Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

How fast is a Quad 2.5GHz PowerMac G5?

EnderBeta

EnderBeta

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Aug 5, 2016
559
520
For reference I have a 2012 Mac Mini 2.3GHz i7, Late 2015 iMac 5K 4GHz i7, Early 2015 MacBook Pro 13" 2.5GHz i5, a Core i7 5930K gaming machine I built and even though I don't have it put together right now I have a Core 2 Quad Q9650 (four cores 3GHz from the Core 2 Duo days).

I figure the G5 2.5GHz quad setup is probably not as fast as my more modern machines but is it safe to say it is as fast as my Core 2 Quad Q9650 processor?
 
The Quad is still quite useable with software reasonably optimized to run on a G5, but most of the computers you list will leave it in the dust-your Core2Quad included.

I have a first generation Mac Pro that has been upgraded to the specs of a Mac Pro 2,1. It has dual quad core 3.0ghz processors, along with 16gb of RAM and an SSD. Even in its stock config(dual dual 2.66) it was faster than a Quad at most things, and with the current processors its no contest.

There are some VERY specific cases where a Quad MIGHT outperform it, but that's grasping at the straws. The best example where I've seen it myself is with Photoshop CS2 in OS X. CS2 is PPC native, and it pretty well leverages some G5-specific instructions. Rosetta doesn't emulate a G5, so for certain computationally intensive tasks in CS2 a Quad is faster than Mac Pro 1,1(I've seen it first hand-specifically when I'm applying lens correction filters to high resolution scans of 4x5 film, which are on the order of 800 million pixels). There again, though, that's a fringe use case, and for most everything else the Mac Pro is faster. Heck, when using CS3 or later for the same task, the Mac Pro rips the Quad to shreds since CS3 is universal.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: barracuda156 and Floydy
EnderBeta said:
Looks but no responses.... thanks for the help everyone.
Click to expand...

I think you must keep in mind that you're using computers that are a minimum of 11(ish) years old when using PowerPC. Raw performance isn't really the no1 concern tbh. PowerPC machines feel snappy even with lower end hardware but you can't really compare them to PC hardware. A Pentium 4 @ 3.06GHz should rip my 400MHz Sawtooth to bits but my Sawtooth still runs snappier than the Pentium 4 computer with Linux. You won't be doing 4K video encoding but it's still good for stuff that's ligther. Just don't expect tooo much out of an old PPC mac.
 
  • Like
Reactions: eyoungren and pochopsp
The Quad is the fastest PPC ever produced, but its advantage is that the OS hasn't been upgraded to contain all of the speed-sucking eye candy and internal features newer OSes have, like Sierra has with Siri, etc.

Benchmark and raw performance, the quad was bested by the Mac Pro within a couple years if not sooner.

What matters is that it does what YOU NEED it to do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dronecatcher
The quad is fast, but not as fast as any current Intel offering. Kind of sad, because those G5's really had some degree of potential to them. However, technology marches forward and PowerPC did not march with them, so we now have Intel Macs.

You'll have a decent experience with a G5 PowerPC. If your last PPC was a G4, prepare to be shocked by how nice the G5's really were. If you're coming from about anything else, you'll be disappointed save for the nostalgia value.
 
Remember that the computer only needs to feel fast enough for what you do. Browsing, emailing, ripping and editing audio, etc. I doubt anyone here is trying to do 4K stuff. It just didn't exist when the PPC was finally dropped by developers. What's frustrating is we probably CAN do more with our old machines, but the developers have left us behind.

Strip out the modernized services, and the G5 is no slouch, but for crunching real hard numbers, it's been surpassed several times over.
 
EnderBeta said:
Looks but no responses.... thanks for the help everyone.
Click to expand...
You expect an answer in three hours in a niche computer forum to a very vague question? I mean, what defines "fast"? Snappy interface? Raw performance? Video playback? I'm sorry, but maybe you should ask clearer questions and gain some patience. When working with PowerPC Macs, patience is key, so it'll do you very well!
 
  • Like
Reactions: philgxxd, topbanana_, jbarley and 1 other person
MysticCow said:
The quad is fast, but not as fast as any current Intel offering. Kind of sad, because those G5's really had some degree of potential to them. However, technology marches forward and PowerPC did not march with them, so we now have Intel Macs.

