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

Which PPC desktop gives the most bang for your buck?

SkyBell

SkyBell

macrumors 604
Original poster
Sep 7, 2006
6,606
226
Texas, unfortunately.
On a lark today, I was browsing eBay and craigslist among other sites for PPC desktop Macs, and comparing prices between models and their respective revisions.

Just out of curiosity, in your opinion which model and revision of PPC desktop offers the most power and "usefulness" in todays world compared to how much it costs to buy one?

(I've decided not to delve into G3 models; in my opinion, they're still great backup or secondary machines, but it would be a bit of a task to cope with one for everyday use. But if you disagree, please try to convince me otherwise. :))
 
i think so.I would say and go for PowerMac G5 Quad. thank you
14Iq7Rs
 
There are a lot of variables here that could alter one's point of view on the subject. A lot also depends on one's local market.

Dual 2.0 GHz G5s in my area regularly sell for $100. Maybe the best bang for the buck in terms of CPU vs initial dollars spent? The quad G5s that I've seen lately usually start at about $350 (to be fair, the ones posted on Craig's List recently have all been very well equipped with maxed out ram, high end video cards, and huge hard drives). That said, winter is coming, so the price of the G5s might go up even more.

It also depends on individual needs. For some PowerPC games, there may be no substitute for a high-end G5 with a nice video card?

Also, the last sentence in OP implies that we're talking about something to be used as a primary machine. I own a G5 tower and I enjoy using it, but I honestly don't know if I would trust any G5 in that role. G4 models tend to be more dependable. I think I'd personally choose a dual CPU QS, dual CPU MDD, or a Sawtooth with a nice CPU upgrade.
 
Well, I was browsing the eBay the other day and I saw several Quads going below $200 in auctions. One of them that went for cca $160 even had 16GB RAM, which alone is worth almost as much as the entire system, IMO!

Therefore, my advise would be: search the eBay for Quads, if you're lucky you'll be able to get one fairly cheap.
 
Swampus said:
There are a lot of variables here that could alter one's point of view on the subject. A lot also depends on one's local market.

Dual 2.0 GHz G5s in my area regularly sell for $100. Maybe the best bang for the buck in terms of CPU vs initial dollars spent? The quad G5s that I've seen lately usually start at about $350 (to be fair, the ones posted on Craig's List recently have all been very well equipped with maxed out ram, high end video cards, and huge hard drives). That said, winter is coming, so the price of the G5s might go up even more.

It also depends on individual needs. For some PowerPC games, there may be no substitute for a high-end G5 with a nice video card?

Also, the last sentence in OP implies that we're talking about something to be used as a primary machine. I own a G5 tower and I enjoy using it, but I honestly don't know if I would trust any G5 in that role. G4 models tend to be more dependable. I think I'd personally choose a dual CPU QS, dual CPU MDD, or a Sawtooth with a nice CPU upgrade.
Click to expand...

This post is more in the direction I was thinking - Of course you can buy a top-of-the-line Quad PM G5 and have the most power and expandability options - but suppose you are on a tight budget. You could afford such a machine, but don't feel comfortable spending that much.

In my area at least, it's quite rare to see an iMac G5, let alone a PowerMac, go for under $150. This is more of Quicksilver-era PowerMac price territory. But, you can get a newer late-model eMac usually for $100 or less. If I were in this situation, It would be a tough choice between the two.

iMac G4's tend to go for higher prices than near-identically spec'd Mac minis and eMacs; iBooks tend to be cheaper at comparable speeds to PowerBooks.

You know, these questions that keep you up at night.:p
 
I scored a early 2005 dual 2GHz off ebay for $40 shipping and a $10 bid. I ended up having to drop $30 on a 9650 256MB card and another $5 on a clock battery. So in the end my G5 cost $85.

I love my G5 dearly, but newer apps like Logic Pro X are forcing me to go get a 2008 Mac Pro or a newer mini with a quad i7.
 
Obviously the G5 towers are the most bang for the buck.

Now if I were to go into G4 systems, I would probably get another 733 MHz Digital Audio or the equivalent Quicksilver model. They are surprisingly strong machines for ones as old as they are and I still use my DA at work.

