Powermac G5 quad 2.5Ghz vs 2011 Mac Mini?

Discussion in 'PowerPC Macs' started by MacintoshMaster, Jul 13, 2011.

  1. MacintoshMaster macrumors 6502


    Jan 16, 2010
    Hi there,
    Which computer would be faster for sibelius and logic studio 8?
  2. bizzle macrumors 6502a

    Jun 29, 2008
    Hang on, let me ring up Steve Jobs and ask him the specs of the 2011 Mac Mini.

    I am sure the Mini will be faster.
  3. Hrududu macrumors 68020


    Jul 25, 2008
    Central US
    Sibelius 6 requires an Intel processor according to their site, so that takes care of that one. Logic 8 will run on either, but its hard to say which would be faster. Obviously multithreaded tasks will benefit from having 4 cores over 2 in theory, but I really don't know how much of Logic is built to take advantage of either processor type.
  4. OrangeSVTguy macrumors 601


    Sep 16, 2007
    Northeastern Ohio
    The 2011 Mac Mini isn't released yet so we don't know :)
  5. HyperZboy macrumors 65816

    Feb 7, 2007
    That's arguable. These INTEL people who keep ranting that a Mac Mini is always faster than a G5 make me laugh.

    First off you're talking about programs that require lots of memory.

    The max on the G5 is 16 GB.

    The Mini ? 8GB and not as easy to upgrade.

    The graphics on the Mini would be faster as a stock item, however the G5 is easily upgradeable to seriously much faster graphics and it would be easy to find a tricked out G5 on Ebay. Not so with the Mini.

    The Mini's processor itself would technically be faster, but I'm not so sure it would make much of a difference with Logic if you had tons of memory on the G5.

    Plus there are so many expansion options still on the G5 for musicians with the PCIe slots.

    As a former really bad musician, I'd go with the G5 or better yet, get the 1st model of the Intel Mac Pro used if you want serious longevity.

    On stage, I could see the Mac Mini being useful for its compactness, but not as useful in the studio.

    That's my 2¢.
  6. Tucom macrumors 65816


    Jul 29, 2006
    Unless you plan on using JUST Logic 8 and other now outdated PPC appls, go for an Intel Mac.

    I have a G5 Dual Core 2.3 here and it screams for the apps that DO run on it, but no newer apps will ever run on it in the near for-seeable future.

    And 8GB is way more than enough for Logic I'd imagine, and it's faster memory, so it in theory could it not equal that of 16GB in a G5?

    The G5's are still killer rigs, but again can only run oudated software, and if I didn't have a C2D Mac Mini as well, I wouldn't have this G5, but having both is pretty sweet, and vs. a 2.16 Ghz C2D Mac Mini w/ 3Gbs of RAM, the G5 overall feels faster, but again, outdated for support.

    So yeah, at least one (if not more than one Mac, then only an Intel) Intel Mac all the way.
  7. Cox Orange macrumors 68000

    Jan 1, 2010
    Logic 9 was released some time ago, which would better fit the mac mini than Logic 8 (since it was optimized to run under 10.5 Intel, now Intel is at OS 10.7). I recommend though asking in a logic user forum.

    Apple says about Logic 8 in connection with OS 10.6 (Intel only):
    * The following Apple Audio Units have a Details disclosure triangle and are potentially affected by this issue:
    o AUDelay
    o AUDynamicsProcessor
    o AUMultibandCompressor

    There are some other threads to that special question, maybe they will help you http://www.google.de/search?q=Quad+...&rls=org.mozilla:de:official&client=firefox-a

    Ask Chrismacguy in the forum here. He services and uses Macs that run Logic Studio a lot.

    Your decision depends a bit on what audiohardware and software you allready have and not have. You could still keep logic 8 for its printed handbook and the serialnumber and upgrade to 9 for about 100eur (ebay), when buying an Intel with 10.7.
  8. PowerGamerX macrumors 6502a


    Aug 9, 2009

    The Mini may max out at 8gb of ram but the ram is much faster than a G5, also, even the best graphics card you can get for a G5 is worse than the 320m in a Mac Mini (unfortunate but true).

    That said, you can get G5s for cheap now so if it works for you why not. Just keep in mind that PPCs are effectively dead as far as software support.
  9. Tucom, Jul 14, 2011
    Last edited: Jul 14, 2011

    Tucom macrumors 65816


    Jul 29, 2006
    Sorry but that coming from someone with the name "gamer" is really head scratching as depending on what you mean, in terms of pure graphical muscle that's so completely untrue it's hilarious -

    The 7800GT, 7800GTX, and ATI Radeon X1900XT Pro (check "Pro") will mop the floor with the 320...

    Or, at least beat it by a far amount, no? No real offense..just checking facts if that makes sense.

    What IS true however is chances are that the 320 will be getting graphics updates possibly in the future as it'll most likely be supported for a while yet, unlike aforementioned cards as they're only available in PowerPC machines.
  10. UnitedAlliance, Jul 14, 2011
    Last edited: Jul 14, 2011

    UnitedAlliance macrumors newbie

    Jul 13, 2011
    Unless the mini is offered with a quad core CPU, it ain't gonna happen.

    GeForce 320M 330th
    Radeon X1900 GT 134th

    The 320m scores 309 vs the X1900's 791. So clearly you've got a major lack of knowledge on the subject.

    Even the "Intel HD" GPU on the i-series CPU that will be used in the next mini scores only slightly better than the 320m (Intel HD 326score, 314th), but is still only a fraction of the power of the X1900.
  11. MattA macrumors 6502


    May 15, 2006
    Orlando, FL
    I had a Powermac G5 1.6 for several years. Yes, it's only a single core, but I had put a Radeon 9800 Pro in it along with 2GB of memory. It wasn't a bad box at all, ran Leopard just fine, etc.

    My 2009 Mini runs circles around it. Even with the much slower 9400m (compared to the 320m), it beat the crap out of it.

    Sorry, but the G5 is past its prime.
  12. cdinca macrumors 6502

    Jun 13, 2007
    an additional benefit of the quad 2.5 is that it can help to heat a small home. I had 2 dual 2.7s in my home office, and I seriously considered installing vents to feed that heat to the rest of the house. You can store a chocolate bar on top of a mac mini (not a guarantee!)
  13. UnitedAlliance macrumors newbie

    Jul 13, 2011
    Thats because you had a slow POS model. The 1.6 was made for people that wanted PCI slots but couldn't afford an actual computer. Only the dual 1.8 and up models can be considered "real" PowerMacs.
    The 1.6 today would be like configuring a MacPro with a dual core i3.
  14. iThinkergoiMac macrumors 68030

    Jan 20, 2010
    My MacBook benchmarks faster than the best stock configuration of any G5. Benchmarks aren't everything, for sure, but they're a good indication.

    Yes, you're also talking about DDR3 vs 533 MHz DDR2 (at best). 8 GB of DDR3 is faster (and far, far cheaper) than 16 GB of DDR2 533 MHz.

    Any GPU you can get for the G5 that's faster than the 320M would have to be a flashed PC card. And then the G5 wouldn't run too many applications that could truly take advantage of it (Logic certainly won't).

    I'm quite sure it would. The C2D is way faster than the G5, and with 8 GB RAM, you've got plenty. 16 GB is most likely not necessary for the OP's situation. I've got 6 GB RAM, I do Photoshop and FCP work, and I go for days without ever using any swap space at all.

    A very good point, no argument there.

    Mac Pro, yes. G5, no.

    The fact of the matter is that PPC is a dead architecture. There is no reason to buy a PPC Mac unless you have software you need to run that requires a PPC Mac (or nostalgia/utter lack of money). The G5 was a great machine, and is still fairly capable. However, it's just not worth it.

    Get an Intel Mac, you'll be much happier.
  15. iThinkergoiMac macrumors 68030

    Jan 20, 2010
    Looking at the specs none of these are available for the G5. Are you talking about flashed cards?
  16. thunng8 macrumors 6502a

    Feb 8, 2006
    Powermac G5 Quad vs 2010 Mac Mini

    I did some benchmarks last year in this thread if anyone is interested:


    Conclusion: PowerMac G5 quad still faster than the 2010 mac mini for CPU intensive tasks.

    - Cinebanch
    - Canon DPP
    - Blender
    - A Photoshop filter
    - Quicktime 7.6.6 export

    - Slightly slower for Handbrake

    The 2011 Mac mini with likely updated Sandy Bridge CPU would probably topple the Powermac Quad.
  17. thunng8 macrumors 6502a

    Feb 8, 2006
    The Powermac G5 (Late 2005) had as official BTO options the Nvidia 7800GT or the Nvidia Quadro FX4500.

    There was also the ATI X1900GT Mac Edition available to buy outside of Apple.
  18. dontwalkhand macrumors 601


    Jul 5, 2007
    Phoenix, AZ
    This question is relative to what you're doing, and what kind of software you plan to run.

    In the case of Universal Binary or PPC apps, the G5 will be faster (or the only option).

    With Intel apps, the choice is obvious.
  19. UnitedAlliance macrumors newbie

    Jul 13, 2011
    Besides the 7800GT, Quadro and ATI X1900.
  20. Jethryn Freyman macrumors 68020

    Jethryn Freyman

    Aug 9, 2007
    As far as graphics go, I'd also say that the G5's optional NVIDIA 6800 Ultra and ATI Radeon X800XT would be faster than the Mini's NVIDIA 320M.
  21. Nameci macrumors 68000


    Oct 29, 2010
    The Philippines...
    This Quad Powermac does not take AGP gfx cards that you stated. They take PCIe cards, and the fast cards were ATI x1900, Nvidia 7800 GT or 7800 GTX and Quadro FX 4500...
  22. iThinkergoiMac macrumors 68030

    Jan 20, 2010
    While some of the G5's faster cards may be somewhat faster than the Mini's, the Mini can better utilize its card between Intel software and OpenCL.

    Either way, the OP is looking to use Sibelius and Logic. GPU isn't really an issue here, so why bring it up? The OP would most definitely be better served by a current Mini over any G5.
  23. chrismacguy macrumors 68000

    Feb 13, 2009
    United Kingdom
    Okay, so background to my answer: (1) I use PowerPC and Intel Macs (Mac User since '94) and (2) I have been using DAW Systems since 2000, from ProTools 5 and Logic I believe 5 or 6, not sure, but anyway, a Long Time.

    My recommendation from an AUDIO PRODUCTION point of view:

    Get the Intel Mac Mini. While it, under certain conditions, under certain circumstances could potentially be slightly less fast than a PowerMac G5 Quad using a specific G5 optimized rendering application, it is easily the better choice both for DAWs and looking forward. PowerPC Based Macs are no longer suitable to have as your main Recording Mac if your just starting out on the Mac, or only have limited external hardware (ie USB/FW Based Interfaces) (obviously if youve been recording on the Mac since pre-history and have large amounts of random audio hardware on shelves like me, my advice differs, as then you have older project files and lots of other specialised PPC tools kicking around - If you are even considering an Intel mac, this cannot be the case, as you would only consider PPC Macs if you had PPC only-never-to-be-updated-tools, or only a Mac Pro if you required Internal Expansion Cards for your interfaces).

    Firstly, graphics are not in anyway important to the issue here, so we can safely ignore that argument, as both systems can happily drive a 30" Display, no bother, and if your considering a Mac Mini, you dont need expansion, as if you did, you would never even consider a Mini. (Also, the Minis RAM is very easy to upgrade on the new design, you just flip it over and open the door and Boom, there it is - much better now than in the old ones, so that argument is moot.) Also, the amount of RAM is not really going to be an issue unless your looking at 100+ Tracks, and if that was the case, you again wouldnt be looking at a Mini under any circumstances (Or a G5 Quad - Neither CPU would be able to keep up). 8GB will be fine. My Main Audio Production Mac only has 12GB, and I rarely go above 8 unless Im video editing, never had it go above 8 doing Audio Work (Even with all 4 DAWs up and Running, and Soundtrack Pro and Waveburner together).

    Secondly, Intel Macs are the best looking forward, because as your experience with the Mac (and Audio in General) grows (we're all learning), you'll acquire more and more tools to let you do more things (I started with just ProTools on a PowerMac, now I have Logic Pro, ProTools, Digital Performer and Reason all in use as each does somethings well, and others less so), and as time progresses finding the PowerPC Versions of these tools is becoming harder and harder. (I had to acquire some Logic Pro 7 Discs for a client recently, it took me a Month to find a source that could supply me the application disks, serial, XSKey and the documentation for a reasonable price, its a similar situation for older versions of ProTools). If you choose to follow my advice and go the Intel route, upgrade to Logic Pro 9, as its much faster and more compatible on Intel Machines (I tested Logic Pro 8 on my MacBook, and a G5 could equal it despite the G5 being Dual 1.8, and the MacBook Dual 2.1, with Logic Pro 9 the MacBook is about twice as fast as the G5), and having the latest version of Logic always helps when it comes to working out how to get plugin X to work with it. The last advantage of an Intel Mac Mini is that it lets you run the latest version of Sibelius, which again is a massive bonus over the G5 (Same reasoning as for Logic Pro 9).
  24. ReanimationLP macrumors 68030


    Jan 8, 2005
    On the moon.
    I would assume, going forward, the Mini is a better choice due to Apple discontinuing all support for the PowerPC G5.

    You can easily drop 8GB of RAM into it by removing the bottom door, if not 16GB when those sized modules come out (Don't hold me to this).

    I would wait for the refresh though.
  25. alexreich macrumors 6502a


    Jan 26, 2011
    Uh, no.

    2010 Mac Mini is the easiest machine on earth to upgrade RAM in. The bottom is a freaking turnable access door to the RAM.

    Just sayin'

    -Alex :apple:

Share This Page