G5 vs. Intel Core

Gav

macrumors regular
Original poster
Jun 23, 2007
185
0
Hey all. I currently have an iMac, based on the Intel Core processor (1.83Ghz).

I was wondering, how would its dual 1.83Ghz Cores stack up against a Dual 1.8Ghz PowerMac G5, or a Dual 2.0Ghz G5?

I'm really getting into the whole Audio/Video production-vibe, and I'm handling large image files more and more.

I've stacked the specs up below, but I know that just because something looks better on paper, it may not be in real life!!!

Also, you'll notice I listed two different Dual 2.0Ghz, one with the 512K Cache, and one with the 1MB Cache (Also different Memory Speeds), are these much better?

----------------------------------------------------

Intel iMac


Processor 1.83GHz Intel Core Duo - 32 Bit
L2 Cache 2MB Shared
System bus 667MHz
Memory 2GB 667MHz DDR2 SDRAM (PC2-5300)
Graphics ATI Radeon X1600 with 128MB GDDR3 memory
Audio Built-in stereo speakers, built-in microphone, headphone/optical digital audio output, audio line in.

PowerMac G5 M9032LL/A - M9455LL/A - M9455LL/A - M9747xx/A

Processor Dual 2Ghz G5 - 64 Bit
L2 Cahce 512K Per Processor
FSB 1Ghz Per Processor
Memory 2GB PC3200 (400Mhz) RAM
Graphics Ati Radeon 9600 Pro - 64MB
Audio Optical digital audio in, optical digital audio out, analog audio in, analog audio out, front headphone minijack and speaker

PowerMac G5 M9454LL/A - M9454LL/A

Processor Dual 1.8Ghz G5 - 64 Bit
L2 Cahce 512K Per Processor
FSB 900Mhz Per Processor
Memory 2GB PC3200 (400Mhz) RAM
Graphics Nvidia GeForce FX 5200 - 64MB
Audio Optical digital audio in, optical digital audio out, analog audio in, analog audio out, front headphone minijack and speaker

PowerMac G5 M9590LL/A

Processor Dual 2Ghz G5 - 64 Bit
L2 Cahce 1MB Per Processor
FSB 1Ghz Per Processor
Memory 2GB PC2-4200 (533Mhz) RAM
Graphics NVIDIA GeForce 6600 LE with 128MB of GDDR SDRAM
Audio Optical digital audio input, optical digital audio output, analog line-level input, analog line-level output, front headphone minijack and speaker
 

BornAgainMac

macrumors 603
Feb 4, 2004
6,386
3,268
Florida Resident
The G5 will double as a portable heater in your home. You will need a separate device to heat your home with Intel.

And it will run slower than your Intel Core so you have time to go get a cup of coffee while you wait.
 

SuperCompu2

macrumors 6502a
Jul 23, 2006
852
1
MA
Although the iMac has a slight edge in benchmarks (if at all), you'll still have the expandability of the PowerMac's PCI slots and RAM capacity. Also, you'll be able to upgrade opticals more easily than with a slot loading drive required for the iMac.

For now, the G5s are excellent machines for the type of work you want to be doing. Especially so if the programs you use are PowerPC based.

(if you wanted, you could even run recording stuff for OS 9!)
 

Gav

macrumors regular
Original poster
Jun 23, 2007
185
0
Thanks for the advice guys. I currently have the aforementioned Intel iMac.

After looking at the bare feats page, I got a mixed impression. Is there any need for me to upgrade? (After selling this, and buying a second hand G5, it would probably cost about £50/$100)

One thing that does interest me, is the possibility of extra RAM, and the 64-Bit chip.

Ahh... soo many numbers!! I'm even considering the possibility of Quad 2.0Ghz Mac Pro, which I presume would wipe the floor with every computer that has been mentioned in this thread, at everything?
 

FireArse

macrumors 6502a
Oct 29, 2004
890
101
Mac Pro alternative

Just quickly, my personal opinion - the Mac Pro would cost a great deal to kit out with RAM than the G5. Check with Crucial.com/uk

If there's a dual 2GHz G5 or 2.3, go for it. Up the RAM to at least 4GB RAM. Get the NVidia 6800 Ultra (or faster) and you'll have a machine that'll fly.

That'll definately be great for your needs now. As for heating? Take your socks off! :)

F
 

mgargan1

macrumors 65816
Feb 22, 2003
1,218
0
Reston, VA
Do you have a budget that you would like to stick to?

How much does it cost you to have your computer be a little bit slower?

Ask yourself how much money you're going to save in the long run by getting a new machine...
 

zioxide

macrumors 603
Dec 11, 2006
5,737
3,711
Don't buy a G5. PPC is dead technology. You would be better off selling up and buying a used Core 2 Duo iMac if you want 64-bit.
 

eXan

macrumors 601
Jan 10, 2005
4,714
18
Russia
You will probably be fine with a G5, but I suggest that you save up and get a low-end Mac Pro instead. Its MUCH more future proof, more expandable and definately 3-3.5 times faster than both CD iMac and dual G5.
 

mgargan1

macrumors 65816
Feb 22, 2003
1,218
0
Reston, VA
Don't buy a G5. PPC is dead technology. You would be better off selling up and buying a used Core 2 Duo iMac if you want 64-bit.
I'm not sure it's safe to say that PPC is "dead technology". The Wii uses PPC technology, along with many industrial computers. In-fact, the G5 is still a very good processor, and just because Apple is using Intel processors right now, doesn't mean that they're going to discontinue their support of G5 chips for a while.