I would only get a G3 as an OS 9 machine nowadays, if at all, since I really have nothing that would require OS 9 anymore (but I do love Classilla, so maybe maybe...).
 
So far, it seems like most are vouching for PM G5's. Obviously, they are the most powerful PPC Macs, but I'm not entirely convinced they're top dog for value.

Just real quickly on eBay, I found a dual 2 GHz PM G5 for $160 shipped. Not too shabby, but I was easily able to find a 1.25 GHz eMac for $90 shipped.

Now, the PowerMac clearly blows the eMac out of the water in specs, and for some people it wouldn't even be given a second thought to spend the extra $ on the PowerMac.

But, here's how I see it from my perspective; I'm not a power user, and either machine would fit my needs. I could get a whole lot more computer with the PowerMac, but for almost twice as much as the eMac. When the $70 difference between the two is nearly two full days of worth of pay at my job, I would be more inclined to go with the eMac.

And, to actually pertain to the question of the thread, the eMac is probably around the same age as the G5, and the specs though different, aren't really too far off. I would say that the eMac is of better value for my money than the G5.

Am I looking at this the wrong way?
 
SkyBell said:
So far, it seems like most are vouching for PM G5's. Obviously, they are the most powerful PPC Macs, but I'm not entirely convinced they're top dog for value.

Just real quickly on eBay, I found a dual 2 GHz PM G5 for $160 shipped. Not too shabby, but I was easily able to find a 1.25 GHz eMac for $90 shipped.

Now, the PowerMac clearly blows the eMac out of the water in specs, and for some people it wouldn't even be given a second thought to spend the extra $ on the PowerMac.

But, here's how I see it from my perspective; I'm not a power user, and either machine would fit my needs. I could get a whole lot more computer with the PowerMac, but for almost twice as much as the eMac. When the $70 difference between the two is nearly two full days of worth of pay at my job, I would be more inclined to go with the eMac.

And, to actually pertain to the question of the thread, the eMac is probably around the same age as the G5, and the specs though different, aren't really too far off. I would say that the eMac is of better value for my money than the G5.

Am I looking at this the wrong way?
Click to expand...

You are in love with eMacs, thats for sure ;)
 
cyberghoser1 said:
You are in love with eMacs, thats for sure ;)
Click to expand...

Well, yes. :p But my bias aside, they honestly seem to be the PPC desktop model that seems to average out above all the others in power for the price.

iMac G5's still seem overpriced, PM G5's cost more than all the others; PM G4's seem to go for as much as G5's. :eek: iMac G4's still command a premium for their design, and G4 Mac mini's seem to suffer from the same issue as well.

eMacs? It isn't a hard task by any means to find them going for less than Mac mini's do, and with higher specs at that.
 
SkyBell said:
On a lark today, I was browsing eBay and craigslist among other sites for PPC desktop Macs, and comparing prices between models and their respective revisions.

Just out of curiosity, in your opinion which model and revision of PPC desktop offers the most power and "usefulness" in todays world compared to how much it costs to buy one?

(I've decided not to delve into G3 models; in my opinion, they're still great backup or secondary machines, but it would be a bit of a task to cope with one for everyday use. But if you disagree, please try to convince me otherwise. :))
Click to expand...
I look at this in software terms. If running OS 9.2.2 and 10.4, not needing to do video editing or other FPU hungry tasks, than the most cost effective is a G3. I'm typing this on a aftermarket cpu 1.1GHz G3, runs great and costs nothing to operate. I think IBM says it uses 9 or 10 watts at full speed. I run Adobe CS2 suite just fine.

Opt for a G4 and software options open up. It can crunch video editing just fine. Our eMac 1.25GHz does that. I can't tell much difference between G3 and G4 until FPU hungry software is used.

G5, I would pass on these. Generate lots of heat and the performance is not that great for the electric used.

Having a PowerPC for home use currently and using the latest (Intel) at work, Intel wins. PowerPC is cheap computing now.
 
