• Hello MLAers! We've re-enabled auto-approval for accounts. If you are still waiting on account approval, please check this thread for more information.

Single processor G5 or dual processor G4??

Quadraman

Quadraman

68030
I see the price of the single 1.6 and 1.8ghz G5's are dropping a lot lately and wondered if it was worth getting one as opposed to upgrading my G4 with a dual processor upgrade or getting a dual processor QS/MDD/FW800 machine. The fast dual G4's give a lot more Altivec performance than the single G5, but the rest of the G5 machine is faster than the same parts on a G4. So what's the better way to go? single G5, faster G4 machine, or upgrading my existing G4?

 
I'd go with whatever's cheaper...the thing is, you have to remember that with the Intel Macs, any PowerPC is pretty much dead-end technology these days. :( Another thing is that the G4 is a more upgradable machine than the G5, and thus i'd probably prefer to go G4.

 
i have both

a 1800 mhz G5 ( dont get me started on ghz 1,8 sounds so pathetic )

and a dual 800 mhz G4 quicksilver

if upgrading is your thing stick with your G4 if not go for a G5 they are getting cheaper and give much better and faster performance

 
Nahh go for a very high end Dual G4 - the dual CPU spread works much better with UNIX OSs and load balancing for Apps. Most Dual G4s above 1GHz rip the backside out of low-end G5s anyway.

The only benefits from buying a G5 are the USB 2.0, SATA and FW800, oh and a really cool looking case (that's damned heavy!).

TBH if you want a high performance Mac you shouldn't look at anything single CPU/Core. Only having one CPU core is what causes a lot of OS X stuff to bog down. Multitasking and multithread work goes one hell of a lot faster just by adding a second CPU at the same speed. Tha said I went from a single 800MHz iMac t oa MAc Pro 2.0GHz so the step was more like a leap! I have seen the evidence on lesser machines running other UNIX OSs though.

 
The only benefits from buying a G5 are the USB 2.0, SATA and FW800, oh and a really cool looking case (that's damned heavy!).
Click to expand...
One model of G4s had FW800... though by gaining that you loose the ability to dual-boot OS 9 and OS X.

 
The Dual 1.25 Ghz MDDs at my old job had FW800. And IIRC they were OS 9 bootable too...but don't quote me on that...i've never seen one booted into OS 9.

 
The Dual 1.25 Ghz MDDs at my old job had FW800. And IIRC they were OS 9 bootable too...but don't quote me on that...i've never seen one booted into OS 9.
Click to expand...
The only PowerMac G4s with FW800 (and Airport Extreme) were OS X bootable only...

 
most peopel here say go for the G5 seems you are in the minority
Click to expand...
Frankly that bothers me about as much as Britney Spear's latest haircut. I've been in a minority all my life! ;)

I'm basing my assignations on experience, and reading real benchmarks, not Apple propaganda. :)

I looked into the same argument extensively when I was looking to replace the iMac with a tower system, and also for a friend who wanted a cheap, fast Mac.

It surprised the hell outta me that the single 1.6 and 1.8GHz G5 towers were outgunned by a dual 1.25GHz G4, but then I thought about it and actually it's not that surprising. FWIW a single G5 reaches parity with Apple's fastest G4 dual CPU machines about 2.0GHz, and that is mostly only for single task work. For multithreaded tasks and many-application environments then the more CPUs you have is all the better, as you have more units to spread the demand for CPU cycles over.

UNIX process management in general, including that used in OS X, is very good at freeing up single CPU cores to execute a new foreground app in my experience, shifting existing background tasks off to other cores to the best of it's ability. The Mac Pro is agreat demonstration of that. With sufficient RAM it is able to open heavyweight Apps like Aperture without much fuss even when doing CPU heavy work that is already using half or maybe even 3/4 of avaiable cycles.

OK this is not going to be as pronounced on a Dual G4 PowerMac but the fact remains that performance will be greater with Dual CPUs over a single CPU that is of the equal power of the two lesser CPUs combined.

For the record, due to the improved architecture and superior raw CPU and Altivec power, any *Dual* CPU G5 tower will far outgun the G4 Dual at anything, but that's pretty much a given.

Oh and another good thing to remember is don't blow your whole budget on getting something with an Uber CPU and not leave room for RAM in there. Don't be afraid to get a slightly lesser machine with plenty of RAM (read a gig or so) or budget to add RAM to what you are buying. It ALWAYS helps.