While I agree that the Intel chip is better in certain aspects, the G5 is better in some areas when compares to the Intel Core T2xxx series.

This is very similar to when people say that when Apple releases a new machine, the predecessor it subsequently "obsolete". This is certainly not the case.

Yes, the PPC user base isn't as strong as it once was, but it's certainly not "dead".
 

eXan

macrumors 601
Jan 10, 2005
4,714
18
Russia
I'm not sure it's safe to say that PPC is "dead technology". The Wii uses PPC technology, along with many industrial computers. In-fact, the G5 is still a very good processor, and just because Apple is using Intel processors right now, doesn't mean that they're going to discontinue their support of G5 chips for a while.

While I agree that the Intel chip is better in certain aspects, the G5 is better in some areas when compares to the Intel Core T2xxx series.

This is very similar to when people say that when Apple releases a new machine, the predecessor it subsequently "obsolete". This is certainly not the case.

Yes, the PPC user base isn't as strong as it once was, but it's certainly not "dead".
I think its more appropriate to say that PPC in Macs is dying architecture. PPC Macs are still usable, but they are not as fast as Core X Macs and already some software is being released as intel-only.
 

Angrist

macrumors 6502
Mar 11, 2005
335
0
MI or NJ
I think its more appropriate to say that PPC in Macs is dying architecture. PPC Macs are still usable, but they are not as fast as Core X Macs and already some software is being released as intel-only.
That speed is still process dependent, some software (server) packages are significantly faster on a G5 than on a Core/Xeon. Regardless, the move to Universal Binaries has broken a lot of the ties between processor architecture and OS. If next month or next year an new IBM PPC offers something that Intel doesn't, Apple can through that in a machine without any hassle.
 

mgargan1

macrumors 65816
Feb 22, 2003
1,218
0
Reston, VA
I think its more appropriate to say that PPC in Macs is dying architecture. PPC Macs are still usable, but they are not as fast as Core X Macs and already some software is being released as intel-only.
I would agree with that... but it's certainly not "dead"
 

shipdestroyer

macrumors 6502
Jun 5, 2007
267
0
New Hampshire
Using Handbrake to encode DVD to H.264 video averages 2 frames per second on my rev. B G5 iMac and 20 fps on my rev. A Macbook.

I'm not sure if the iMac's optical drive is the same speed, but it's still a big difference.
 

xUKHCx

Administrator emeritus
Jan 15, 2006
12,587
6
The Kop
Using Handbrake to encode DVD to H.264 video averages 2 frames per second on my rev. B G5 iMac and 20 fps on my rev. A Macbook.

I'm not sure if the iMac's optical drive is the same speed, but it's still a big difference.
Well the iMac should have a faster 7200 rpm drive. On my iMac G5 rev A encoding in H.264 i was getting about 10 fps (so i don't know why yours is so low). I was using 1500kbs and 2 pass with deinterlasing. With the same specs n my Core 2 duo iMac i'm getting about 25 fps. So i'm seeing a direct 2.5x increase in performance from 1.8Ghz G5 to Core 2 Duo 2.16Ghz.
 

Angrist

macrumors 6502
Mar 11, 2005
335
0
MI or NJ
Using Handbrake to encode DVD to H.264 video averages 2 frames per second on my rev. B G5 iMac and 20 fps on my rev. A Macbook.

I'm not sure if the iMac's optical drive is the same speed, but it's still a big difference.
I think the newer models have hardware support for H264 .... which significantly speeds things up.
 

combatcolin

macrumors 68020
Oct 24, 2004
2,283
0
Northants, UK
Don't buy a G5. PPC is dead technology. You would be better off selling up and buying a used Core 2 Duo iMac if you want 64-bit.
Not dead yet, but soon to be sent to the knackers yard.

Scrounge around the Apple store and buy a refurb Mac Pro with lots of RAM and a newer graphics card if you like playing games.
 

Gav

macrumors regular
Original poster
Jun 23, 2007
185
0
I'm going all out and getting a low-end Mac Pro. Yes, I may have to put up with a CRT screen for a while, but it'll be worth it !
 

eXan

macrumors 601
Jan 10, 2005
4,714
18
Russia
Using Handbrake to encode DVD to H.264 video averages 2 frames per second on my rev. B G5 iMac and 20 fps on my rev. A Macbook.

I'm not sure if the iMac's optical drive is the same speed, but it's still a big difference.
What settings are you using?

I encode on H.264 iPod profile, 1400 or 1500 kbps, AAC 128 kbps, 640xXXX no de-interlacing, single-pass and here are average results:

iMac G5 rev. B 2 GHz 1.5 GB RAM: about 11 fps
MacBook Core 2 Duo 2 GHz, 4 MB L2 cache, 1 GB RAM: about 29 fps.