[awcopus]

...if you consider (1) price point and (2) expandability and (3) EXPECTATIONS!

Don't take my word for it...
http://www.macworld.com/2003/09/revi...g5testresults/

Given the nominal performance difference between the 1.4 and the 1.2, I would say that if you can get your hands on a 1.2 duallie for $1600, you're getting a SCREAMING deal people. Grab it while the grabbing's good.

The really great news is that the G5 duallie is an awesome performer. Just a monster! Given that Jobs has given every indication that the G5 will be offered in more dual configs eventually, I would grab a dual 1.2 now and save up for a killer dual G5 system in about 12-18 months.

[AssassyN]

Exxxxactly!

[PeterKG]

Originally posted by awcopus:
...if you consider (1) price point and (2) expandability and (3) EXPECTATIONS!

Don't take my word for it...
http://www.macworld.com/2003/09/revi...g5testresults/

Given the nominal performance difference between the 1.4 and the 1.2, I would say that if you can get your hands on a 1.2 duallie for $1600, you're getting a SCREAMING deal people. Grab it while the grabbing's good.

The really great news is that the G5 duallie is an awesome performer. Just a monster! Given that Jobs has given every indication that the G5 will be offered in more dual configs eventually, I would grab a dual 1.2 now and save up for a killer dual G5 system in about 12-18 months.

Where can you buy one? This is all very confusing to me. Buying a single G5 ? Should it be a 1.6? Or a 1.8? Or buy the G4 dual.
It's all very frustrating.

[juanpacolopez]

Originally posted by awcopus:
...if you consider (1) price point and (2) expandability and (3) EXPECTATIONS!

Don't take my word for it...
http://www.macworld.com/2003/09/revi...g5testresults/

While I agree with your assertion that the dual 2Ghz is a MONSTER (check that Quake 3 score... mmmmmmmmm); and the dual G4's ARE a killer deal right now...

You are totally incorrect in the assertion that a dual 1.42 "thrashes" a G5 1.8....

It looks to ME, like a _single_ processor 1.8Ghz machine (only 380-ish Mhz faster than either of the 1.42's) keeps pace with a DUAL processor G4.

That's saying something friend. While I agree that a Dual G4 might be a better price/value buy right now, the fact is when/if the entire G5 lines goes dual (or at least we have a mid and high-end Dual, say 2.0 and 3.0Ghz respectively) it's all over for the G4 as far as performance goes.

Personally I'm VERY impressed that the single G5 kept pace in some of the (notoriously) very MP aware apps (cinebench, photoshop, etc.).

Given that fact, it seems that; on a clock-for-clock basis, the G5 does in fact eat the G4 for breakfast... which is a "good thing".

Again, look at the Quake3 score... that gives me hope friends

[rhogue islander]

To those of you that purchased a refurb dual processor G4 a question:

What kind of packaging does it arrive in?

Is it the standard box or a brown box? Does it ship with the standard foam inserts?

[scottiB]

I agree with juan.

If I needed to replace my DP800 at this moment (God forbid), I'd choose the 1.8 over a DP 1.42 (if available--and definitely over a DP 1.25). The ability of adding 8GB of memory, if not now, but in the future tips the scales.

That said, when in two years I need a new tower, the prospective of power that will be available then--is mind blowing.

[awcopus]

Many times many people on these boards have been asserting that the G5 would eat the dual 1.4 for breakfast. The data's out. I'm sure a lot of people are shaking their heads.

The 1.8 G5 has a NINE-HUNDRED MEGAHERTZ FSB and a SATA HD. The 1.4 duallie has a single 167MHz bus. Yet in real world tests with actual software, it manages to beat the 1.8 G5.

In every rendering test.

I mean, I'm shaking my head, too. I didn't expect that. In fact, I've been happy about the dual 1.4 on its own merits (and because of the sweet deal I got), but have taken for granted that even the 1.6 would be faster than the 1.4 duallie most of the time.

As for the graphics performance, that has more to do with the more sophisticated GPUs and the AGP 8x slot bandwidth. Yet even there, the G4 duallie outperforms the 1.6 in Quake tests?

