoparShaha macrumors 68000

    MoparShaha

    Joined:
    May 15, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #12
    I faced the same situation a month ago. I could have gotten the G5 1.6 with the edu. discount, but opted for a 2003 FW800 dual 1.25. I didn't feel like waiting months for a new computer, I really believe in the advantages of dual processors, and as vein as it sounds, I really like the way the G4's look over the G5. I don't do any video editing, just surfing and basic programming. I've been more than thrilled, and I think in multi-processor apps, the dual G4 will be faster than the single 1.6 G5. Regardless of how fast the G5 is, its still only one processor. And remember, OS X itself is written to take advantage of mulit-processors. And one last thing, the G4's are far more expandable.
     

Share This Page