Results 1 to 15 of 15
  1. #1


    Member Since
    May 29, 2007
    Posts
    10
    Stupid but needed question
    I presently use a single 1.8 ghz G5. Can someone please tell me the speed gain I will get by purchasing the 3.0 quad or the 3.0 8 core. I am sorry to ask such a basic question but I spend my time using these darn things (photographer - Photoshop) so I don't have a real good base of tech knowledge. Thanks.

  2. #2

    coach_z's Avatar
    Member Since
    Jul 23, 2004
    Location
    North NJ
    Posts
    3,169
    Specs:
    i dont have no mac's
    i cant give you any specific examples but basically your computing will go from good to crazy fast.....the quad and 8 core might even be too much computer if you are just doing photoshop
    -chris
    MoTM honor roll...
    when?
    i dont remember

  3. #3


    Member Since
    May 29, 2007
    Posts
    10
    Well I shoot Large Format images that are around 600 megs. Some glaciers move faster than the processing of these files. FYI, I am using Photoshop CS with 1 meg of RAM.

  4. #4

    PowerBookG4's Avatar
    Member Since
    Jan 08, 2005
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,188
    Specs:
    Mac Pro 8x3.0ghz 12gb ram 8800GT , MBP 2.16 2GB Ram 17 inch.
    Quote Originally Posted by Redlight View Post
    Well I shoot Large Format images that are around 600 megs. Some glaciers move faster than the processing of these files. FYI, I am using Photoshop CS with 1 meg of RAM.
    i hope you mean gig, because if you're using 1 meg, thats your problem right there the mac pro will be a very good upgrade for you. There is no such thing as too much power.
    My Website
    Blog
    I love my hosting company!
    I was on the M-F honor roll for Febuary:2006

  5. #5


    Member Since
    May 29, 2007
    Posts
    10
    Gig would be accurate.

    I guess I am looking for some quantitative answer such as 23x faster or 50 times faster. A LOT faster or MUCH faster doesn't really tell me much.

  6. #6

    baggss's Avatar
    Member Since
    Oct 10, 2004
    Location
    Margaritaville
    Posts
    10,311
    Specs:
    27" 3.4 Ghz i7 iMac-13" C2D Macbook-OSX 10.10.2 -64Gb iPad 2-64 Gb iPhone 6+-ATV 2-14Tb of Storage
    I don't think your going to get that here, or possibly anywhere.


  7. #7

    PowerBookG4's Avatar
    Member Since
    Jan 08, 2005
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,188
    Specs:
    Mac Pro 8x3.0ghz 12gb ram 8800GT , MBP 2.16 2GB Ram 17 inch.
    I can not tell you for sure how much the 8 core would be, but the 4 core, is 1.4 times faster then the G5 quad. The G5 Quad has 4 G5's in it operating at 2.5ghz each. Your computer has a single G5 running at 1.8... so although we do not have actual numbers, it is a significant increase of power.
    My Website
    Blog
    I love my hosting company!
    I was on the M-F honor roll for Febuary:2006

  8. #8


    Member Since
    May 29, 2007
    Posts
    10
    Thanks. I just wanted some sense of what speed improvement there would be. I appreciate the info.

    http://www.garydwhalen.com

  9. #9


    Member Since
    May 10, 2007
    Posts
    502
    Specs:
    Mac pro quad 2.66 / G5 1.8
    I'm sure it depends on how the application works, but I have a g5 1 x 1.8 and a quad 2.66, and the quad blows the G5 away in some apps, but in others you don't see much difference.

    The big differences are things like video ripping - handbrake for example, which I use to rip my DVDs to mp4 to put on my Ipod, absolutely flies on the quad. It runs roughly 10 x the speed of the G5.

    At the moment the quad is a bit short of RAM too, it only has the standard 1gb. I don't know if more RAM will speed things up more.

