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

Power Mac G5 1.8 DP vs 2.3 DP

W

ww2_1943

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Nov 25, 2021
441
292
North NJ
Hello all,

I recently entered the world of G5 ownership and I am very taken by it. I found a 2004 1.8 DP machine locally for $45. It even came with a SSD already. I took most of it apart, with the exception of pulling the processors and motherboard. Cleaned it up, maxed out ram, and installed Sorbet Leopard. It works perfect.

As tends to happen, I kind of want more now! The 1.8 works great, but now I am curious if a 2.3 DP will be even better or is the difference really going to feel negligible?

The reason why I settled on a 2.3 is because it is still air cooled. I just don't want to mess with LC right now. If I am not really going to see or feel a difference, I rather not spend the money.

At this time I use my 1.8 for the internet and some games. I have been playing Medal of Honor Allied Assault at max settings and the computer doesn't even break a sweat. I may start to look into some video editing and Photoshop use. Even then, I don't think it will be anything too intense.
 
Last edited:
Dronecatcher said:
The 2.7 is liquid cooled.

Go for the 2.3 Dual Core - better CPU, more L2 cache and up to 16Gb RAM.
Click to expand...
Fixed the thread.

I just have to find one at a good price. I thought $45 was great for the 1.8. If I can find a price like that, it is a no brainer! I would be willing to pay more depending on how much ram is already installed. I'll just keep my eyes open and ear to the ground for one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheShortTimer and Amethyst1
Dronecatcher said:
You won't see a huge difference in performance until you're number crunching eg transcoding video or performing effects in Photoshop etc - that's the only time I felt a real difference between my 2.3 DP and my Quad.
Click to expand...
That is pretty much what I was thinking
 
Amethyst1 said:
…or compiling everything from source on FreeBSD or Gentoo Linux :D
Click to expand...
Free BSD seems to give people issues and there isn't a lot of supported software from what I gather. I never used or installed Linux on anything but I want to try on my G5. I am going to buy a small second SSD just to run Linux on.
 
Amethyst1 said:
On PPC it’s not quite smooth sailing but it’s very solid on x86.
Click to expand...
That is good to know. I should read up on it again but I thought I remembered reading there isn't really a good web browser for it and some other things. I could be wrong though.

I need to look through Linux distros for PPC again. It seems like the best ones are no longer updated.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Amethyst1
ww2_1943 said:
That is good to know. I should read up on it again but I thought I remembered reading there isn't really a good web browser for it and some other things. I could be wrong though.

I need to look through Linux distros for PPC again. It seems like the best ones are no longer updated.
Click to expand...
Maybe use the distro the Action Retro guy is using:
which is https://voidlinux-ppc.org using kernel 5.15.45 which is very recent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheShortTimer, Amethyst1 and ww2_1943
Clock speed alone will give you roughly a 27% increase in performance going with a 2.3GHz clocked system.

There are two different 2.3GHz G5 systems. One is a dual processor, single core 2.3GHz system whereas the other is a single processor, dual core 2.3GHz system. The latter is a year newer than the former. The dual core system has some differences in technology which separates it from the previous models. PCIe versus PCIx and DDR2 versus DDR memory being the most notable differences.

Thus if you're considering the purchase of a 2.3GHz system if you purchase the dual core version you'll be gaining access to improved technology over your 1.8GHz system. If you purchase the dual processor version you're essentially just buying a faster clocked version of your 1.8GHz system which will likely not be perceptible until you get into CPU heavy tasks (as already mentioned).

So, should you buy a 2.3GHz or stay with your current 1.8GHz rig? If you are considering the dual processor model I would say that unless you get it for a great price I would pass. If you are considering the dual core model then it would be worth paying more for it due to the improvements in other areas.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TheShortTimer, Amethyst1, wicknix and 1 other person
m1maverick said:
Clock speed alone will give you roughly a 27% increase in performance going with a 2.3GHz clocked system.

