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

Just how far can we go?

performance and money

jrsx said:
But PPCs aren't like Classic Macs yet. They can still do pretty much anything any modern computer can do. If they can do it, I have no issue with PPCs.
Click to expand...

That's just the thing - they can't. If my G5 was capable of getting real work done, I'd be using it instead of the Pentium4 desktop that's replacing it.

jrsx said:
Their prices especially get me. Really cheap for a computer that still does everything? I'm down. But it's not just the price. There's something about PPC that makes it seem superior...
Click to expand...

Zotaccian said:
When talking about price and PowerPC Macs it brings up this fact that old x86 PC will bring far more bang for buck than PPC machine, so if thinking about investing money wisely in terms of what you can do with your investment, then PPC is a bad choice. When you look performance wise (performance per watt or in general) or software support wise.

It is difficult sometimed when you sell old PPC Mac and price it like a Mac is priced, higher than same age PC which offers more performance.. and then someone who knows nothing about Macs asks if this machine is good in web browsing, gaming etc. and if you are honest your answer would be that no, you can't even watch YouTube without pain. I also learned about Netflix not working on PPC after my friend wanted to show me some interesting show he had been following on Netflix, tried to log in and noticed that it doesn't work in this shiny aluminum machine which cost the same amount as used Core 2 Duo Windows machines cost back then (couple years ago, 1.67GHz model)....
Click to expand...

They are indeed still surprisingly valuable (pricey). G5s are still fetching $50-75+ on Craiglist, and you could use that money to buy a vastly superior x86 computer that doesn't require so much hand-holding.
 
Member2010 said:
That's just the thing - they can't. If my G5 was capable of getting real work done, I'd be using it instead of the Pentium4 desktop that's replacing it.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, why are you using a P4 instead of a G5? Look how P4s compare to G4s. And then think how the G5 is infinitely better than a crappy P4. Can't even believe you just said you were using a P4 instead of a G5 unless you needed to use Windows XP for some random task that was Windows-only. :mad:
 

Attachments

  • Picture 1.png
    Picture 1.png
    23.9 KB · Views: 86
jrsx said:
I'm sorry, why are you using a P4 instead of a G5? Look how P4s compare to G4s. And then think how the G5 is infinitely better than a crappy P4. Can't even believe you just said you were using a P4 instead of a G5 unless you needed to use Windows XP for some random task that was Windows-only. :mad:
Click to expand...

It depends on which P4. There was quite a large variation of P4 processors. 1.7GHz appears on the low end (I believe the slowest clock for the P4 was 1.3GHz so you're talking a fairly early P4).

With that said it's not so much the hardware as it is the software. Given the PPC was last supported in Leopard software support is more the issue than performance. A P4 could run a, until a few months ago, supported version of Windows. Many can still run a supported version of Windows.

Also, what is the benchmark for the graph?
 
You can run a virtualized Linux on PowerPC via VirtualPC 5.0/6.0/7.0, however for newer Linux drivers you'll need to poach the drivers ISO from VirtualBox 3.9 as Innotek wrote the drivers for Connectix/Microsoft pre-Oracle buyout of Sun and they didn't change until VirtualBox 4.0(which Oracle stripped certain freeware driver based features into the non-profit/home use "Extensions" add-on).

Linux distros which support a Pentium II to 2nd gen Pentium III(Coppermine) work in VirtualPC, however some need a command-line tweak as VPC emulates a Cirrus Logic VGA graphics.
 
pentium!

jrsx said:
I'm sorry, why are you using a P4 instead of a G5? Look how P4s compare to G4s. And then think how the G5 is infinitely better than a crappy P4. Can't even believe you just said you were using a P4 instead of a G5 unless you needed to use Windows XP for some random task that was Windows-only. :mad:
Click to expand...

reco2011 said:
It depends on which P4. There was quite a large variation of P4 processors. 1.7GHz appears on the low end (I believe the slowest clock for the P4 was 1.3GHz so you're talking a fairly early P4).