You'll have a decent experience with a G5 PowerPC. If your last PPC was a G4, prepare to be shocked by how nice the G5's really were. If you're coming from about anything else, you'll be disappointed save for the nostalgia value.
Click to expand...

PowerPC architecture did march, certainly. It is just Apple decided in favor of lower costs over higher quality. Years after, Intel is back to the garbage bin where it belongs :)

As for being disappointed: I use the Quad semi-daily for development and testing, it is decent even now. Sure enough, it is nowhere as fast as M1, but 20 years passed.
The only pain is using the web – but it’s not PowerPC fault, just a mere fact that developers dumped it for browsers. And, admittedly, portability. I’d pick G5 Quad in a laptop over whatsoever Intel any day, but it does not exist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AdamBuker
Thread is six years old. According to Geek-Bench results the Quad is about equivalent to a late 2006 Core2Duo iMac. I happen to own both computers and can run them side-by-side. The Quad has the advantage that it supports up to 16 GB of RAM and can use (for its time) a high-end graphics card. The iMac is limited to 3 GB of useable RAM, and has a non-upgradeable ca. 2006- laptop graphics chip. I believe the Quad edges the iMac running professional- apps that memory- and/or graphics- intensive and are optimized for the 64-bit PPC architecture. The 2006 iMac is better for everything else, and is a far simpler and more reliable machine.

The Quad was a fine machine in its day, but that day was very short and has come and gone. By 2009, the Quad was effectively obsolete. Imho, the Quad isn't a very desirable computer anymore unless you can get the liquid cooling system sorted out, which I have not been able to do, despite rebuilding it multiple times. If you're going to play with a G5, get an air-cooled one. If you want a Quad and are willing to pick it up, PM me. I'm located in SoCal.
 
Vastly depends on what you’re doing with it and how much bloatware your chosen OS has


A light weight OS just surfing the web, email and Netflix and stuff, that’ll be a rocket

Bloat ware OS running the latest games not as much
 
I run the 2.0 ghz Dual Core G5 that was released with the quad. I am quite happy with its performance for everything that I use it for. For the most part for anyone looking at at G5, I would probably recommend this or the 2.3 ghz Dual Core G5 over the Quad simply due to the air cooling vs liquid cooling and the fact that most PowerPC software does not take full advantage of multiple cores/CPUs. The major advantage of the Quad is if you're running multiple programs at once or doing something else like encoding video with MPEG Streamclip which can utilize multiple CPU cores. I have mine maxed out with 16GB RAM, 2 1TB SSDs, Radeon X1900 XT graphics card, and plan on installing a m.2 AHCI SSD via PCIe adapter to use as an editing drive for Final Cut Studio.

I use this thing for video editing, image editing, Apple IIe emulation and file transfer, writing, and playing PPC era games. The internet is the only real bottleneck for me as far as using this for a daily driver and for that I have my M1 Mini. While the M1 mini would be much faster and more efficient for some of these tasks, I like the software and user experience in Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard over macOS Sonoma and the modern day equivalent apps.

As with any vintage computer, if you upgrade it as far as it can go and use software of it's time period, you should have a fairly snappy machine.
 
And I'm still trying to figure out what @barracuda156 found so funny about my nearly 7 year old post. It was representative of my actual experience then, although in 2024 my Quad is in storage and as much as I'd like to dig it out for sentimental reasons, there are a dozen other higher priority computers...

I'm struggling to think of anything I'd do on a Quad that a Mac Pro 4,1/5,1 running 10.6.8 can't do every bit as well if not better while using less power. If I wanted to run SCSI peripherals, a G4 tower or MAYBE a PCI-x G5 is a better choice(but really a G4 so you don't drive yourself crazy finding a compatible card).
 
  • Like
Reactions: AdamBuker
bkmoore773 said:
If you want a Quad and are willing to pick it up, PM me. I'm located in SoCal.
Click to expand...

I actually do want a second Quad, but shipping it from anywhere abroad would cost unreasonable money (not to mention that nobody would want to ship it to begin with).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back