There are two different 2.3GHz G5 systems. One is a dual processor, single core 2.3GHz system whereas the other is a single processor, dual core 2.3GHz system. The latter is a year newer than the former. The dual core system has some differences in technology which separates it from the previous models. PCIe versus PCIx and DDR2 versus DDR memory being the most notable differences.

Thus if you're considering the purchase of a 2.3GHz system if you purchase the dual core version you'll be gaining access to improved technology over your 1.8GHz system. If you purchase the dual processor version you're essentially just buying a fast clocked version of your 1.8GHz system which will likely not be perceptible until you get into CPU heavy tasks (as already mentioned).

So, should you buy a 2.3GHz or stay with your current 1.8GHz rig? If you are considering the dual processor model I would say that unless you get it for a great price I would pass. If you are considering the dual core model then it would be worth paying more for it due to the improvements in other areas.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the info about the two machines. It sounds like the 2.3 dual core is the way to go!
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheShortTimer and Amethyst1
Due note however, as much as i like my 11,2 (dual core 2.3ghz) it is not fully supported by MorphOS. The built in ethernet and wifi will not work, but they do on the older G5's i have. Also mine came with an ATI x1900 gpu when i bought it, which no linux/bsd seems to support. Otherwise on OS X it's a beast. It shaved 1-1.5 hours off of compiling InterWebPPC vs my dual cpu 2ghz, and roughly 4 hours off from my single 1.6ghz G5.

Cheers
 
  • Like
Reactions: lepidotós, Amethyst1 and ww2_1943
I had one of each (the 2.3 dual core an dual processor) for a while and from what I remember the dual core is more silent and uses less energy but I like those machines being a Mac I mean, running macOs. Having said that and for the fun of thinkering I enjoyed more the dual processor, you can flash and put AGP and PCI cards, run more osx releases and it's more "comparable" with G4 machines meanwhile the dual core feels like another era of macs with very less expandability in Mac Os.

I manage to get a Quadro FX 4500 for the dual core obviously and the performance boost really wasn't too drastic, on the other hand, the dual processor had a GeForce 5200 and change it for a Radeon 9800 was very nice, the upgrades for the dual core always felling "meh", you never are going to use 16 gigs in Mac os X aside for testing, the pcie slots i only used to put a Mac pro airport card in an adapter. For the dual processor the story it's quite different,

The performance difference it's negligible, in a test session in Pro Tools 8 with software instruments and a couple of tracks with EQ, compressors, etc. if I remember correctly the difference was 3% (according to the resource monitor of Pro Tools).

I guess that depends on your enjoyment if you want more hardware compatibility in Mac os i suggest the 2,3 dual processor or keep your 1,8 not both but if you want it for using with linux it's better the dual core and keep your 1,8 for Mac os goodies. I never tried morph os on those macs btw.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheShortTimer, ww2_1943 and Amethyst1
NewbiePPC said:
I had one of each (the 2.3 dual core an dual processor) for a while and from what I remember the dual core is more silent and uses less energy but I like those machines being a Mac I mean, running macOs. Having said that and for the fun of thinkering I enjoyed more the dual processor, you can flash and put AGP and PCI cards, run more osx releases and it's more "comparable" with G4 machines meanwhile the dual core feels like another era of macs with very less expandability in Mac Os.

I manage to get a Quadro FX 4500 for the dual core obviously and the performance boost really wasn't too drastic, on the other hand, the dual processor had a GeForce 5200 and change it for a Radeon 9800 was very nice, the upgrades for the dual core always felling "meh", you never are going to use 16 gigs in Mac os X aside for testing, the pcie slots i only used to put a Mac pro airport card in an adapter. For the dual processor the story it's quite different,

The performance difference it's negligible, in a test session in Pro Tools 8 with software instruments and a couple of tracks with EQ, compressors, etc. if I remember correctly the difference was 3% (according to the resource monitor of Pro Tools).

I guess that depends on your enjoyment if you want more hardware compatibility in Mac os i suggest the 2,3 dual processor or keep your 1,8 not both but if you want it for using with linux it's better the dual core and keep your 1,8 for Mac os goodies. I never tried morph os on those macs btw.
Click to expand...
Good info!
 
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