Forums
New posts
Articles
Product Reviews
Policies
FAQ
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Apple Computing Products:
macOS - Desktop Hardware
Powermac 2.3 or Quad 2.5 G5
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="lonerider" data-source="post: 193194" data-attributes="member: 9655"><p>Hm, you are getting a lot of conflicting opinions and advice here. Here's the rub though, the programs you mention can make use of multiple processors. Also, of the choices you mention, here is a basic ranking of their performance (*when you're actually doing something processor intense*) :</p><p></p><p>Quad 2.5</p><p>Dual cpu 2.7</p><p>Dual core 2.3</p><p>Dual cpu 2.3</p><p></p><p>The thing is, when you are moving an image around on the screen or doing basic tasks all of the above systems will perform more or less the same - simply because you aren't taxing the CPU. However, when you go to apply effects or render images, you'll see a performance difference. It will be most noticable between the Quad and the other 3 systems. </p><p></p><p>What it comes down to is not just the software you use, but how often you do those cpu intense types of things vs other things. You may be better off getting the lower end system and using the saved cash to put in multiple fast SATA drives in a raid config. If you are constantly loading and saving multiple big images, fast drives are better than fast CPU, since all the systems above will have the cpu loping along doing not much waiting on the hard disk in that scenario.</p><p></p><p>On the other hand, if you are doing a lot of conversions, effects, or rendering then the quad is going to be roughly twice as fast as its nearest sibling in some instances. If you only spend 5% of your time doing this sort of thing though, it's probably not worth the extra money. </p><p></p><p>The price difference might be better spent elsewhere as i mentioned. ie, if you have lets say $3500 budget, and spend 20% of your time loading and saving vs 5% doing effects and rendering images, you'd be better off getting the dual 2.7 and popping 3 more drives in a raid 0 or 1-0 config and going up to 4GB instead of 2GB. </p><p></p><p>Of course, if money is no object, the quad is going to be best at everything if all else is equal.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="lonerider, post: 193194, member: 9655"] Hm, you are getting a lot of conflicting opinions and advice here. Here's the rub though, the programs you mention can make use of multiple processors. Also, of the choices you mention, here is a basic ranking of their performance (*when you're actually doing something processor intense*) : Quad 2.5 Dual cpu 2.7 Dual core 2.3 Dual cpu 2.3 The thing is, when you are moving an image around on the screen or doing basic tasks all of the above systems will perform more or less the same - simply because you aren't taxing the CPU. However, when you go to apply effects or render images, you'll see a performance difference. It will be most noticable between the Quad and the other 3 systems. What it comes down to is not just the software you use, but how often you do those cpu intense types of things vs other things. You may be better off getting the lower end system and using the saved cash to put in multiple fast SATA drives in a raid config. If you are constantly loading and saving multiple big images, fast drives are better than fast CPU, since all the systems above will have the cpu loping along doing not much waiting on the hard disk in that scenario. On the other hand, if you are doing a lot of conversions, effects, or rendering then the quad is going to be roughly twice as fast as its nearest sibling in some instances. If you only spend 5% of your time doing this sort of thing though, it's probably not worth the extra money. The price difference might be better spent elsewhere as i mentioned. ie, if you have lets say $3500 budget, and spend 20% of your time loading and saving vs 5% doing effects and rendering images, you'd be better off getting the dual 2.7 and popping 3 more drives in a raid 0 or 1-0 config and going up to 4GB instead of 2GB. Of course, if money is no object, the quad is going to be best at everything if all else is equal. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Apple Computing Products:
macOS - Desktop Hardware
Powermac 2.3 or Quad 2.5 G5
Top