New MacBook = My PowerMac?

darwen

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Apr 12, 2005
668
12
California, US
Ok, last summer I decided to buy a very nice desktop for editing, not to show off, just to have a great computer. Therefore I am not bummed if my assumptions are correct, I just want this cleared up.

My PowerMac...
Dual 2.0 GHz IBM Processors

New MacBook...
Dual Core 2.0 GHz Intel Processor

Now there are other factors like ram and Hard drive speed that may effect the outcome but based on the facts, isn't the Mac Book faster than my PowerMac? Wouldn't it be smart for me to sell my PowerMac and buy a faster MacBook? Isnt this ridiculous?

Like I said, I could care less about 'top of the line' as I did buy the low end PowerMac. I am just curious. Obviously benchmarks would prove such a question but I am just speculating.
 

MIDI_EVIL

macrumors 65816
Jan 23, 2006
1,320
13
UK
darwen said:
Ok, last summer I decided to buy a very nice desktop for editing, not to show off, just to have a great computer. Therefore I am not bummed if my assumptions are correct, I just want this cleared up.

My PowerMac...
Dual 2.0 GHz IBM Processors

New MacBook...
Dual Core 2.0 GHz Intel Processor

Now there are other factors like ram and Hard drive speed that may effect the outcome but based on the facts, isn't the Mac Book faster than my PowerMac? Wouldn't it be smart for me to sell my PowerMac and buy a faster MacBook? Isnt this ridiculous?

Like I said, I could care less about 'top of the line' as I did buy the low end PowerMac. I am just curious. Obviously benchmarks would prove such a question but I am just speculating.
I think if both had 2 GB of Ram (the max on the MBP) the results would show the MacBook Pro would be faster. The PowerMac though, can take 8 x the amount of RAM, so you could upgrade to 4 GB of RAM and you could probably run a lot more apps than on the MacBook Pro.

I think the Dual Core G5's are still very able machines, i wouldn't think about upgrading yet. Just hold out and enjoy your machine, it is a beautiful thing.

Maybe this time next year, upgrade to the current Revision of MBP as they might be able to take more RAM as they will be 64-Bit.

Enjoy your PowerMac!

Rich.
 

MRU

Suspended
Aug 23, 2005
25,318
8,813
Other
Of course the dedicated GPU / GFX Card
Faster Hardrive

Give the powermac the edge.

But as ^ says, give them both 2gb and for a lot of CPU tasks they'll be about the same.

But overall the powermac is more powerful and still a great computer.

There's no issues with apple releasing powerful laptops, it just means we have some really nice computers - full stop.
 

Sun Baked

macrumors G5
May 19, 2002
14,874
57
For MS Office, web surfing, piddling around -- they are about equal, since the time that the PM shave off window redraws and opening graphics isn't a lot.

But using the Pro video/sound/graphics/etc. the PM will probably be a bit faster.

Solely due to the ability of the machine to use more memory -- the case when 64-bit is better.

Even single channel DDR-3200 is faster than dual channel DDR2-5300, when you resort to using the HD for memory. 3200MB/s > 50-75MB/s
 

Macmadant

macrumors 6502a
Jun 4, 2005
857
0
No keep your powermac, it is far faster to your macbook, the G5 is a 64 bit processer and is much faster at equivalent clocks, the heat and performance per watt is the only thing that intel has the lead in, :)
 

Edge100

macrumors 68000
May 14, 2002
1,557
10
Where am I???
darwen said:
Ok, last summer I decided to buy a very nice desktop for editing, not to show off, just to have a great computer. Therefore I am not bummed if my assumptions are correct, I just want this cleared up.

My PowerMac...
Dual 2.0 GHz IBM Processors

New MacBook...
Dual Core 2.0 GHz Intel Processor

Now there are other factors like ram and Hard drive speed that may effect the outcome but based on the facts, isn't the Mac Book faster than my PowerMac? Wouldn't it be smart for me to sell my PowerMac and buy a faster MacBook? Isnt this ridiculous?

Like I said, I could care less about 'top of the line' as I did buy the low end PowerMac. I am just curious. Obviously benchmarks would prove such a question but I am just speculating.
Just looking at CPU power, my 2.0GHz CoreDuo iMac is equal or better than a Dual Core 2.0GHz G5, and keeps up with a Dual Core 2.3 G5. This is measured in Logic 7.2.