    Hard disk intensive things don't make much difference - I did some heavy rearranging of files last weekend, moving blocks of 50 - 100gb or so around the disks, and that wasn't noticeably faster than it would be on the G5. No surprise though, clearly that's limited by the speed of the disks, it doesn't need much processor power.

    But the answer is really that some things are much faster, some are about the same, but I haven't found anything slower.

    On the other hand, unfortunately I have to say that in my experience it's not the 23x or 50x you were looking for. Maybe when apps are written specifically to use the multiple cores things will perk up, but the leap isn't as big as that.

    I'm very pleased with it, it was well worth buying as far as I'm concerned, but mines just my home PC. I don't do any 'work' on it at all, so I may not be as critical as others.

  10. #10

    christm's Avatar
    Member Since
    Dec 18, 2005
    Location
    Devon, England
    Posts
    2,288
    Specs:
    ibook g4, imac 2ghz c2d, mbp 2.4ghz c2d - 10.5.1
    Quote Originally Posted by Redlight View Post
    Well I shoot Large Format images that are around 600 megs.
    wo ! nice size !

    i wouldnt know the figures but your computing would definatly speed up.

  11. #11
    MacHeadCase
    Guest
    If you went with the Mac Pro, you would also gain performance speed by upgrading to Photoshop CS3. On Intel-based Macs, Adobe CS and CS2 apps will only run under Rosetta emulation and from what I have read here and there, it seems to slow things down considerably.

  12. #12


    Member Since
    May 29, 2007
    Posts
    10
    Thanks to all of you. I am hoping that when Leopard comes out it will take better advantage of the quad and 8 core processors. That said, I need one now and I guess the 3.0 quad will work very well for what I do. Regardless it will work much better than what I have now. Isn't it odd though. Three years ago when I bought the 1.8 is was dubbed as the newest SUPER computer.

    And the CS3 advice is well received and will certainly go that route.

  13. #13


    Member Since
    May 10, 2007
    Posts
    502
    Specs:
    Mac pro quad 2.66 / G5 1.8
    Quote Originally Posted by Redlight View Post
    Thanks to all of you. I am hoping that when Leopard comes out it will take better advantage of the quad and 8 core processors. That said, I need one now and I guess the 3.0 quad will work very well for what I do. Regardless it will work much better than what I have now. Isn't it odd though. Three years ago when I bought the 1.8 is was dubbed as the newest SUPER computer.

    And the CS3 advice is well received and will certainly go that route.
    Well, it was pretty fast at the time. 3 years is a long time in computing!

  14. #14


    Member Since
    Mar 19, 2007
    Location
    Torrance, CA
    Posts
    428
    Specs:
    Mac mini w/ 2.33GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB 667Mhz DDR2 SDRAM
    Quote Originally Posted by jonnyd View Post
    Well, it was pretty fast at the time. 3 years is a long time in computing!
    Isn't that the truth these days? You blink and you're behind again!

    Crud I winked, I'm now behind half a step...noooooooooooooooo

  15. #15


    Member Since
    May 29, 2007
    Posts
    10
    Well I bought my first computer in 1981. Dual floppy disks. Constantly switching them out from program to files. Also remember the 1200 baud rate on my modem. Osborne computer with amber screen. Then "upgraded" to a Texas Instruments followed by a REAL IBM. So, I have seen the speed increase so that they could handle the bloated software.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. stupid question
    By Sally14 in forum Switcher Hangout
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 04-06-2012, 08:16 PM
  2. Stupid Question
    By Franco2Mac in forum OS X - Operating System
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-13-2009, 09:28 AM
  3. really stupid question
    By chefwalt in forum Switcher Hangout
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-14-2008, 05:28 AM
  4. Most Stupid Question Ever?
    By Lewwy in forum Images, Graphic Design, and Digital Photography
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 11-19-2007, 06:43 PM
  5. This might be a stupid question...
    By Specialk51288 in forum OS X - Operating System
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 02-08-2007, 05:22 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •