Moving up from PowerPC to Pro

At this point a 4,1 is hands down the better way to go. But both are going to be light years faster than a G5.

 

4,1 all the way, far more scope to keep it going for a few more years. The 3,1 is sadly coming to the end of its time. I am keeping mine going with updates as as when they are needed.

The 4,1 will give you a wider range of upgrades to keep it going for that little bit longer.

 

If you need to keep using your same apps/licenses, then you might be stuck with 10.6 (Snow Leopard). It was the last version compatible with PPC apps (using Rosetta). This would still be "dinosaur status", but Cretaceous era instead of Triassic.

Otherwise, I don't see a reason not to run the latest version of OS X (10.11).

 

With the 4.1 you can run the current Mac OS (El Capitan). It runs natively on the 4.1 There is a thread in this forum that goes into detail how to upgrade the 4.1 firmware into a 5.1 firmware. Well worth doing since you will now have access to the processor/memory the 5.1 has.

 

even a mac min is an massive massive upgrade from a G5, they score near or past most cmp's so worth a look + it will be new.

so have a look at a macmin, even the mac laptops are way faster than a G5 (and faster than some of the cmp) so you might also want to look at laptops.

the 3.1's are cheeper but the 4.1/5.1 mp's are faster.
amazed your still rocking a G5, nice to see some life left in them

edit if you are ruining software that old you may have to upgrade your software and or check it is compatible with newer versions of osx, if you cant afford to update all your software you may get OS locked in to osx10.5/10.6

 

I have a 2005 2.7 G5 and a 2006 Mac Pro both on my desk the Mac pro runs rings around the G5. The nice thing about a Mac Pro is 4 hard drive bays you can run 10.6.8 on one for older stuff like I do and a newer system on another drive.there are some great deals on 4.1's if you dig around good luck

Dave

 

I have created a Snow Leopard Server VM to run PPC apps I cannot do without. Rarely need it, but useful for those relics.

 

Yes, that's a good suggestion. I believe that Snow Leopard Server is still available from Apple, but you need to call (1-800-MY-APPLE) and order it. That's what I did several years ago; the price was $30.

 

I have a Snow Leopard build on my Mac Pro 3,1 to allow me use of my older software, it works well but I also keep another El Capitan Mac handy to run the new stuff. Virtual Machining a Snow Leopard box certainly looks like a good idea.
Welcome to 2009 Kristeva, I hope you enjoy the changes, speed and capacity are your new friends!

 

No even close!

https://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/2890148 7454 (multicore) (highest Mac mini score) the lowest cMP score from the 1,1 with the X5100's, is around 5408 (multicore) and as the 3,1 > concern they run at around 13347 (multicore)

Not saying a mini won't do the job! Just stating the intel you provide is incorrect.

 

I think a better example of how things have changed, is a direct comparison between the OP's G5 PowerMac and a more modern Mac Mini. In raw CPU terms an i7 Mac Mini from 2012 is well ahead: http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/compare/2598035/1989293
It also canes the early dual core dual CPU Intel Mac Pro: http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/compare/2598372/2598035

Not all Mac Minis were created equal and 1600MHz DDR3 RAM is very much faster than any DDR2 in a Mac Pro. Note these are GB2 scores as the PowerMac G5 doesn't have any GB3 ones.

 

I would always choose my Mac Pro 1,1

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/compare/2890148?baseline=6224674

And yes the Mac Pro scores are mine! The Mac mini is the highest scoring Mac mini on the site!

(to be honest, yes off course my cMP is fully upgraded)

 

Try this guy in USA - http://pindelski.org/Photography/technical/mac-pro/ when you buy the 4.1 !

Or these guys in UK www.create.pro

 

I would choose your fully specced Mac Pro 1,1 over many other Macs too, I was merely pointing out the serious improvement in CPU power and RAM speed over the older kit. A new Mac Mini has no upgrade path so it is a developmental dead end compared to a big box full of slots.

Btw, the 4 core i7 Mac Mini 2012 gives your MP 1,1 a proper run for its money even with all the bells and whistles installed in your box: http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/compare/6286602?baseline=6277186
Pay particular attention to the memory performance, 667 MHz DDR2 is very slow by today's standards.

Your 2014 MM example is crippled in multicore tests by only being a dual core faking 4 with hyperthreading. Highest single core score doesn't mean better performance overall if the CPU has half the cores missing on the 2014 model compared to one made just 2 years earlier.

 

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/compare/6286602?baseline=6224674 This is actual the mac mini with my cMP. Show my cMP is +4,84% stronger. (multicore) And as more and more of the pro applications are using multicore this is a big issue, at least that my opinion.

The Mac mini if found on geekbench isn't mine, i just took the scores of the highest scoring Mac mini

Edit:

The Mac mini i compared is the Late 2014 core i7 with 3.0Ghz (latest high spec mini available)

 

As I said, the latest model isn't the most powerful, having had a previously 4 core hyperthreading CPU replaced by one half the size.
The Mac Mini 2012 is a much better multicore performer and has been used as a mini server for networks with no issues in the past.
http://www.everymac.com/systems/app...-mini-core-i7-2.6-late-2012-server-specs.html
The fact that a quad core i7 Mac Mini is only 4% off the pace of your full on 8 core 3.0 GHz beast is largely due to improved CPU design and RAM that runs 3 to 4 times quicker. Something you can't actually do anything about due to the advanced age of your motherboard.
Now imagine if Apple still made an up to date Big Box Mac Pro with dual CPU slots that accepted i7 or equivalent Xeon CPUs. The current Mac Pro is very nice but a cMP design with dual Xeon and dual GFX cards would be an even bigger deal performance wise. Pretty sure they could sell a few too.

 

I would love to see them make that! An cMP with dual core i7 processor or next gen Xeon. Just thinking about that makes me happy!

 

As previously mentioned I have a Mac Pro Octo 2008 on Snow Leopard and a more modern i5 rig running El Capitan. This is where I spotted the difference in performance due to newer architecture:
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/compare/370497/2559151
A modern i5 CPU with only 4 cores beats the pair of Xeons at anything that 8 real cores aren't needed for and the memory test difference is insane, courtesy of overclockable DDR3 RAM at 2666MHz.

 

Wow. How difficult was it to overclock your RAM so much?

 

I bought a 4x4GB G.Skill 2666MHz kit (it comes with large heat sinks and its own fans) then set the motherboard bios memory controls to 2666MHz and a suitable voltage (1.65v in this case but it varies). Then saved changes in the bios and booted it up.
These guys show you how:
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/GSkill/F3-2666C11Q-16GTXD/

 

Wow. Amazing how easy it is... I find myself leaning more and more towards building a hackintosh for my next Mac with each passing day.

 

Hackintoshes are not that easy to build compared with just going to an Apple store and getting a credit card out.

I should have also mentioned that the i5 CPU I use is overclocked to 4 GHz in the BIOS too, overclocked memory benefits from a similarly speeded up processor.
Here are 32bit GB3 results with the baseline at 3.4GHz. Note OS X seems to identify clockspeed in the system profiler by chip ID not the actual frequency it is running at, so both CPUs appear to be running 3.4GHz, funny that one of them is a bit quicker....
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/compare/6318509?baseline=6222969

I set the RAM clock to 1600MHz base so the only mod is the CPU overclock.

This is a comparison with the 2013 27" iMac ($2000 worth in its day) with the same i5 CPU onboard, the overclock is even more visible: http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/compare/6318509?baseline=6318533

I conclude that laptop RAM is not as fast as desktop even at the same frequency settings.