BUT...

The PM can be expanded much further than can my iMac. In fact, my iMac is already stretched as far as it can go, until the 2GB RAM sticks become reasonably priced, then I can go to 4GB. The PM, on the other hand, can go to 16GB today, can take multiple SATA hard drives, can have its GFX card upgraded, and so forth.

So if you're only interested in CPU speed, yes, your Macbook will likely be as fast as a 2.0GHz Dual G5 (which is simply awesome if you ask me, in one generation). But you really do get what you pay for, and the PM offers a lot for the price premium.
 

Edge100

macrumors 68000
May 14, 2002
1,557
10
Where am I???
Macmadant said:
No keep your powermac, it is far faster to your macbook, the G5 is a 64 bit processer and is much faster at equivalent clocks, the heat and performance per watt is the only thing that intel has the lead in, :)
Except, this isn't true. Look at the results posted over on the Apple forums with regards to the performance of Dual Core and Dual Processor G5s compared to CoreDuo iMacs and Macbook Pros in Logic 7.2. The 2.0GHz CoreDuo is AS fast or FASTER than Dual 2.0GHz G5s, and keeps up with Dual 2.3GHz machines.

The 64-bit question has NOTHING to do with it. There are numerous threads here discussing this issue.

I agree with you, however, that the original poster should keep the Powermac, but for other reasons. But it simply isn't true that the G5 PMs are much faster than the equivalently clocked CoreDuos.
 

eXan

macrumors 601
Jan 10, 2005
4,714
18
Russia
Dont bother "upgrading" your Power Mac - even if MBP will render faster, it will be only by a couple of seconds. Yes, you will also gain the ability to run Windows, but you loose a lot of PM's features like huge RAM capacity, 2 SATA buses, replacable GPU, ability to run 2 huge monitors, etc.
 

darwen

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Apr 12, 2005
668
12
California, US
Got it. So I should just upgrade everything so that my computer is faster than the macbooks?

....I am just kidding.

I understand there are advantages in owning a tower over a laptop, that is why I bought one. I just puzzles me that with one more update, there are laptops faster than my 'powerhouse' tower. I think it is amazing that the technology is advancing and it makes me happy, not upset. It does puzzle me non the less though.

I should probably read up on the difference between 64 bit and 32 bit. I remember hearing 64 bit was revolutionary when the G5s came out but I have never understood exactly why. Shame on me... I own a 64 bit machine and I don't even understand what makes it better than the 32 bit ones!

I am not going to get rid of my powermac. I promised myself when I got it a laptop would only be an addition, not a replacement. What I like about the towers is they update less frequently.
 

Sun Baked

macrumors G5
May 19, 2002
14,874
57
darwen said:
I should probably read up on the difference between 64 bit and 32 bit. I remember hearing 64 bit was revolutionary when the G5s came out but I have never understood exactly why. Shame on me... I own a 64 bit machine and I don't even understand what makes it better than the 32 bit ones!
Most processors are a mix of bits, and it don't really matter much.

The only thing we care to call 64-bit (is the memory bus.)

In the 32-bit world we can only use 4GB of memory, half of which is taken up by the VM manager for the HD -- leaving you with 2GB of RAM.

In reality most 32-bit processors, have 36-bit memory -- but it's rarely user outside the server world.

In the 64-bit world we can use more -- but are physically limited to 40/42-bit. Still more than a 32-bit unit.

---

Basically, it's all about memory.

3200 MB/sec vs 50 MB/sec

Slight difference if you have a large data file to manipulate, not much difference for the average user.
 

janey

macrumors 603
Dec 20, 2002
5,319
0
sunny los angeles
darwen said:
I should probably read up on the difference between 64 bit and 32 bit. I remember hearing 64 bit was revolutionary when the G5s came out but I have never understood exactly why. Shame on me... I own a 64 bit machine and I don't even understand what makes it better than the 32 bit ones!
the thing is most programs aren't designed to take advantage of 64-bit stuff. you might see a huge difference in performance between your G5 vs. an intel mac (until merom/conroe) in programs that do. for high-performance computing stuff (huge data processing, video stuff, scientific computing, etc.) it will make a difference.

