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

Quad 2.5 G5 VS Quad 2.0 Xeon

SuperKerem

SuperKerem

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Oct 29, 2012
863
260
Hi again,

As some may know, I currently have a quad G5. I have the option of buying the oldest, cheapest Quad 2Ghz Intel Xeon Mac Pro. Apart from compatibility wise, which CPU is more powerful? And by how much?
After all, the G5 is clocked higher!

Thanks.
 
If using "modern" software, that has properly-tuned ports for both PowerPC and Intel binaries, the Xeon will be slightly faster. If using PowerPC-specific software, the G5 will be way faster.

And the Xeon gets you modern compatibility. (Install a new video card, and you can even run Yosemite with a few tweaks. And it will be perfectly fast.)
 
What would the geekbench scores be roughly? (My Quad G5 gets 3600-3700)

----------

Also, would the Nvidia 7300 GT be enough to run Yosemite?
 
keremtezcan said:
Hi again,

As some may know, I currently have a quad G5. I have the option of buying the oldest, cheapest Quad 2Ghz Intel Xeon Mac Pro. Apart from compatibility wise, which CPU is more powerful? And by how much?
After all, the G5 is clocked higher!

Thanks.
Click to expand...

This is useful for comparing Macs:

http://www.everymac.com/ultimate-mac-comparison-chart/?compare=all-macs

On figures alone, the Xeon looks to have a 25% advantage - I can't imagine any situation where the Quad would beat it unless the Xeon is using PPC code through Rosetta.

Many of the first tests of the Xeon Pro were unfair as there was little software written for Intel at that time.

It'll be an interesting comparison if you go for it - which you should :)

EDIT: As a side note, when I had my Quad, I was using it for freelance graphic design running Adobe CS3 - at the same time, my 9-5 day job was graphic design on an i7 quad core PC running Windows 7 & CS5....using the Quad was better in every way despite the performance difference.
 
Anonymous Freak said:
If using PowerPC-specific software, the G5 will be way faster.
Click to expand...

Really? Looking at the geek bench scores for both I'd have imaged the Mac Pro would destroy the G5 in every way possible. :/

----------
Dronecatcher said:
my 9-5 day job was graphic design on an i7 quad core PC running Windows 7 & CS5....using the Quad was better in every way despite the performance difference.
Click to expand...

Well I think comparing those two systems is night and day software wise ;)
 
tevion5 said:
Really? Looking at the geek bench scores for both I'd have imaged the Mac Pro would destroy the G5 in every way possible.
Click to expand...

Nope - for PowerPC-specific software, the G5 will definitely be faster than early Intel systems. Also, if your PowerPC-specific software is 64-bit, the G5 will blow away the Intel, as the PowerPC emulation on Intel systems is only 32-bit.
 
Anonymous Freak said:
Nope - for PowerPC-specific software, the G5 will definitely be faster than early Intel systems. Also, if your PowerPC-specific software is 64-bit, the G5 will blow away the Intel, as the PowerPC emulation on Intel systems is only 32-bit.
Click to expand...

Ahh so you are picking out PPC software specifically? Would the same then not be true if we were to compare a native program of identical function on each system?
 
I would think, all things being equal, that the Intel machine would nevertheless be somewhat kinder on your electrickery bill. Might not matter so much in the US but is definitely a concern for us Europeans.
 
tevion5 said:
Ahh so you are picking out PPC software specifically? Would the same then not be true if we were to compare a native program of identical function on each system?
Click to expand...

Yes, he is referring to PowerPC software specifically. For software native to each architecture, the Xeon would win.

----------

The main reason to get a first-gen quad Mac Pro over a quad G5 is compatibility with modern software and even Yosemite with a little effort. The Xeon CPU is a little faster.
 
redheeler said:
Yes, he is referring to PowerPC software specifically. For software native to each architecture, the Xeon would win.

----------

The main reason to get a first-gen quad Mac Pro over a quad G5 is compatibility with modern software and even Yosemite with a little effort. The Xeon CPU is a little faster.
Click to expand...

I thought as much. There was a reason PPC was abandoned by Apple after all. I must say though, already owning a 13" MBP for modern use...I would hands down pick a Quad G5 if given a choice between the two. The cool factor is just impossible to ignore on the most powerful PPC Mac. I'll get one some day...

I've got an interview for a job in a local hotel while I'm off college this summer, so if I get it, I know the first thing I'll be saving for. My girlfriend will have to come to terms with my priorities.
 
Its 2015. If the price is good, then I'd go for it. The Quad G5 was a great machine, but the Mac Pro gives you so much more value in software it wins the game. Even if the MP is slightly slower in a few tasks, isn't it worth it having Lion and even Yosemite as an option? Hell, even if you love Leopard, you can still run that too. Just don't pay too much, as the thing is 9 years old.
 
tevion5 said:
Ahh so you are picking out PPC software specifically? Would the same then not be true if we were to compare a native program of identical function on each system?
Click to expand...

