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

Powermac G5 quad 2.5Ghz vs 2011 Mac Mini?

My G5 Quad is unable to play my 1080p Blu-ray rips but my 2010 1.4ghz C2D Macbook Air played/streamed all my HD content with no hickups.

Now my G5 would crunch my DVD conversions like there was no tomorrow. 4 cores are definitely better when you have software optimized for what you are doing.
 
go for the 2011 mini, its a lot more powerful. choose the one with the good GPU. and your good to go not to mention that you'd be future proof.
 
thunng8 said:
Please provide some real world benchmark figures or just keep silent. I provided some numbers that show the G5Quad was quite a lot faster than the Mac mini Core 2 Duo. They were all the latest versions and were universal binaries, so not some obscure highly optimized software only for PowerPC.
Click to expand...

Took a look at those benchmarks. You are correct that it does show the G5 to be a little bit faster in processor-intensive tasks. In none of the comparisons did the G5 blow the MBP out of the water. It certainly wasn't faster enough to warrant a purchase of the G5 over the C2D Mini.

Having used both a G5 and a late-generation Mini, I can say that the Mini feels faster. Benchmarks are great, but not everything.

VanneDC said:
that mba has hd BR hardware decoding built in on the chip :)
Click to expand...

Macs do not have native BluRay decoding in the system or on "the chip" (which chip are you talking about, I'm assuming the GPU). Modern Macs have built-in H.264 acceleration, but that's hardly universal HD acceleration.
 
Tucom said:
The 7800GT, 7800GTX, and ATI Radeon X1900XT Pro (check "Pro") will mop the floor with the 320...
Click to expand...

http://www.extremetech.com/computing/77000-radeon-x1950-pro-benchmarks/2: X1950 Pro (not the 1900 Pro,) 5135 in 3DMark06.

http://hothardware.com/Reviews/ATI-...1900-XT-256MB-X1650-Pro-and-X1300-XT/?page=12: X1950 XTX, 6149 in 3DMark06.

http://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Radeon-HD-6630M.43963.0.html, Radeon 6630M (in the just-released mini,) average 6950 in 3DMark06.

The X19xx cards were benchmarked on the then-top-of-the-line systems. High-end Core 2 extremes, Athlon 64FX, etc. The 6630M is an average of a bunch of laptops. And the 6630M isn't known for being in high-end laptops.

Yes, the GeForce 320M is slower, http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GT-320M.25099.0.html, 4706 in 3DMark06 on average. But that's still within spitting distance of the X1950 Pro.

Even the Intel HD 3000 graphics score in the 3600-range: http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-HD-Graphics-3000.37948.0.html. (The entry for the quad-core mobile chip, like in the mini Server, is 5275 - better than the X1950 Pro.)
 
Sorry, no. The HD3000 is much weaker than the old 320M and it doesn't hold a candle to an X1900.

Even the MOBILE X1900 scores better in every category than the 6630m.
 
VanneDC said:
The Mac Pro is in my studio, i use the G5 for daily nerding and playing doom3 and Kotor, and playing around with installs and crap.

Pretty much cant afford my mac pro to have downtime due to me stuffing or corrupting it due to playing games/crap on it :)
Click to expand...

You know you might want to think about just getting another hard drive and installing another OS for backup if it's that critical... always good to have a backup on any computer.
 
Oh, and guys... stop comparing memory speed. If you run out of RAM with an 8GB setup, I don't care if you're running 5.33 GHz DDR4, you're going to do better with 16 GB of PC4200 DDR2.

Why? Common sense. Fast or not, when you run out of RAM you hit your hard drive... suddenly, your RAM is only as fast as your mechanical (or SSD, if you're lucky) storage. And that's slow.

Shame the G5s don't recognize 4 GB DIMMs.
 
MacSince1990 said:
Oh, and guys... stop comparing memory speed. If you run out of RAM with an 8GB setup, I don't care if you're running 5.33 GHz DDR4, you're going to do better with 16 GB of PC4200 DDR2.

Why? Common sense. Fast or not, when you run out of RAM you hit your hard drive... suddenly, your RAM is only as fast as your mechanical (or SSD, if you're lucky) storage. And that's slow.

Shame the G5s don't recognize 4 GB DIMMs.
Click to expand...