However, benchmarks are no indication of how well a system can perform for your needs. For most people doing most things (email, web, office, school, small scale video and other intensive stuff, development, music, whatever!) it won't be a huge difference.

This becomes a moot point anyway with the upcoming Intel chips which are supposed to be 64-bit.

In the end though, yes, your powerhouse of a desktop is outperformed on most things by a little laptop like the MacBook, but that's not to say it's not a powerful computer. It's a great machine, and if it wasn't still so overpriced despite the Intel pro desktops looming on the horizon, I'd love to have one.
 

ChrisFromCanada

macrumors 65816
May 3, 2004
1,097
0
Hamilton, Ontario (CANADA)
Macmadant said:
No keep your powermac, it is far faster to your macbook, the G5 is a 64 bit processer and is much faster at equivalent clocks, the heat and performance per watt is the only thing that intel has the lead in, :)
I am sorry but that just isn't true. A 2.0GHz Core Duo beat the Dual 2.0GHz G5 here and in a good deal of other Benchmarks where universal apps are concerned.

However if you are considering going to a Macbook:
1. Beware of the integrated graphics, your G5's graphics are much better. Now a MBP may have faster graphics than your G5 but thats another story.
2. If you use the Adobe Creative Suite or Microsoft Office they will run significantly slower than your G5 because they will run under rosetta, so wait until they are universal in late 2006 or early 2007.
 

bodeh6

macrumors 6502a
May 18, 2005
772
0
The previous generation iMac G5 and especially the PowerBook G4 were absolutely no match for the then PM G5. Now that Everything is Intel, the PowerMac is looking weaker. I mean I can get a Dual Core 17" MBP with 7200 RPM HD and it will be faster then the current PowerMac in several areas. But once the PowerMac goes Intel, it will be top dog in all again.
 

Dreadnought

macrumors 68020
Jul 22, 2002
2,055
14
Almere, The Netherlands
The PM G5 also has a much faster systembus, working on half the speed of the cpu, DDR ram, a 7200 RPM HD and a (better) GPU, therefore it can access the different components much faster then a laptop and process it faster too. Also with more ram (above 2 GB) it will scream with rendering, etc. is faster then on a laptop. That said, hold on to your G5 for now, Apple still has some bugs to workout with the Intel procs. Just wait for the new PM towers, they will absolutely outperform the G5, and by then all the software will be converted to use the Intel procs native.
 

Macmadant

macrumors 6502a
Jun 4, 2005
857
0
zap2 said:
Some bench marks where a PM like your bets the MacBook Pro is almost
everything

so link to article were i got that chart
Thanks for proving me right, a dual g5 beating a dual macbook pro thats what i like to see, so i presume i was right. the G5 was too ahead of it's time and didn't have enough support from ibm, btw for those who are interested the G5 reached 3 ghz early feb
ChrisFromCanada said:
I am sorry but that just isn't true. A 2.0GHz Core Duo beat the Dual 2.0GHz G5 here and in a good deal of other Benchmarks where universal apps are concerned.

However if you are considering going to a Macbook:
1. Beware of the integrated graphics, your G5's graphics are much better. Now a MBP may have faster graphics than your G5 but thats another story.
2. If you use the Adobe Creative Suite or Microsoft Office they will run significantly slower than your G5 because they will run under rosetta, so wait until they are universal in late 2006 or early 2007.
 

janey

macrumors 603
Dec 20, 2002
5,319
0
sunny los angeles
Macmadant said:
Thanks for proving me right, a dual g5 beating a dual macbook pro thats what i like to see, so i presume i was right. the G5 was too ahead of it's time and didn't have enough support from ibm, btw for those who are interested the G5 reached 3 ghz early feb
?! :S
No. You can dig up your benchmarks all you want, but the G5 will be better at some tasks than the Intel machines and vice versa. Which is better is up to you and what you do with the computer.

And about the G5 vs. MacBook comparison, how the hell do you compare a laptop with a desktop seriously? Obviously the laptop isn't going to have half the sh*t that the desktop has because of space/power constraints.