The G5 is an awesome chip, the new mobo is terrific. Clearly, it is designed for a dual processor config. I mean, the reason the case is the size it is has a great deal to do with having two processors in there. Apple clearly wants every Pro G5 to have two processors as soon as possible. Singles waste too much space! And now we can all see that singles also have HUGE performance deficiencies compared to duals (G5 or G4).

Where can one get a dual G4? Try here...
http://www.smalldog.com/product/45295

[awcopus]

Originally posted by rhogue islander:
To those of you that purchased a refurb dual processor G4 a question:

What kind of packaging does it arrive in?

Is it the standard box or a brown box? Does it ship with the standard foam inserts?

An Apple box, but it's brown. Yes, all the foam inserts and everything else is there good as new.

***

Scottib, if adding more RAM to a G5 1.8 only enables it to match or just negligibly beat a dual 1.42, why not spend less for more? The dual 1.42/1.25 gives you more space for HDs, the option of adding a second optical drive, and it's far more affordable to max out the RAM on it. By the time you max out the RAM on a 1.8, you've spent OVER THREE THOUSAND DOLLARS...that's just bonkers IMHO.

My advice: Save up for a next-gen dual G5 at a significant price break. With your dual 800, it doesn't make sense for you to upgrade to the highend dual G4, and frankly you should never consider anything other than another dual machine. Dual is obviously THE way to go with the G5, assuming you crave a high-performance Mac experience.

[Leonard]

The other thing to remember in these tests is, are they fully utilizing the G5's bus. From another third-party's test of the G5, it was noted that adding more than 1GB of RAM and having 2 SATA HDs RAIDed really improved the G5's performance. Ie. having only a small amount of memory like 512MB and only one drive without RAID is hurting the G5's performance by starving the G5 bus. In these new systems the bus and processor are now not the bottleneck, the amount of RAM and the HD speed is the bottleneck. I have yet to see one of the review sites actually test a G5 with the basic config and compare it to a G5 with 2GB or 4GB of RAM and 2 HD RAIDed.

[scottiB]

Originally posted by awcopus:
The 1.8 G5 has a NINE-HUNDRED MEGAHERTZ FSB and a SATA HD. The 1.4 duallie has a single 167MHz bus. Yet in real world tests with actual software, it manages to beat the 1.8 G5.

While I totally agree with you, those tests are hardly taxing; a 50MB PShop file? What is this 1997? Cripes, I'm an amateur and have 50MB PS file.

MacWorld needs to beef up their tests: FCP, AE, Maya, etc. As well, enumerate on the rendering tests (file type, poly count, raytracing--where the G5's FPU should EAT the G4). These are pro machines--test pro apps (512MB of memory? Please.).

[awcopus]

Leonard, Scottib,

I agree with both of you. The tests should be with machines outfitted for pro work with pro apps. Frankly, as a video editor, I'm a little shocked that iMovie was used instead of FCP.

Let's see them test a 1.8 with 2GB of RAM against a 1.4 with 2 GB of RAM (its limit), and then throw in a 1.8 with RAM maxed out to see what difference that makes with major apps doing big-time compositing and rendering.

For now, even with the tests being kind of lame, I guess I'm just blown away that the 1.4 even competes with a 1.8 at any level given the improvements to virtually every aspect of the machine (dramatically overhauled BUS, more HD bandwidth, faster RAM).

[AssassyN]

And a Dual 1.42Ghz Refurb w/ SuperDrive for just $1999...mmmm

[scottiB]

awcowpus, I agree with you in total; however, my perspective is a bit different. My purchasing cycle is a new tower every four years or so (unless some sort of cataclysm occurs--or I need the speed for business purposes), and my max budget is $3000 (including memory, additional drives, etc), but that's a bit elastic.

If my two year old DP800 should fail, fall, be totally FUBARED, my next purchase would be to keep me for four years--and that's where having the 8GB option tips the scale--for the future.

In two years, a DP 4GHZ G5 should be available [], and my DP800--crammed full of drives--will be a great server.