Correct. I stated that the Xeon would win in software optimized for both architectures, but that the G5 would win for PPC-specific software.

For example, if you own a copy of Adobe Photoshop CS2 which didn't yet support Intel - and can't afford a newer copy, the G5 would be a better choice. Especially since CS2 supports 64-bit on PowerPC - if you deal with very large files, it will be significantly better on a G5 with native 64-bit than on an Intel emulating a 32-bit PowerPC.

If you have CS3 or later, though, the Intel would win, since CS3 has Intel-native binaries in addition to the PowerPC binaries.
 
Is £180 a good deal for the Mac Pro mentioned above, quad 2Ghz Xeon, 6GB RAM, INCLUDING a 23' Aluminium Cinema Display? :)
 
keremtezcan said:
Is £180 a good deal for the Mac Pro mentioned above, quad 2Ghz Xeon, 6GB RAM, INCLUDING a 23' Aluminium Cinema Display? :)
Click to expand...

£180 = $283

I'd say that's a pretty good deal from a US prospective. I've only seen a couple Quad 2.0 models around, most of the first generation are the Quad 2.66. Generally the Quad 2.66 sell for $200-$300 and the 23" ACD for $150. That said, I bought a second 23" ACD for $80/$90. There is a Quad 2.0 on eBay for $125 in mediocre cosmetic condition. 180 pounds looks like a fair deal to me.

If you're using the computer as your daily driver, I'd go for it. The Intel Macs have much better compatibility with the modern world. I had a Dual 1.8 G5 and have the 2008 2.8 8-Core Mac Pro. For native apps they feel the same, obviously emulation will slow things down. Java and Flash support will make your web browsing experience substantially faster. Power consumption is much better, the lights don't dim as much when I fire it up. The G5 made a noticeable impact on my electricity bill. It's also interesting how much heavier the G5 was.

Also remember that the 1st gen Mac Pro is limited to 10.7 (without modifying the EFI, video card, etc). Rosetta support stops in 10.6.
 
PowerBookG4tw said:
*perspective

Noticed you spelling it like a numpty a couple of times now. At least Matthew can spell properly.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry the experimental grammar curriculum my elementary school failed me. In the future I will attempt to meet your level of perfection.

Now that you know that, I'm glad your profile was literally created just to tell me that. Clearly you've been around here long enough to know who Matthew is.

(Sorry, your "hi" post on the welcome thread doesn't count.)
 
A.Goldberg said:
I'm sorry the experimental grammar curriculum my elementary school failed me.

I'm glad your profile was literally created just to tell me that. Clearly you've been around here long enough to know who Matthew is.

Sorry, you're "hi" post on the welcome thread doesn't count.
Click to expand...

Been around since 2013. More of a lurker. This account wasn't just created to smite you.

I'm just incredibly impatient when it comes to grammar.
 
PowerBookG4tw said:
Been around since 2013. More of a lurker. This account wasn't just created to smite you.

I'm just incredibly impatient when it comes to grammar.
Click to expand...

I guess I'm flattered I'm the first person's spelling mistakes you've commented on in 2 years. It must be that bad.

Edit: I suppose I am being impolite not welcoming you to posting. Welcome.
 
I've owned a bunch of G5s and a 2.66 Mac Pro and unfortunately the MP does better in everything in terms of performance/availability of new software.

Now lets say the Quad and MP were both on Leopard, I could see the G5 doing much better than the MP as the apps would more than likely still be tuned more for PowerPC than they would be for Intel.

Just depends what you want to do. I'd personally go with the MP if it is a good deal for you. But if you get the G5, props to you for keeping another PPC alive for a daily driver :)
 
PowerBookG4tw said:
Been around since 2013. More of a lurker. This account wasn't just created to smite you.

I'm just incredibly impatient when it comes to grammar.
Click to expand...

Ha! Trust me, you won't last long here.

----------
gavinstubbs09 said:
I've owned a bunch of G5s and a 2.66 Mac Pro and unfortunately the MP does better in everything in terms of performance/availability of new software.

Now lets say the Quad and MP were both on Leopard, I could see the G5 doing much better than the MP as the apps would more than likely still be tuned more for PowerPC than they would be for Intel.

Just depends what you want to do. I'd personally go with the MP if it is a good deal for you. But if you get the G5, props to you for keeping another PPC alive for a daily driver :)
Click to expand...

Well, the thing is, I already have a Quad G5.That's why I'm not so sure, but it does come with a Cinema Display so.... Very tempting. :p
 
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