Old G5 2.5 or Dual G5 2.3

[nihilisticmonk]

Guys,

I'm based in the UK, so will give UK prices,

I can get a Boxed old G5 Dual 2.5 powermac for £1700.82
A New 2.7 would cost me £1999
The new 2.3 is £1699.

is the old 2.5 a good deal or will I miss out on anything?
Obviously, it's still a blindingly fast machine, but I want a bargain, not to pay over the odds for an older machine.

I'm not bothered about dual layer burning and the graphics can be updated at a later date.

What do you say, 2.3 or the 2.5? or even hold off purchasing for now...
HELP!

 

[NCTRNL]

Guys,

I'm based in the UK, so will give UK prices,

I can get a Boxed old G5 Dual 2.5 powermac for £1700.82
A New 2.7 would cost me £1999
The new 2.3 is £1699.

is the old 2.5 a good deal or will I miss out on anything. I'm not bothered about dual layer burning and the graphics can be updated at a later date.

What do you say, 2.3 or the 2.5?
HELP!

Actually, from the reviews that I have read, the dual 2.3 is actually right around the same as the 2.5's because of the faster hard drive...that's what I read on Macworld's reviews...

More surprising was the dual-2.3GHz system’s performance. Not only did it approach the older dual-2.5GHz Power Mac G5’s times, the slower processors in the new desktop didn’t stop it from barely beating the previous champ in our overall Speedmark suite. The reason? The dual-2.3GHz Power Mac’s speedier 250GB hard drive.

http://www.macworld.com/2005/05/news/powermacbenchmarks/index.php

 

[amac4me]

Guys,

I'm based in the UK, so will give UK prices,

I can get a Boxed old G5 Dual 2.5 powermac for £1700.82
A New 2.7 would cost me £1999
The new 2.3 is £1699.

is the old 2.5 a good deal or will I miss out on anything?
Obviously, it's still a blindingly fast machine, but I want a bargain, not to pay over the odds for an older machine.

I'm not bothered about dual layer burning and the graphics can be updated at a later date.

What do you say, 2.3 or the 2.5? or even hold off purchasing for now...
HELP!

I love my 2.5 system ... it's amazingly fast. I too read the review that the 2.3 is faster ... mainly because of the hard drive.

 

[nihilisticmonk]

That's a great link, Thanks!
None of the UK sites have reviews of the new range up yet.

Looking that the difference is just minimal, like 0.59 compaired to 1.06 on photoshop with the 2.3 compaired to the 2GHZ, perhaps I'm best saving a bundle of cash and going for a dual 2Ghz...

Hmmmm, I must admit, I'm so confused about biding my time, hoping for better specs fighting against my urge to get a powermac now....

 

[DakotaGuy]

You might be better off with the 2.3Ghz in the long run because it is air cooled. The 2.5 is going to be a little more complicated with the liquid cooling. I am not aware that the liquids have any real maintenance problems, but down the road a person never knows.

 

[SpaceMagic]

I'd most definitely get the 2.5Ghz.. and buy a faster hard disk later! Defo

 

[Church]

What makes the HDD faster in the 2.7 and 2.3 than the 2.5?

 

[ncc1701]

The 16mb buffer!

 

[topgunn]

The 16mb buffer!

They only have 8MB buffers. The speed increase should be minimal. See storagereview.com. It shouldn't account for the 200MHz speed difference between the machines especially in tests that aren't dependent on the hard drive.

 

[Rincewind42]

They only have 8MB buffers. The speed increase should be minimal. See storagereview.com. It shouldn't account for the 200MHz speed difference between the machines especially in tests that aren't dependent on the hard drive.

Note however that in these tests the machines were configured with "only" 512MB of RAM. Given the tests they were doing, that means that your going to likely be hitting virtual memory (i.e. the HDD) often. Therefore, HDD performance ends up mattering more than it might otherwise in all tests. If they re-ran these tests with each machine configured for 2GB of RAM instead, you might see more of a difference between the 2.3 and the 2.5.

 

[topgunn]

Anyone find it odd that the New 2.0GHz bested every other PM tested, other than the 2.7GHz, in the iMovie render by at least 17%?

 

[wilmor42]

topgunn- where d'you see that? is it on the apple site?

 

[topgunn]

Actually, from the reviews that I have read, the dual 2.3 is actually right around the same as the 2.5's because of the faster hard drive...that's what I read on Macworld's reviews...



http://www.macworld.com/2005/05/news/powermacbenchmarks/index.php

Here

 

[Brandhaus]

So if you just upgrade the HD in the 2.5, will it be faster than the 2.3?