[Commodus]

I don't think I'd really say that the dual-1.42 "thrashes" the 1.8. The G5 has the higher Speedmark and Photoshop scores, and the G4's gains are often negligible (I'm not going to cry about having one less frame per second in Quake 3). It's only the Cinema 4D and MPEF-2 encode tests where it lags, and I'm wondering if that isn't simply a lack of G5 optimization.

The G5 is probably the better long-term bet. Apple is obviously going to lavish attention on the G5 to make it shine. Having the 8 RAM slots, AGP8X, and Serial ATA also means that you're going to be more likely to be able to have a meaningful upgrade in the future.

Besides, it has front-mounted Firewire, USB and headphone ports. You can't beat those.

[juanpacolopez]

Originally posted by awcopus:
Many times many people on these boards have been asserting that the G5 would eat the dual 1.4 for breakfast. The data's out. I'm sure a lot of people are shaking their heads.

The 1.8 G5 has a NINE-HUNDRED MEGAHERTZ FSB and a SATA HD. The 1.4 duallie has a single 167MHz bus. Yet in real world tests with actual software, it manages to beat the 1.8 G5.

In every rendering test.

I mean, I'm shaking my head, too. I didn't expect that. In fact, I've been happy about the dual 1.4 on its own merits (and because of the sweet deal I got), but have taken for granted that even the 1.6 would be faster than the 1.4 duallie most of the time.

As for the graphics performance, that has more to do with the more sophisticated GPUs and the AGP 8x slot bandwidth. Yet even there, the G4 duallie outperforms the 1.6 in Quake tests?

But you're missing the point.

The single G5's individual subsystems are MUCH faster... but as scottiB pointed out, these tests were hardly taxing of the 900Mhz bus and SATA drives. This is highlighted by the fact that the Dual 2Ghz is 1.5-2x faster than the dual 1.42 in almost every test.

However, you're comparing a SINGLE processor machine to a DUAL processor machine on MP-aware apps. While (obviously) a second processor doesn't equal a 100% improvement, it (conservatively) should offer 40-60% in properly multithreaded apps.

So, let's say 50% (right in the middle) in efficient, MP aware apps. That means that, on a clock-for-clock basis in apps that leverage SMP, a dual 1.42Ghz G4 should theoretically perform about on the level of a (theoretical) G4 2.13Ghz single processor machine.

For the 1.8Ghz G5 to be 300Mhz SLOWER than this theoretical mark, running on an OS that isn't completely optimized for it (ie, not Panther, which may offer up to 40% performance increases in certain cases) with first-gen plugin optimizations (in Photoshop... PS8 is supposed to be fully G5-aware) and still keep pace; I can't believe people aren't more impressed.

What these benchmarks say to ME is that on a clock-for-clock basis, in this early and completely unoptimized stage, the G5 is approximately 15-20% faster than a comparable G4. A 20% clock-for-clock efficiency improvement AND much higher clockspeeds (hence the high scores for the 2Ghz beast) both now and forthcoming (dual 3Ghz... mmmmm) is a really good thing.

[Hydra]

I think people are jumping the gun a bit here to rationalize the purchase of the outgoing hardware king (DP 1.42 G4). I think it's a nice machine but I'm not really seeing the whole thrashing thing here. The DP G5 is very very fast and the 1.8 and 1.6 seem like pretty nice performers too but remember the DP 1.42 G4 was a $2700 machine. AFAIK comparing a $1999 refurb with a brand new G5 is a little disingenuous. The Q3 test alone (which is DP aware) shows the G5 can hold its own against the former top of the line G4 - the video card is of importance here though.

Remember these tests are all done on 10.2.7 for the G5 which is little more than a stop-gap OS and the G5 stands to gain from 10.3 more than a G4 does. In a short while the whole 10.3 issue should be settled. The G5 stands right now where the G4 did a few years ago and many people debated the need for the G4 in the beginning when clock for clock the G4 didn't do all that much more than a G3 unless Altivec was used. Look at all the G3 owners in thelast few years crying in their morning cereal about the big boost a same speed G4 gets in general running OSX now. What chip does everyone think Apple will target in the future to optimize OSX and all their apps in the future? The G4 is running about as fast as it ever will right now but in the next few month who here thinks the G5's performance will remain the same?

