If you use applications that will take advantage of all 4 cores, then the G5 will smoke the Mini. For video encoding etc, I would think the G5 is going to be a lot faster.
Doubtful in my opinion. That Core 2 Duo is generations ahead of the G5; combined with newer versions of software (also generations newer) and intel optimizations, I'd put money on the C2D being quite a bit faster than the Quad G5 for demanding creative tasks such as video encoding.
hi, thanks for great input. the thing is that i own the G5 quad and im using for home recording processes (logic 9). I'm thinking weather to switch to mini or no.
I would agree that its better to switch to something on which you can run all the latest stuff, but my only concern is that if you open up a heavy session on mini it can still run it!
The 2009 2.66GHz Mini gets a geekbench score of 3724. The G5 Quad gets 3301. Doesn't mean much though, the G5 has much more expandability. If you are trying to buy one or the other, I would get the Mini, unless you can find a ridiculously cheap G5 Quad for less than $500.
thanx for these great posts! It definitely makes things clearer! so seams like the latest mini with 8gb ram would still lose to G5 quad.
Thanks again for posts
If you want to run Classic, get a PowerMac G4 MDD and run MacOS 9.2 native.I dont know if expandability is worth arguing anymore. The only thing you would really want are bigger and more harddrives, and the new mini is fw800 capable. It is also easier to upgrade the ram in the mini now (maybe even easier then doing it in the G5).
My point is, why dump money into expanding the capability of the G5 when you are nearly at the end of software life for it. If you get a new mini there is nothing you can't run (besides classic, but that argument is waning too).
I have had both a 2005 G5 and a 2009 mini, my vote is for the mini.
If you want to run Classic, get a PowerMac G4 MDD and run MacOS 9.2 native.
Else get a Mini, the 2.66GHz unibody Mini has a geekbench score of ~4060. this is 1/4 more than the G5.
Well, your benchmarks are very close to the 2.4GHz MacBook, the 2.66GHz is still a bit faster. I can bench it, if you like.I don't really care what Geekbench says. On the applications I use, the Quad will still be a bit faster than the 2.66Ghz mini.
The advantage was -10 to 40%, with average around 20%. So by my estimation a Core 2 duo of ~2.9Ghz should be able to match the PowerMac Quad - which is still higher than the fastest Mac mini.Well, your benchmarks are very close to the 2.4GHz MacBook, the 2.66GHz is still a bit faster. I can bench it, if you like.
Note that not all the benchmarks listed there use the full capability of the 4 cores. For example, for Canon DPP, if I run simultaneous batches on the conversion jobs to max out the 4 cores (versus simulatenous to max out 2 cores of the core 2 duo) I get these results for 30 RAW 5D2 conversions:But, what happened to the "2.5GHz G5 is faster than 2.5GHz x86"? Was that compared to Pentium 4? And why the hell is a 2.5GHz Quad-Core G5 about as fast as a 2.4GHz Dual-Core C2D? Has it the IPC really gone that much higher on the Intel CPUs?
If you have the time, it would be interesting to see how single-threaded applications run on both machines, like unrar, so we can compare the power per core. It should take 1.5-2x as long to uncompress the same file according to those benches, but I guess it looks different in reality.
unrar isn't a good benchmark - too dependent on hard drive performance. Rar compression would be better. Not sure how multithreaded it is though. I can test tomorrow.