12-16-2005, 02:58 PM

I want to switch to Mac and was looking at either a Power Mac with my existing 19" monitor or a 20" iMac. I was thinking about a second hand system from the cost angle, G5 power Mac or G5 iMac.

I see G5's of both model advertised on eBay in 1.6, 1.8, 1.9, 2.0 & 2.1 GHz at the lower end and was interested in their relative speeds as there is a big price difference. Would a 1.6 be vastly slower than a 2.0? Are there any other issues, the 1.6's are obviously 1st generation - do they have problems.

My current pc has an Athlon 2500+ cpu & 1Gb of memory if that helps. I bought my dad a Mac mini 1.25, which he loves. It does feel a lot slower than my pc though.

My uses are web surfing, DTP, word processing, digital image processing and video processing.

12-16-2005, 06:30 PM

Originally Posted by Malcy

I see G5's of both model advertised on eBay in 1.6, 1.8, 1.9, 2.0 & 2.1 GHz at the lower end and was interested in their relative speeds as there is a big price difference. Would a 1.6 be vastly slower than a 2.0? Are there any other issues, the 1.6's are obviously 1st generation - do they have problems.

There are many differences besides just the processor speed. If you plan on doing even light gaming, I would make sure to get one that has the 9600 instead of the FX5200. Another big thing is that some of the more recent models(pre-isight) have built in Airport and bluetooth adapters.

As far as speed for just web browsing and such, it won't be a huge difference, I would look more towards what additional features you might want to influence your decision.

12-17-2005, 03:56 AM

Thanks for that, I hadn't really considered the graphics side which would be fixed in an iMac. I guess that the opical drive is in the fixed category too and I need a multi format DVD writer.

The built in WiFi isn't so much of a deal as the computer sits right next to the telephone outlet and the router (WiFi eabled), so I have an easy hardwired ethnernet link.

12-19-2005, 09:47 AM

id go with the imac 1.9ghz and higher, they have the airport express and blue tooth built in, still can get one for about 999.99 if you know the right places to look. www.powermax.com and www.macmall.com you can look up some good prices, the 2.1 is the newest imac, but if you find a good 1.8ghz you would be happy with that too.
Love the Airport Express, just got the modual installed on my mac mini (99.00) but its great, no wires now. and the aiport network works with every router, but ima get an airport express router soon.

hope this helps
-j-

12-19-2005, 10:06 AM

Originally Posted by Malcy

Thanks for that, I hadn't really considered the graphics side which would be fixed in an iMac. I guess that the opical drive is in the fixed category too and I need a multi format DVD writer.

The built in WiFi isn't so much of a deal as the computer sits right next to the telephone outlet and the router (WiFi eabled), so I have an easy hardwired ethnernet link.

You can always add an external multi-format disc writer if you did go with the iMac.

A few first gen G5's had issues though...

12-19-2005, 10:42 AM

I dont think there is a differance between say a 1.6Ghz and a 1.8Ghz but say you compare a 1.6ghz to a 2.0ghz, then you will start noticing the differance

12-19-2005, 07:46 PM

Well this subject keeps coming up and the last time it did my 2 year old twin G5 PM was dissed by the PC crowd who claimed I could buy a better (i.e more powerful) Pc for far less money.

Now it is two years later and CreativeMac have just reported on their benchmarking of the quad G5 system, the only PC that came close was the HP quad Opteron system so I did a price comparison (very much like I did last time) and here are the results:

Quad G5 from Apple: $5500
HP Quad Opteron: $8500

Both with exactly the same graphics, ram and HD configuration. (in actual fact the G5 has faster RAM but that has little impact in real life)

The main difference between them is that the PC does not come with any software to compare with iLife.

So again (at least at the top end) the PC solution is more expensive, far less useful and in some benchmarks far slower than the G5 solution.

Amen-Moses

12-19-2005, 08:49 PM

You should also know that the 2.0 Ghz in the iMac is not the same as the 2.0 PowerMac (single core). I the iMac G5 has a throttled FSB whereas the PowerMac has a FSB equal to half the CPU.

12-21-2005, 12:33 PM

I think you would be good with a 17" iMac G5 1.9GHz stock from Apple. It has built in iSight, FrontRow, Photobooth, Superdrive, plus all the basic great features of an iMac for the same price as the other models cost. I think it's a terrific deal!