SkyBell said:
Well, yes. :p But my bias aside, they honestly seem to be the PPC desktop model that seems to average out above all the others in power for the price.

iMac G5's still seem overpriced, PM G5's cost more than all the others; PM G4's seem to go for as much as G5's. :eek: iMac G4's still command a premium for their design, and G4 Mac mini's seem to suffer from the same issue as well.

eMacs? It isn't a hard task by any means to find them going for less than Mac mini's do, and with higher specs at that.
Click to expand...

I took the initiative to look on ebay for eMacs, well, very interesting prices, I might go for one, they are really cheap. Well I expect the shipping has to be half the price of the computer, but hey for less than 200$ why not.
 
G51989 said:
Pretty much no, a well optioned out Quad still goes for 300-400. Same amount of money can net a brand new PC which is far more capable.

The G4s are the best bang.
Click to expand...

A G4 is unusable for normal computing without a dual 7448 upgrade, which will cost more than a Quad. A Quad running Debian 7.10 with a 7800GT unlocked to 7800GTX(w/nVclock) will be just as usable as a new PC.
 
rabidz7 said:
A G4 is unusable for normal computing without a dual 7448 upgrade, which will cost more than a Quad. A Quad running Debian 7.10 with a 7800GT unlocked to 7800GTX(w/nVclock) will be just as usable as a new PC.
Click to expand...

Except it's about 8 years old and full out outdated technology that can hardly do anything modern.
 
rabidz7 said:
A G4 is unusable for normal computing without a dual 7448 upgrade, which will cost more than a Quad. A Quad running Debian 7.10 with a 7800GT unlocked to 7800GTX(w/nVclock) will be just as usable as a new PC.
Click to expand...

Expect that 400 Dollar Gateway is far more usable, brand new, can run new software, and is more reliable. And is multiple times faster. A single core of an quad core APU A6 for example is faster than a Quad G5. And it has 4 cores, its intergrated GPU is also far faster than a 7800.

If your on PPC, your not doing much besides tinkering.

Also, G5s use a ton of power, and are not reliable.

You can get a great G4 for under 80 dollars, and spend a little on upgrades, and have a great hobby machine.

I have a co uple G5s, and PCs flew past them in performance almost a decade ago. They cant compete with even the lowest end PCs on any level.

So to the OP, if you want to tinker with PPC, and have a cool reliable machine. G4s are typically the way to go, I have several as well. Much more reliable than my G5s have been.

Also, if your just doing basic stuff and old school gaming, a decent G4 will do just fine.
 
Last edited:
I'd personally go for a dual-core 2.3 G5. Where I am (UK) they seem to give the best balance between performance, reliability & straight up value.

But you seem to have an unhealthy addiction to eMacs :p - so in that case go all out on a 1.42 w/ a 9600 & 2GB RAM. Stick a nice boot drive in there (if you dare) and enjoy!
 
Goftrey said:
I'd personally go for a dual-core 2.3 G5. Where I am (UK) they seem to give the best balance between performance, reliability & straight up value.
Click to expand...

Yes, the Dual 1.8s, Dual 2.0s and 2.3s are still rather cheap. And a decent bang for the buck, if you can find one locally, otherwise shipping makes it totally not worth it.
 
G51989 said:
Expect that 400 Dollar Gateway is far more usable, brand new, can run new software, and is more reliable. And is multiple times faster. A single core of an quad core APU A6 for example is faster than a Quad G5. And it has 4 cores, its intergrated GPU is also far faster than a 7800.

If your on PPC, your not doing much besides tinkering.

Also, G5s use a ton of power, and are not reliable.

You can get a great G4 for under 80 dollars, and spend a little on upgrades, and have a great hobby machine.

I have a co uple G5s, and PCs flew past them in performance almost a decade ago. They cant compete with even the lowest end PCs on any level.

So to the OP, if you want to tinker with PPC, and have a cool reliable machine. G4s are typically the way to go, I have several as well. Much more reliable than my G5s have been.

Also, if your just doing basic stuff and old school gaming, a decent G4 will do just fine.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Either a MDD G4 or an iBook G4. Although OP seems to want an eMac. I always wanted an eMac. I also always wanted an iMac G4, and I got one. Still in love with it.
 
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