I have a DP 2.0 G5 on order and don't really care all that much about the single G5's performance but if I had to choose I go with the future - not the past.

-Jerry C.

[Eug]

Judging by the tests, the dual G4 1.4 is competitive with the G5 1.8. On average the G5 seems to do better, unless you're running Cinema 4D or something. And even then, that might not be the case. Maxon is currently working on G5 optimizations for Cinema 4D. They say there should be a huge speed increase on the G5.

Both the 1.4 and 1.8 are fine machines, but which you'd take would depend on the situation. If I had memory-intensive apps, the 1.8 wins by a long shot. For gaming, I'd take the 1.8. For Photoshop, I'd take the 1.8. For Cinema 4D, I'd take the dual 1.42. Too bad the dual 1.42 often costs MORE than the G5 1.8 (depending on where you look).

As for the dual 1.25, there's even less reason to choose it. It's still quite nice, but the speed drop and the lack of FW800 are deal breakers for me, considering that a similarly spec'd dual 1.25 is only $150 less than a G5 1.8. The main benefit of the dual 1.25 is OS 9 booting and room for more drives.

• Dual 1.25 GHz w/ 2MB L3 Cache per processor
• 512MB DDR333 SDRAM (PC2700) -1 DIMM
• 160GB Ultra ATA drive
• Optical 1 - Apple SuperDrive (DVD-R/CD-RW)
• NVIDIA GeForce4 Titanium dual-display w/128MB DDR
• 56K internal modem
• Apple Pro Keyboard - U.S. English
• Mac OS - U.S. English

$2,249.00

This has already all been covered in my G5 1.8 thread.

Out of ALL of the Power Macs currently available I believe the sweet spot for most people is the G5 1.8, from the perspective of features and performance vs. price.

Now, for those who have a very low budget, there's the stripped down single G4 1.25. For those who need OS 9 booting and moderate speed, there's the dual G4 1.25. And for those who need the best performance Mac that money can be, we've always got the gorgeous dual G5 2.0.

And here's an excerpt from MacNN article:

Macworld Lab's first test results are in on all of Apple's new Power Mac G5 towers. We've tested all three models, and found them be clearly faster than the previous generation of Power Macs. The two single-processor models are generally as fast or faster than the top-of-the-line dual-processor 1.42GHz Power Mac G4, and the dual-processor 2GHz Power Mac G5 is clearly the reigning Mac speed king by a wide margin.

In Speedmark, our overall test of Mac system performance, the dual 2GHz G5 scored 258, with the 1.8GHz G5 at 225 and the 1.6GHz model at 207. The 1.42GHz dual-processor G4 scored 196. In Cinema 4D XL, an application that takes full advantage of the G4's multiple processors, the G4 fared better than the 1.8GHz G5 model -- but both were clearly blown away by the dual-processor G5.

[videian28]

I am very happy with my dual 1.4

[hyteckit]

I have no regrets buying the Dual G4 1.25GHz instead of the G5. Just got it less than a week ago and loving it. Man, can't wait until OS X 10.3 to come out, so I can run it on my new Mac.

No doubt the G5 is an awesome chip. But right now, it seems the Dual G4 is a better value. I like the G4 case better too.

[hyteckit]

Oh yeah, if you want the G5, the Dual G5 2.0GHz is the only option. It doesn't seem like you can upgrade the single processor to dual processor. But then again, it doesn't seem like you can upgrade the processor at all on the new G5 machines.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

I thought the Dual 1.4 had Firewire 800.

[awcopus]

Okay, "thrashes" is obviously hyperbolic. And reviewing the test criteria, I'm disappointed in MacWorld for not giving these machines a more robust series of tests.

Hydra, I'm only dealing with these Macs as they are priced today because today and tomorrow is all that matters in tech-purchasing. Someday the current dual G5 will sell for $1000 on eBay, and it will only make sense to assess it then as a $1000 machine when comparing its bang-for-buck against dual 4GHz machines (drool).

All of this "the G5 is the future" commentary is fully understood. The G5 still is the future for most of the Mac product line. For at least the next 12 months, Apple's product line will be dominated by nonG5 machines and you can bet that Panther is going to give them a significant speed boost as well. Apple isn't done with the G4 yet.

Right now, I would not feel comfortable investing big money in a single processor G5. A 1.8 with 2.256 gigs of RAM is going to cost about $2800 (4 512MB sticks from Crucial.com, unless you want to waste the 256 MB modules or can settle for 1.5GB of RAM). Why spend that if you can get close to the same performance and expandability benefits too for nearly $1000 less? Check out that $1799 dual 1.25 at smalldog, and I'm sure there are similar deals elsewhere, though there probably all but gone.

I think Apple is clearly heading towards dual processor G5s for most if not all of the line-up. I consider the 1.6 and 1.8 machines...I guess I just don't like that big empty space under the one processor. If Apple had made the machines so you could maybe add a second processor down the line, I'd probably like them more.

P.S. Commodus, I have a belkin firewire hub on my desk, so I don't lean down to my 1.4 unless I'm popping in optical media, same as G5 users.

[awcopus]

Originally posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker:
I thought the Dual 1.4 had Firewire 800.

It does.

[Eug]

I thought the Dual 1.4 had Firewire 800.

Yeah, but the dual 1.25 does not. The dual 1.42 is hard to get now since Apple doesn't sell it anymore.

It doesn't seem like you can upgrade the single processor to dual processor. But then again, it doesn't seem like you can upgrade the processor at all on the new G5 machines.

My guess is you could probably upgrade the single to a faster single, and the dual to a faster dual.

Right now, I would not feel comfortable investing big money in a single processor G5.

See above. The similarly config'd dual 1.25 costs all of $150 less than the G5 1.8.

I think Apple is clearly heading towards dual processor G5s for most if not all of the line-up.

I disagree. The main reason Apple went to duals in the past was because the G4s were simply too slow, compared to the competition. The G5s are not.

[AssassyN]

Originally posted by Eug:


I disagree. The main reason Apple went to duals in the past was because the G4s were simply too slow, compared to the competition. The G5s are not.

Nottt exactly, megahertz for megahertz, the PC realm still rules in raw clock speed, and no matter what benchmarks you toss at people, raw speed impresses more than anything. Having "duals" adds speed, and that's what's needed, in a big way, for people to switch.

[Hydra]

Originally posted by awcopus:
Someday the current dual G5 will sell for $1000 on eBay

Agreed, but I think in the next 6-12 months all G4's will take a big hit on resale. What happens when 64bit native or optimized apps start coming out. The G4 can do many things well but 64 bit isn't one of them. I fully expect Apple (FCP, FCE, DVDSP, Shake Soundtrack and others (Adobe too?) will have hooks for the 64 bit architecture. Pixar's RenderMan may only run on a G5 I believe too. There is much speculation out there but The G5 is only just getting going (don't forget IBM's xlC compiler as well).

I love my dual 800 but if your buying a new box you might as well buy the newest stuff. I will admit to having a dual fetish like many others at this point. I think the strongest argument to be made is to wait for duals to filter out to the rest of the G5 lineup. I don't think Apple can ignore the huge number of dual G5 orders. The next revision may have duals at every price-point, or at least I hope so.

The think for all to remember here is that in the end it's not important what Mac you buy, only that it IS a Mac There are many people out there that would never consider a Mac before (G4 or otherwise) that will consider the G5 with its state of the art specs. We Mac users just like to argue the finer points

-Jerry C.

[Link]

The only thing my dual 800 would be replaced with is yet another dual.

[Eug]

Nottt exactly, megahertz for megahertz, the PC realm still rules in raw clock speed, and no matter what benchmarks you toss at people, raw speed impresses more than anything. Having "duals" adds speed, and that's what's needed, in a big way, for people to switch.

Not sure what you're talking about exactly. If Apple believed what you say then we'd have duals across the G5 line. Obviously, we don't.

What is more important to the average switcher is not duals, but cost. Now, the G5 1.8 is still at the high end of the price range when compared to P4s, but the G5 1.8 does provide a lot of features (optical in/out, gorgeous design, Firewire 800, SATA, etc.), and it's still a heluvalot cheaper than a similarly config'd dual Xeon 2.8, or dual G5 2.0.

Apple made the best choice they could designing and packaging the the G5 line. Unfortunately for them, they simply couldn't overcome the dual bias so ingrained in the Mac-geek psyche. They may have to go to a line with more duals, but I think the main reason for them to do so is for marketing purposes, to this already dual-converted Mac population.

[Weezer]

Awcopus, ever since you got your dual 1.4, you seem to have been on some sort of mission to convince everyone (yourself?) that you made the right call. I've seen several threads about it, and I'm glad you love your purchase, but why the title of the thread wasnt "Comparative G4 G5 benchmarks" or something, doesn't make sense to me. I'm not trying to be an ass, but we have barely started to see many of the optimizations that will help the G5s start to pull away from the G4s, and you are prematurely trying to claim victory. No offense intended.

[idyll]

This topic has been discussed to death.

awcopus.. I hope you do realize that the G5 is a brand new processor for which applications have not yet been optimised and that Panther will speed things up on the G5 by as much as 40%. Also note that the G5 has ONE processor whereas the G4 has TWO processors. The G5 is much more efficient. As such, it also gives you a "snappier" experience in OS X.

In other words, it'll be a much better performer than the G4. Give it a month or two.

[Eug]

Originally posted by idyll:

awcopus.. I hope you do realize that the G5 is a brand new processor for which applications have not yet been optimised and that Panther will speed things up on the G5 by as much as 40%. Also note that the G5 has ONE processor whereas the G4 has TWO processors. The G5 is much more efficient. As such, it also gives you a "snappier" experience in OS X.

In other words, it'll be a much better performer than the G4. Give it a month or two.

Well, I won't go that far. Remember, while Panther is the OS of the G5, it also will speed up performance on the G4 as well.

Like I said before the G5 1.8 is a great machine. But I'm not saying the G4 1.25 is crap. It's a good machine as well. It's just not anywhere near as good as some of the old-school dual-lots are claiming.

[spiznet]

right, Weezer:
wasn't it just 6 months ago when awctopus had us all bunched up saying that OS9 was here to stay...

(He always raises good points!)

Also no offense...
-Mark

[idyll]

Originally posted by Eug:
Well, I won't go that far. Remember, while Panther is the OS of the G5, it also will speed up performance on the G4 as well.

Like I said before the G5 1.8 is a great machine. But I'm not saying the G4 1.25 is crap. It's a good machine as well. It's just not anywhere near as good as some of the old-school dual-lots are claiming.

Well, I asked the guy at barefeats about the 40% increase in performance on the G5 and he said that the performance increase isn't as major on the G4. I guess we'll just have to wait and see for ourselves once Panther is out. But you're right, both machines are excellent. The G5s are slightly better than the G4s right now but I think that things will soon change.

[Bbazzarrakk]

...but I think the main reason for them to do so is for marketing purposes, to this already dual-converted Mac population.

Quoting from the almighty Steve's keynote, when he was describing the G5:

Now this thing is designed from the ground up for multiprocessor systems.

Hmm, so is OS X. And look at that new magic point-to-point bus. It's already pretty well known that the G5 gets more out of the second processor than any previous Apple system.

No, I think Apple likes Duals and we going to see more, not less. That's a good thing, in my opinion.

Baz

[awcopus]

Originally posted by spiznet:
right, Weezer:
wasn't it just 6 months ago when awctopus had us all bunched up saying that OS9 was here to stay...

(He always raises good points!)