12-22-2005, 04:49 AM

As I have a 19" Dell monitor now, I was looking at the 20" versions as I think that the 17" size would be a retrograde step.

I did think about keeping my monitor and going for a PowerMac. The trouble is that new PowerMacs are just too far out of my price range with a similar spec to the iMac, heading for $2600 with 1Gb ram and wireless addons. The iMac 20" is about $2100 and that of course includes the monitor allowing me to sell my old one.

Another possibility is that there are quite a few 1.8 GHz G5 PowerMacs on UK eBay which seem to go for around $1300 on average. Are they decent performers?

12-22-2005, 10:10 PM

Originally Posted by Amen-Moses

Well this subject keeps coming up and the last time it did my 2 year old twin G5 PM was dissed by the PC crowd who claimed I could buy a better (i.e more powerful) Pc for far less money.

Now it is two years later and CreativeMac have just reported on their benchmarking of the quad G5 system, the only PC that came close was the HP quad Opteron system so I did a price comparison (very much like I did last time) and here are the results:

Quad G5 from Apple: $5500
HP Quad Opteron: $8500

What are the exact specs of each system? Which HP model did you choose? I'm almost positive I can find a cheaper solution.

Originally Posted by Amen-Moses

So again (at least at the top end) the PC solution is more expensive, far less useful and in some benchmarks far slower than the G5 solution.

PC is more expensive, I doubt, far less useful is an opinion, and in some, more like very few, the Mac is faster, in most, the PC is the speed champ. I definetly can't wait until Apple does finally make the Intel switch. It'll finally put the "Mac is Faster" addicts in their place.

12-23-2005, 12:32 AM

[QUOTE=Malcy]As I have a 19" Dell monitor now, I was looking at the 20" versions as I think that the 17" size would be a retrograde step./QUOTE]

Probably not. RESOLUTION, and not size, is what really counts. Most 19" monitors have a resolution of 1280x1024, unless you're talking widescreen. Apple's 17" iMac has a resolution of 1440x900, which is only a tad smaller in pixels, but since it's widescreen, would probably be a gain in actual functionality. A 20" would be a significant upgrade, at 1680x1050.

12-23-2005, 05:03 AM

Originally Posted by Avid6eek

What are the exact specs of each system? Which HP model did you choose? I'm almost positive I can find a cheaper solution.

The specs were as close as I could get them, obviously the two companies do not have exactly the same options on their customisation pages so it is difficult to get exactly the same specs but apart from the Mac option having faster RAM they were pretty much identical.

Just for laughs I checked out the prices of the Dell, Alienware & Falcon offerings. In all cases similar spec machines from them were more expensive than the Mac and none offer more than 2 cores.

We've been here before, if you can find me a cheaper off the shelf price for a similarly specc'd PC please do so, I know I can build one myself for about the same price and if I use really low quality components I could probably do it for slightly less but that is comparing Apples with Oranges.

Amen-Moses

12-23-2005, 05:44 AM

My main reason for starting this thread was that as a life long x86er (not necessarily with microsoft) I can easily judge the relative performance of an x86 based system and make an informed buying decision based on that. On the other hand, I am totally unfamiliar with the relative performances of the various versions of the PowerPC cpus and the systems based on them. I guess that it is a problem that many of us potential switchers have and we rely on the knowledge of mac users who have also experience of the x86 side i.e. mac at home, pc at work to inform us.

Mervyn, I am aware that the 17" apple screen has a higher resolution, but the reason that I chose the 19" tft over a 17" tft in the first place was that the displayed text etc would be a little too small for my less than perfect eyesight. As the mac has higher res at 17", I am making the assumption that it will be worse, I guess the solution is to go to the nearest Apple store and check them out - the last time I popped in I had eyes only for the 30" cinema display :rolleyes:

12-23-2005, 08:26 AM

PC is more expensive, I doubt, far less useful is an opinion, and in some, more like very few, the Mac is faster, in most, the PC is the speed champ. I definetly can't wait until Apple does finally make the Intel switch. It'll finally put the "Mac is Faster" addicts in their place.

Uhh... have you seen the benchmarks on that beast?