True enough, but it all depends on the task, and for audio work 8GB of the faster stuff will be better to far better than 16GB of slower RAM, not that PC-4200 even by todays standards is really all that bad for audio work (not sure if it would be that noticeable either).


And the Quads can take 32GB with only 8 DIMM slots.
 
ForI said:
Sorry, no. The HD3000 is much weaker than the old 320M and it doesn't hold a candle to an X1900.

Even the MOBILE X1900 scores better in every category than the 6630m.
Click to expand...



Why was this guy banned? This post is sound and legit :confused:
 
MacSince1990 said:
Oh, and guys... stop comparing memory speed. If you run out of RAM with an 8GB setup, I don't care if you're running 5.33 GHz DDR4, you're going to do better with 16 GB of PC4200 DDR2.
Click to expand...

You're right that more RAM is faster than not enough RAM, even if it's slower RAM. However, which is faster when you're not running out of space? Oh, right, the faster RAM. Besides, if you're going to go over 8 GB RAM, there's absolutely no way you'd even be considering the Mac Mini, as the OP is.

Faster RAM is better, unless you need more RAM than the machine can hold. Also, the new RAM is far, far cheaper. 16 GB RAM for a PowerMac G5? Ridiculous.

So, yes, I will compare speeds. It's a comparison of speed, not capacity. Your argument is all about capacity, not speed.

Tucom said:
Why was this guy banned? This post is sound and legit :confused:
Click to expand...

Most likely he didn't get banned for that post. I imagine he posted in other threads beside this one.
 
Now, I haven't done any specific benchmarking or anything (not worth my time) but take this for what it's worth...

I am the owner of a recording studio and we recently just replaced our aging Power Mac G5 from mid 2005 with a new Mac Mini Server. As of right now, I'm just using the MMS with the stock 4GB of ram. The G5 was a dual core 2.3, 8GB RAM, fast internal drives, dedicated audio drives, and ran Pro Tools and Logic. Had both Tiger and Leopard (different partitions) running Logic Pro 8 and 9. A session that wouldn't even PLAY BACK (literally, you hit the space bar and it would drop out - sometimes you got maybe a second out of it) on the G5 plays back flawlessly on the new Mac Mini Server with the CPU usage showing about 40% in Logic. This specific session is loaded with plugins and pushing 100 tracks. It's a huge session but the Mini handles it without any problems.

Now, I don't know why, nor do I really have the time to care or debate it... I simply know that the new Mini Server SMOKES my old G5. Yes, I realize that this isn't the exact comparison of this thread, but thought I would at least share my experience. I am MUCH more happy now. It's incredible how much faster the new minis are than 5-6 year old power machines.
 
For what it's worth according to Geekbench the G5 Quad is at 3284 and the Mini 5839..

There really truly is only one benefit to a G5 and that is expandability. Even then you're better off with a first gen Intel Mac Pro considering the G5 is unreliable, unsupported, and still relatively expensive.
 
iThinkergoiMac said:
Took a look at those benchmarks. You are correct that it does show the G5 to be a little bit faster in processor-intensive tasks. In none of the comparisons did the G5 blow the MBP out of the water. It certainly wasn't faster enough to warrant a purchase of the G5 over the C2D Mini.
Click to expand...

44% in one of the benchmarks is fairly significant in my books.


Having used both a G5 and a late-generation Mini, I can say that the Mini feels faster. Benchmarks are great, but not everything.
Click to expand...

Most likely due to the faster single threaded performance on the Core2Duo processor. There are still a lot of tasks that are still single threaded.
 
Last edited:
maybe just drop this thread as sure we can agree to disagree. Minis faster for some apps, PM is faster for others...
 
cdinca said:
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!)
Click to expand...


Definitely the funniest thing I've read on the net in a while. I've just been sat on my own, laughing out loud to myself!
 
luke.mac1 said:
Definitely the funniest thing I've read on the net in a while. I've just been sat on my own, laughing out loud to myself!
Click to expand...

+1

Really though, anyone reading this: go with the mini. Please. My Power Mac is sooo slow these days!
 
That is your powermac right there in your sig? You only have 512mb on there. Might need to increase its size, and it will not be so slow anymore.
 
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