Also no offense...
-Mark

D'oh. Did I really say that? <gulp> Hard to believe I did...but then sometimes I do post awfully late at night. But then how do I excuse the rather brash, kind of misleading, and downright silly title of this thread? I did qualify what I meant...but it is nonetheless.... sensationalistic! Double d'oh!

1. I was an early convert to OS X, as in I bought the beta and have been using it as my main OS since October 2000. I think I might have been talking about how much snappier OS 9 felt whenever I occassionally had to go back to it for Quark work. OS X rocks and I love it. Unfortunately OS 9 is still the main Mac operating system at every major book and magazine publisher in NYC, probably because of the delay in Quark's release and, well, the economy. OS 9 is going to be around for a while, but it is clearly on its way out the door.

2. You're all right. No offense taken. I'll chill out about the 1.42 duallie and merits of buying a duallie G4 in general.

After one last reiteration.

The dual-processor computing experience is still quite new to me and it continues to be a revelation. Probably in the near future, there won't be a single refurbished dual processor G4 Mac left, which means that, except for eBay (which many people don't like to buy computers through), an entry level duallie Mac is basically the G5 duallie. No doubt an insanely great machine, but pricey. The reason I've been so enthusiastically advocating the dual G4 macs is because of the duallie experience itself, rarely ever more affordable than in the last few months. Now we have some indication that the last gen. of duallie G4s offers a comparable computing experience to current G5s. Comparable in performance and even superior in expandability.

Hey, I have salivated over some of the beauty shots of G5s that people are posting. I've repeatedly said the G5 is going to be wonderful, haven't really viewed this as a case where there are victories and defeats. We're all winning as Mac users. I just wanted to give people who were vacillating about purchasing a G4 duallie some reassurance that it's a great experience, especially for the dollar.

I'll try to leave it at that.

[awcopus]

Originally posted by Bbazzarrakk:
Quoting from the almighty Steve's keynote, when he was describing the G5:

{quote}Now this thing is designed from the ground up for multiprocessor systems.

Hmm, so is OS X. And look at that new magic point-to-point bus. It's already pretty well known that the G5 gets more out of the second processor than an previous Apple system.

No, I think Apple likes Duals and we going to see more, not less. That's a good thing, in my opinion.

Baz [/QUOTE]

EXACTLY!

Woooo Hoooooo!!!!!

[fireside]

someone probably said this before, but im too lazy to read through all of your dumb posts.

omg the dual 1.42 g4 beats the g5 1.8 in apps that were optimized totally for the g4!! no one expected this!! wow!! the g5 sucks!!

[loopless]

Code that is properly optimized for the G5 ( that is compiled with xlC and xlf, not the lame gcc) absolutely flies.

Various scientific bechmarks show that a 1.8 G5 can perform up to 2x better than a 1.4 G4 ( ignoring MP aware, that is!) when the code is properly compiled for the G5 using xlc/xlf.

xlc/xlf will also help a lot on the G4. Hopefully when these compilers are widely used we will all get some mHz for 'free'.

The other incredibly important tool that Apple has supplied for developers is "Shark"( part of CHUD). This profiling tool allows you to find where your app is spending it's time - down to the specific source line. And then it provides suuggestions on why a line of code may be ineffiicient on the G5.

[Leonis]

Originally posted by Link:
The only thing my dual 800 would be replaced with is yet another dual.

Me too

Except my current machine is the Dual GHz SlowSilver™

[c_waddington]

Originally posted by rhogue islander:
To those of you that purchased a refurb dual processor G4 a question:

What kind of packaging does it arrive in?

Is it the standard box or a brown box? Does it ship with the standard foam inserts?

I ordered a refurbished dual 1.25 G4 from smalldog along with a refurbished 17" Apple LCD monitor.

The Powermac arrived in a brown box with the words "Apple Refurbished" on the side. The flat panel arrived in the standard box with a sticker also saying "Apple Refurbished" on the side.