The only PowerMac G4s with FW800 (and Airport Extreme) were OS X bootable only...
Click to expand...
Ah I forgot about that, yeah sorry. It always seemed a little dumb to me including FW800 (which almost no-one apart from Pros and people with too much money use) and not including USB 2.0 but I guess you can ram a PCI card in the machine if you need USB 2.0 - but it's not bootable that way.

 
The Dual 1.25 Ghz MDDs at my old job had FW800. And IIRC they were OS 9 bootable too...but don't quote me on that...i've never seen one booted into OS 9.
Click to expand...
as far as i know the 1000 mhz MDD's were not bootble in os 9 either

not that that ever botherd me or even tried to

os 9 seems a waste on a dual cpu

i am also sure that the old tech in a dual G4

the old ide controller

the pc 100 ram requirements

the 2 gig ram ceilling

no pcie slots

no sata drive support

and obsolete AGP support absolutley make no differnce what so ever because its a dual G4 damn it

 
The cut-off for booting OS 9 was January 2003 AFAIK, that's when the iMac G4 stopped booting it - mine is a August 2003 (last of the Rev 1 800s) and it definitely won't.

Didn't they do some kooky ceremony at that Keynote with the coffin and the comedy funeral service? That gave em a grin that went twice round - was a classic Steve moment :) . I think he hated OS 9 almost as much as I did (but not quite).

I believe the firmware was altered on all models at that time to prevent booting OS 9. That of course caused a total sh** storm from the OS 9 fanboys but hey - we had to move on at some time...

 
It really depends what you want it for..... if its just simple web browsing and music go with the G5.....if you need some apps that can use 2 processors go for the MDD G4...........my 2 cents....hope this helps

 
I know they Make a dual G4 CPU upgrade (G4 model 7448) that they claim that can come close to the performance (and even surpass) a C2D Mac, i would not think so in games cause the limit on a AGP bus vs PCIe.

i would not really know much on this cause i havent seen real world test's on a dual 1.8ghz 7448 G4 upgraded Mac.

but that upgrade is like $699 USD or higher but if you already have the system it could make for the systems life span to be longer. and run around the same performance if not faster than a CD or C2D mini,

i would love to see benchmarks of a dual 1.8 G4 7448 vs a C2D mini

 
Dual G4s.

The G5 never realized its full potential after Apple suspended development of 64-bit PPC computing to shift to Intel. Much of the newfangled motherboard stuff can also be found in the G4 MDD, the one that can't boot in OS9.

But you'll need to live without PCI-E, a fancy case (instead of the pillow pack case since the Blue and White G3).

Oh, and that liquid cooling thing on the G5 can become nasty with age.

 
Dual G4s.
The G5 never realized its full potential after Apple suspended development of 64-bit PPC computing to shift to Intel. Much of the newfangled motherboard stuff can also be found in the G4 MDD, the one that can't boot in OS9.

But you'll need to live without PCI-E, a fancy case (instead of the pillow pack case since the Blue and White G3).

Oh, and that liquid cooling thing on the G5 can become nasty with age.
Click to expand...
Living without PCI-e is not relevant to the posters original question as the early G5s didn't have PCI-e anyway so it's not exactly and issue. IIRC the G5s prior to the 'Dual Core' and 'Quad Core' series used AGP 8x graphics and PCI-X (not PCI-e which it totally different, and much faster) slots. In fact the earliest non-top-spec model G5s had normal PCI 64bit slots - not even PCI-X. Living without PCI-X is no hardship really as it won't help graphics speed, and it hates most conventional PCI cards (Mac or otherwise) anyway, despite being 'compatible'.

Also Liquid cooling was only used on the Dual 2.5 and 2.7 CPU PCI-X odels and 'Quad Core' models. Again these are not in the range of machines the poster was looking at.

I also have to argue that the G4 case is every bit as fancy as the G5 one, it just looks different ;)

Ok, here is a pic, look at the very bottom. They are using photoshop CS ( version 8 )
Click to expand...
In that case you are indeed correct. CS and CS2 are PPC only. This is plainly a marketing spin to make the Dual G4 upgrade cards look faster than they actually are [}:)] ]'>

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

gsteemso
Using large monitors with a dual-link DVI-D Power Mac video card
Replies
17
Views
3K
CC_333
CC_333
Verdant
The 19-Year GPU flashing project
Replies
0
Views
357
Verdant
Verdant
F
MDD Upgrade/Revival questions
Replies
5
Views
1K
opualuan
O
S
Will an early 2005 (DP) G5 LCS fit in a Quad?
Replies
1
Views
867
Byrd
Byrd
L
PowerCenter 150 CPU Upgrade - Dual Processor?
Replies
8
Views
2K
chikorita157
chikorita157
Back
Top