Relative preformance

Malcy · Dec 16, 2005

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.

mynameis · Dec 16, 2005

Malcy said:
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.

Malcy · Dec 17, 2005

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.

maz94protege · Dec 19, 2005

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-

Aptmunich · Dec 19, 2005

Malcy said:
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...

macanal · Dec 19, 2005

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

Amen-Moses · Dec 19, 2005

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

IronMac · Dec 19, 2005

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.

ForeverG5 · Dec 21, 2005

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!

Malcy · Dec 22, 2005

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?

Avid6eek · Dec 22, 2005

Amen-Moses said:
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.

Amen-Moses said:
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.

Meyvn · Dec 23, 2005

Malcy said:
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.

Amen-Moses · Dec 23, 2005

Avid6eek said:
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

Malcy · Dec 23, 2005

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

to_tough_to_die · Dec 23, 2005

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?

Amen-Moses · Dec 23, 2005

Malcy said:
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.

Actually I'd say it is far harder to judge the probable performance of a PC than a Mac because so much depends on the motherboard chipset, BIOS, RAM etc. With Macs all that is standardized (well at least for 6 months or so).

On top of that there are dozens of different CPUs to consider and just because a particular box shifter states nGhz CPU it doesn't mean that it will arrive configured that way (I've had to return a machine to Dell because when I set the BIOS to the advertized clock the machine became
unstable).

Then you have the biggest variable of all, the OS. XP-64 running on AMD-64 systems is really very smooth and snappy to use, XP-32 on the same machine is really slow in comparison. Linux comes in more variants now than any other OS and the performance depends a lot on which compile options were used for the kernal, especially on more modern CPUs.

Given all this it is almost impossible to compare like for like on just PCs let alone compare PCs with Macs.

Basically though the Mini outperforms any similar sized PC, the iMac G5 is comparable with the best medium range PCs and the Quad PM blows the socks off all but the very baddest workstation PCs (the HP Quad Opteron 2.4 being the baddest of the lot at the moment).

The only place where PCs have the edge at the moment is in the laptop arena but there is a dual core G4 available that could have solved that and a new company has just announced a dual core low power G5 so it is only Apples switch to Intel and the wait for the Centrino Duo (at least that's what it looks like it will be called this week) that has created that situation.

Amen-Moses

Avid6eek · Dec 23, 2005

Amen-Moses said:
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.

I checked out HPs site and I found this to be the problem as well. They have so many different models I found it hard to choose a good comparison. After a couple minutes I decided it wasn't worth my time to even bother. Typically I build all my own hardware so I am not very familiar with HPs website. On NewEgg I can tear up any Mac at any pricepoint in terms of both price and performance.

technologist · Dec 23, 2005

Avid6eek said:
On NewEgg I can tear up any [Pre-asembled computer] at any pricepoint in terms of both price and performance.

Edited that for completeness. :mac:

Amen-Moses · Dec 23, 2005

Avid6eek said:
I checked out HPs site and I found this to be the problem as well. They have so many different models I found it hard to choose a good comparison.

They only have one quad opteron system (xw9300) although you can choose a range of CPU options for it, CreativeMac went with the top option of 4 2.4 Ghz Opteron 280s. That is the one I priced up.

Amen-Moses

Avid6eek · Dec 23, 2005

Amen-Moses said:
They only have one quad opteron system (xw9300) although you can choose a range of CPU options for it, CreativeMac went with the top option of 4 2.4 Ghz Opteron 280s. That is the one I priced up.

Amen-Moses

The 2.4Ghz Opterons are too fast for a direct comparison. Anandtech did a dual processor shootout and in most cases the 2.4Ghz models beat the 2.7Ghz G5's...with the dual core 2.5Ghz models which are currently Apples fastest the fairest comparison would be dual core 2.2Ghz Opterons. There is a significant price difference between the 2.2 Opty's and 2.4's.

Even the developers working on the new Pentium 4 based Macs are enjoying the speed, and they are much slower processors that what AMD has to offer, so trying to compare G5's to the fastest Opterons is a cheap way to win the price war, but you are getting a far faster system.

And yes, Anandtech is by far the most unbias reviewer of Mac/PC hardware out there.

Relative preformance

Malcy

Guest

mynameis

Malcy

Guest

maz94protege

Aptmunich

macanal

Amen-Moses

IronMac

ForeverG5

Guest

Malcy

Guest

Avid6eek

Meyvn

Amen-Moses

Malcy

Guest

to_tough_to_die

Amen-Moses

Avid6eek

technologist

Amen-Moses

Avid6eek

Shop Amazon