[The Mick]

I bought the G5 1.6 because I wanted a more future-proof platform. I'll never need 8GB of RAM, I've never used anything other than a regular 32-bit 33MHz PCI card at home (at work is different), and PC2700 is damn fast memory. I like having the more efficient architecture under the hood, the SATA drives and I'm really excited to hear the rumors that Panther improves speed over what is already a "snappy" experience. I also like having the option to install a 64-bit version of OSX and any apps when they come out, and I'm sure eventually they will. Those test results make me feel even better about my choice, I love my G5.

[3.1416]

Originally posted by Eug:
Not sure what you're talking about exactly. If Apple believed what you say then we'd have duals across the G5 line. Obviously, we don't.

It's likely that availability G5 processors is still constrained. Why would Apple be content to just achieve parity with x86 when with widespread duals they could have clear superiority?

Originally posted by Eug:
Now, the G5 1.8 is still at the high end of the price range when compared to P4s, but the G5 1.8 does provide a lot of features (optical in/out, gorgeous design, Firewire 800, SATA, etc.), and it's still a heluvalot cheaper than a similarly config'd dual Xeon 2.8, or dual G5 2.0.

The dual 2.0 is around 20% more, which IMO isn't a "heluvalot". Considering the performance improvement is much more than 20%, I believe it's a clearly better choice for most.

they simply couldn't overcome the dual bias so ingrained in the Mac-geek psyche

You keep saying this, and I still don't get it. Duals offer substantial performance benefits; this is not an illusion.

[HotSoup]

Now you know why Apple only offers the G4 in dual 1.25Ghz.

[Eug]

You keep saying this, and I still don't get it. Duals offer substantial performance benefits; this is not an illusion.

And you're right. The problem with it is the fact that so many Mac users I come across these days have a knee-jerk reaction that "if you're going to get a Power Mac, only get the dual", regardless of cost.

Sure it's fast, but then again so is a dual Xeon. When was the last time you met Windows Photoshop geeks who said a dual 3 GHz Xeon is an absolute must compared to a single 2.8 GHz P4?

Now you know why Apple only offers the G4 in dual 1.25Ghz.

Two of the G4 Power Macs offered are single and one is dual.

[3.1416]

Originally posted by Eug:
The problem with it is the fact that so many Mac users I come across these days have a knee-jerk reaction that "if you're going to get a Power Mac, only get the dual", regardless of cost.

Fair enough. In this particular case I believe the increased performance is easily worth the increased cost; you may disagree. I'd be saying the same thing if the high end wasn't a dual but a single 2.8 or 3.0.

[saru boy]

So how to they stack up against PC's?

We know that the Dual 2.0 G5 is the fastest Mac out there, but is it the fastest personal computer?

[Bbazzarrakk]

We know that the Dual 2.0 G5 is the fastest Mac out there, but is it the fastest personal computer?

I don't think we can really answer this question with much authority. Please keep in mind this machine isn't even shipping in mass yet. Even then, well comparing computers is darn right hard stuff.

My two cents though. If the Dual 2.0 isn't the clear champ, it's certainly in the running.

Baz

[KidRed]

Originally posted by awcopus:
...if you consider (1) price point and (2) expandability and (3) EXPECTATIONS!

Don't take my word for it...
http://www.macworld.com/2003/09/revi...g5testresults/

I disagree. You get newer tech, newer memory, bigger bandwidth, airport extreme, bluetooth, etc. Also, the 1.8 only lost 4 of the 7 tests, not bad for a single. To think this baby is almost as fast as a not to much slower dual is saying something. Imagine a dual 1.8 G5, no comparison against a dual 1.4. For that reason alone, my EXPECTATIONS for the G5 lead me towards the G5 being the better value.

[axlepin]

Wait for a few things to happen, namely the release of Panther, and more G5-optimized code.

Plus, for those of use dealing with whopping big files, like video, I think that the G5, with its wider bus higher capacity for RAM will REALLY come into its own as it plows through files that G4s can merely gag on.

axle

[Eug]

Originally posted by saru boy:
So how to they stack up against PC's?

Check out this thread.

In a CFD benchmark, the single 2.0 destroys everything except the P4 3.2. The P4 wins one test while the single 2.0 wins the other two. And the G4 1.25 looks like it's on crutches. .