Questions about purchasing a Power Mac G5

Hello Mac fans,
I am currently using a windows PC. Don't flame me but it isn't all that bad. My main reason for getting myself a mac is simple curiosity. While I was cruising ebay and some used Mac sites I discovered that the G5 and the Mac pro don't use the same processor. Since my office has enough room for my windows box and what ever Mac I choose to buy I don't need to be concerned with dual booting. For that reason I am considering getting myself a used dual proc G5 as apposed to a newer Mac Pro to save some money. Before I make the plunge I want to ask some questions.

First, will the latest version of the Mac OS run on the older G5 platform.

Second will the latest versions of mac compatible software run on the older G5 platform.

Third if the answer to second question is no, how hard is it to find G5 compatible software.

rdsii64 said:

My main reason for getting myself a mac is simple curiosity.

Click to expand...

Then the answer is simple. Don't blow money on a newer one. A G5 is a great choice to dabble with and will save you a bundle.

rdsii64 said:

First, will the latest version of the Mac OS run on the older G5 platform.

Second will the latest versions of mac compatible software run on the older G5 platform.

Third if the answer to second question is no, how hard is it to find G5 compatible software.

Click to expand...

Yes.
Yes.
Very easy.

Great place to look at some specs and also has Estimated Current Retail value as well.
http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/powermac_g5/index-powermac-g5.html

radeon X2600

The base video cards in the new mac pros are ati X 2600. knowing up front that this isn't the greatest card, I am still looking from some objective reviews. So far all I have been able to find is nothing more than sales pitches and an ocassional user rating.

can anyone point me in the right direction.

I don't know that much about the 2600 but Apple just released the option to get an geforce 8800 on the mac pros, which definitely is a very decent card. Not the best, sure, but the best you'll get on a mac for quite a while. Totally worth the extra cost.

2.8 vs. 3.2

Hello all, the countdown clock is getting closer to zero for my new mac pro 8 core, so here is another question. The differences between a 2.8 Ghtz and 3.2 ghtz is only 400 megahertz. Assuming everything else is equal. how much difference will 400 megahertz make? I am of the mind that with all else being equal, 400 megahertz won't amount to much at all.

Also. other thant clockspeed, are there any other differences between a 2.8 harpertown processor and a 3.2?


New owners will be taking delivery of two more puppies next week. Once I have an empty nest (LOL) I am headed to the apple store.

Hi, I went through the same thing and ended up buying the 3.2, but that was a personal decision not a performance decision. Most of the studies I have read show that the 8 core 2.8 is the "sweet spot" in the line up - excellent performance and excellent (for a Mac Pro) price.

I just WANTED the biggest/fastest machine out there, and so I went for the 3.2. Looked at rationally (which I did not) I would recommend the 2.8. I would recommend that you spend your money on more RAM and the nVidia graphics card - it will repay you many times over when invested in those places vs. the faster CPU.

BTW, bryphotoguy has the 4 core 2.8 and sings it praises as a darn fast box. You may have seen his posts. Frankly, 8 cores *IS* overkill. I am sure that no applications out there today use 8 cores. So, you may be able to save even more money by going with the 4 core 2.8.

Again, my decisions were not based on this sort of rational thinking; it is not hypocritical to recommend something other than what I just decided upon. I knew up front that my decision was wholly irrational!

Personally I'd save what I could in the processor department and put more money into storage, graphic card, display, and speakers.

To me it doesn't really matter if things take a minute less to render if I've nowhere to put it, or have to see it/hear it in poor quality due to cheap peripherals.

Of course it depends what you plan on doing with the machine, and how much money you want to spend. If you've already budgeted for 1st class peripherals, then by all means, buy the biggest, baddest computer to go with them.

Ok, let me put this spin on the issue, 400Mhz....per core difference, 8 cores.....3.2Ghz difference overall kind of, Each physical processor has 4 cores, put two of them together and you got your magic 8 (APple is honest in the advertising) never know if you'd actually need the extra 3.2Ghz of power but heck, I look at the specs for that Mac Pro and literally, drool. Imagine it running (yeah I know horrible me and my base PC roots) Windows XP Pro via bootcamp, the blazing performance YIKES ! It's like my litle Acer laptop, came with a single core AMD Sempron processor at 1.8Ghz and not much else, I managed to get my hands on a mobile Turion X2 Dual Core at 1.6Ghz, put it in to the lappy, did it ever pick up some serious steam...not an easy swap but worth it for the power increase, just sayin and providing the power user side of things.

Well there would be a 1.8GHz difference in the processing speed. The first processor would use the full amount (x+ 400MHZ) but the rest of the cores would only use (x+400 then divided by 2). It's ultimately up to you.

Btw, Final Cut Studio uses all 8 cores

i honestly doubt that anyone would really be able to feel the difference of the two.

i would do as most people said, and throw the extra money in buying memory from new egg or something.

i dont think 99.9% of the people using computers will even come close to pushing the 2.8 octo to its limit.

8800GT vs. X2600

We all know that the 8800GT is a much better video card than the X2600. My question is what are the non-gamming advantages to running an 8800GT instead of the X2600

Much better photo and video rendering in programs such as Final Cut and whatnot!

rdsii64 said:

We all know that the 8800GT is a much better video card than the X2600. My question is what are the non-gamming advantages to running an 8800GT instead of the X2600

Click to expand...

None whatsoever. Benchmarks for non-gaming applications show no noticeable difference at all and both can handle the same resolutions and colour depths.

Amen-Moses

You only notice it directly in 3D applications, which includes games and 3D modeling, such as AutoCAD and Motion. 2D programs see no benefit whatsoever with a more powerful video card.

The only other time a more powerful video card is useful is if you decide to have ridiculously high screen resolutions, especially if you're running more than one monitor.

The Apple site claims that applications like Final Cut can make direct use of the nVidia card, presumably reducing the load they place on the system. Other than that, if you are interested in running Linux on your machine via Bootcamp (or other means) you will find that nVidia graphics support is far superior to that for ATI. So, this might be a rationale as well for selecting nVidia. Finally, there is just the fact that it is the better card. If you like driving the best, go nVidia.

G5 and leopard

I have an opportunity to acquire a dual processor G5 for a steal. Before I pony up the cash, I need to know if the latest copy of leopard will run on G5 processors. I also need to know if any leopard compatible programs will run on G5 processors.

This will allow me test the Mac waters with out spending 3 grand for a computer I know nothing about yet. I don't want to dual boot so being able to run boot camp is not needed.

Thanks

You might want to read this Blog regarding running Leopard on a G5.

If you can purchase the G5 for a very good price, go for it as it's still a good computer. However, it can not run Windows, at least natively, since the CPU is not Intel. (Dual PowerPC) So, you don't have to worry about dual booting.

Regards.

yet another used mac pro question

I have been hanging around on this forum for quite some time now. During this time I have posted many questions concerning making the switch from a pc to a mac. I have had to put off more than talking about it due to financial reasons. Now that I am over that hump I am back in the hunt. What I have noticed is that now I have more choices than when I first started contemplating making the switch. What I want to ask now is this:

Is 1400.00 to much money to pay for a used intel mac pro. the spec-sheet says a pair of dual core procs ( 2.26 Ghtz) and a gig of ram. I dont remember the hard drive size but it was smaller than a terrabyte. the video card is the same run of the mil 7300 gt that went into this model when it was new. It ships with ilife, 10.4, and a dual layer superdrive.

I have also heard that these machines can be upgraded to quad core procs if I ever want to down the road.