With that said it's not so much the hardware as it is the software. Given the PPC was last supported in Leopard software support is more the issue than performance. A P4 could run a, until a few months ago, supported version of Windows. Many can still run a supported version of Windows.

Also, what is the benchmark for the graph?
Click to expand...

It's not an ancient first-generation P4, it's one of the last (socket lga775) 64-bit variations. It's currently running Windows 8 x64 and other everyday applications fairly smoothly, largely thanks to the pci express slot on the motherboard and its ability to have halfway decent video cards installed in it.
 
Member2010 said:
It's not an ancient first-generation P4, it's one of the last (socket lga775) 64-bit variations. It's currently running Windows 8 x64 and other everyday applications fairly smoothly, largely thanks to the pci express slot on the motherboard and its ability to have halfway decent video cards installed in it.
Click to expand...


Some of the Pentium 4's were decent in standing the test of time. As I said earlier, some of them were poor performers and it didn't help that the "Pentium 4" name applied to both poor performing pigs and outrageously fast processors for the time. I think the P4 really took off when HyperThreading was introduced. That being said, the G5 benches higher than most P4's but the software kills its performance. It isn't so much that the P4 was better but rather that it was decent performer and software developers on Windows support old systems easily.
 
Altemose said:
Some of the Pentium 4's were decent in standing the test of time. As I said earlier, some of them were poor performers and it didn't help that the "Pentium 4" name applied to both poor performing pigs and outrageously fast processors for the time. I think the P4 really took off when HyperThreading was introduced. That being said, the G5 benches higher than most P4's but the software kills its performance. It isn't so much that the P4 was better but rather that it was decent performer and software developers on Windows support old systems easily.
Click to expand...

To me, the P4's were "outrageously fast" because they were clocked to be Easy Bake Ovens.

I think you're right about Hyperthreading, though. It allowed for a lot of power if you optimized the software for it, similar to speed gains from Altivec (but HT and Altivec worked very differently).

Intel hit the clock speed wall and had to do something to make their processors work faster. That's when we got the Core series. When the Core series happened, PowerPC was toast, because there was no way in hell they could keep up now. While we all love PowerPC (and I have three of them and will convert my old G4 tower back to an OS 9 machine soon), we also realize that Intel completely outclassed them the moment they went to Core.
 
MysticCow said:
To me, the P4's were "outrageously fast" because they were clocked to be Easy Bake Ovens.



I think you're right about Hyperthreading, though. It allowed for a lot of power if you optimized the software for it, similar to speed gains from Altivec (but HT and Altivec worked very differently).



Intel hit the clock speed wall and had to do something to make their processors work faster. That's when we got the Core series. When the Core series happened, PowerPC was toast, because there was no way in hell they could keep up now. While we all love PowerPC (and I have three of them and will convert my old G4 tower back to an OS 9 machine soon), we also realize that Intel completely outclassed them the moment they went to Core.
Click to expand...


It isn't so much the performance as early Core CPUs were out performed by G5s. Isn't the early Core line based on the Pentium III rather than the P4?
 
Altemose said:
It isn't so much the performance as early Core CPUs were out performed by G5s. Isn't the early Core line based on the Pentium III rather than the P4?
Click to expand...

According to Wikipedia, yes. That also might be due to the fact that P4's were clocked (and likely overclocked) to Easy Bake Oven status.

Yes, people still kept their G5's. The early Cores, I think, caught up and surpassed the G4's (that didn't take a lot, as G4's stagnated), which is why Apple made the switch.
 
Last edited:
MysticCow said:
According to Wikipedia, yes. That also might be due to the fact that P4's were clocked (and likely overclocked) to Easy Bake Oven status.

Yes, people still kept their G5's. The early Cores, I think, caught up and surpassed the G4's (that didn't take a lot, as G4's stagnated), which is why Apple made the switch.
Click to expand...

I was told that by a few I.T. people, that the Core Duo and Core 2 Duo were more so based off the Pentium III rather than the P4. The G5 was the current gen. CPU at the time of the Core introduction in desktops, and the G4 was current for portables.
 
Altemose said:
I was told that by a few I.T. people, that the Core Duo and Core 2 Duo were more so based off the Pentium III rather than the P4. The G5 was the current gen. CPU at the time of the Core introduction in desktops, and the G4 was current for portables.
Click to expand...

I was agreeing with you that the Core series was based on the P3. Wikipedia states this also. Sorry if I caused any confusion. :D

The G5 was indeedy doo the Mac desktop processor at the time. It's also why those G5's were the last ones replaced, as Apple needed something to be a heavier hitter than the G5 and the Core processors at the time weren't doing it. The G4's, however, got replaced in quick fashion because they were at the point where nothing was going to get them to catch up and G5 laptops were only a dream.
 
This message appeared today upon launching Spotify... The link does not currently lead to any page with more information on the matter, but it seems Spotify is going to do the same as Microsoft did with Skype.

I don't use Spotify that often (and I have my MacBook Pro for that) so it personally doesn't affect me much, but still sad to see them pull the plug too...

Edit: it seems I misinpreted that message (it's well past midnight and I should be asleep), at first I read it said Spotify will no longer be available for your platform. Updates have ceased a long time ago, right?
 

Attachments

  • Picture 1.png
    Picture 1.png
    35.3 KB · Views: 103
Last edited:
It's had that message on Spotify for several months now for me. Does that really mean they'll take down the servers for PPC? Or just stop providing updates?
 
hamis92 said:
This message appeared today upon launching Spotify... The link does not currently lead to any page with more information on the matter, but it seems Spotify is going to do the same as Microsoft did with Skype.

I don't use Spotify that often (and I have my MacBook Pro for that) so it personally doesn't affect me much, but still sad to see them pull the plug too...
Click to expand...

I read up on this subject a few months ago and from what I heard they have been doing this since they stopped supporting ppc in 2011
 
jrsx said:
It's had that message on Spotify for several months now for me. Does that really mean they'll take down the servers for PPC? Or just stop providing updates?
Click to expand...

I think I misread the banner and it means just no more updates – I just had never seen that banner before. I updated my original message :)
 
jrsx said:
Yup. And a pretty dang heavy dream at that. LOL! :D

Image
I have no idea where this picture originated but it would probably be pretty accurate considering the cooling it would have to implement!
Click to expand...

If it had dual dvd drive slots I would actually still want to buy this beast.......if it really existed ;)
 
Altemose said:
It isn't so much the performance as early Core CPUs were out performed by G5s. Isn't the early Core line based on the Pentium III rather than the P4?
Click to expand...

Yes, while G5s may have been faster, they were way too hot for portables, I understand that to be one of the main reasons, if not the main reason, for the switch to Intell

----------
hamis92 said:
I think I misread the banner and it means just no more updates – I just had never seen that banner before. I updated my original message :)
Click to expand...

That's been there for years. I doubt that anything will break soon.
 
Last edited:
MisterKeeks said:
Yes, while G5s may have been faster, they were way too hot for portables, I understand that to be one of the main reasons, if not the main reason, for the switch to Intell

----------





Thats been there for years. I doubt that anything will break soon.
Click to expand...


It was also power. Not only were the G5s hot, but they used a lot of power in the process. For a Core Duo and G5 to complete the task given, the Core Duo was slower but had a higher performance per watt ratio.
 
Altemose said:
It was also power. Not only were the G5s hot, but they used a lot of power in the process. For a Core Duo and G5 to complete the task given, the Core Duo was slower but had a higher performance per watt ratio.
Click to expand...

I still joke that my G5 could take the surge from an EMP attack and ask for more.
 
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