[chasg]

Hi All,

I need to replace a dead-ish G4/500 AGP, and a local Mac shop is offering a dual G4 1.25GHz (mirror doors) or a G5 1.6GHz for about the same price.

I'd like some opinions on which would be the better machine for me: I use a desktop mainly for Photoshop and Illustrator work (I'm a photographer and graphic designer). I also occasionally do video work (FCPro).

HD throughput for scratch isn't an issue, as I will be moving over my Adaptec 2940U2W SCSI card and two SCSI drives (how many drives can I fit into a G5 anyway?).

I'd bump any new machine up to at least 1Gb RAM.

Any opinions?

Many thanks in advance for any assistance,

Chas

[superfula]

There have been quite a few threads on this already. One within the past weekend even.

[chasg]

whoops, that's what I get for assuming my problem is unique. Apologies for not doing a search first.

Thanks,

Chas

[NYCFarmboy]

Make sure the dual 1.25 is not one of the screamers. Some of the G4 towers had a reputation for being very loud.

My 1.42 dual g4 is quiet..but I understand the model previous to it was very loud.

[chasg]

It's a good point, thanks (I've just spent the last two hours reading threads on the dual G4 1.25 vs. G5 issue <phew>, and the screamer problem was only mentioned a couple of times).

Thanks again,

Chas

[Lateralus]

At this point in the G4's production, you're more likely to get a chirping G5 than a jet engine G4.

And I recommend the Dual 1.25 G4 over a 1.6 G5, no contest. They're about equal in performance, and well... Duals just rock. Plus, the 1.6 is nothing special. Only 4 RAM slots, regular PCI slots instead of PCI-X... etc. The MDD G4 case looks a hell of a lot better too.

[chasg]

Thanks also for the info, and the recommendation.

Yes, duals do rock, and I'm _strongly_ tempted by the dual G5 1.8, but I'll have to sell some stuff to get it (I have a Twentieth Anniversary Mac that I'll finally have to let go <sigh>). If I can't raise the capital, it's likely the dual G4 for me...

The major G5 disadvantage for me is the lack of space for internal HDDs, what's up with only room for two? (I have 4 in my present machine). Oh well, compromises have to be made!

Thanks again for the info,

Chas

[Westfoto]

The real machine to get is the Dual G5 1.8. Yes it is more $, but you get what you pay for. I am looking at one now, or hopefuly the middle of the road when the next rev. comes along.

West

[eddiecatflap]

..i agree 101% , the dp1.8 is so sweet , it's silly

[chasg]

I gotta agree with that! ("alright everybody, stretch that budget, streeeetttttccccchhh!")

It'll be tough, but I think I'll wait until the next rev. and get one then (that decision made easier by memories of Apple revision debacles, like the one that quickly made the single processor 1.8GHz obsolete, or my IIvx!)

Chas

[angelmb]

what about Mac OS 9 lovers out there?

[Cadaver]

I dunno. I'd still be tempted by the single G5 over a dual G4. Bandwidth-wise, there's no comparison. Plus, as major apps are tweaked with G5 enhancements, you may see some additional speed boosts. The G4s OTOH are all tweaked out.

MacOS X's GUI is much smoother, IMO, on a G5 (even the 1.6GHz model). Playing with window resizing, etc., on a 1.6GHz G5 and a 1.25GHz DPG4 at my local Apple store months ago, the single G5 was much more responsive.

While I agree that DP machines are killer, if given the choice between a 1.25GHz DPG4 or a single 1.6GHz G5, I'd take the G5 for general computing over the G4.

[cambro]

Originally posted by angelmb:
what about Mac OS 9 lovers out there?

I'm pretty sure all 5 of them still have Ruby Red iMacs.

[powerbook867]

I have 1.6 and I've read no reports of issues with chirping, excessive fans or anything of that nature...My 1.6 is plenty fast for my needs and I believe that Macworld had a comparison a while back between a 1.6 and a G4 duallie setup. I beleive the 1.6 won, but not by alot.

I personally would get the G5. It will hold it's value a little better (new architecture) and is a solid performer. If you have the $$ the dual 1.8 is the sweet spot in the Powermac lineup....

[Eriamjh]

G5 or nothing.

[Switched2Mac]

I second that.

G5 or nothing.

G4 is the past, just like OS9.

Time to move on.

[superfula]

It may be older, but the dual G4s still put out better performance than the 1.6 and 1.8 G5. You have to realize that there will be very few apps that, even if they were optimized for the G5, will be that much faster on G5s. We're talking games, heavy audio,video, and image editing. I highly doubt any other smaller app would make the change. And there's no way a 1.6G5 is more "future proof" than a dual 1.25 or 1.42. It's a dead end machine in a heavily dual-oriented OS

[Lateralus]

Originally posted by superfula:
It may be older, but the dual G4s still put out better performance than the 1.6 and 1.8 G5. You have to realize that there will be very few apps that, even if they were optimized for the G5, will be that much faster on G5s. We're talking games, heavy audio,video, and image editing. I highly doubt any other smaller app would make the change. And there's no way a 1.6G5 is more "future proof" than a dual 1.25 or 1.42. It's a dead end machine in a heavily dual-oriented OS

Well said.

[Eriamjh]

Let me rephrase that: Dual G5 or nothing.

[superfula]

Originally posted by Eriamjh:
Let me rephrase that: Dual G5 or nothing.

Yup. Although if I needed a powermac and didn't have the money for a dual G5, I would have no problem getting a maxed dual G4.

[Eriamjh]

Update: Deal-mac.com says refurbed Dual 1.8G5 for $1999 or dual G4 1.42 for $1899 from the Apple Store.

I'd get the G5.

[chasg]

that's a great price (for both). For my needs, the dual G5 1.8 is definitely the way to go! (too bad I've never seen refurb units for sale at the UK version of the Apple Store...correction, it seems that refurb units are on sale every Wednesday (I'm sure I've never seen this link before...go figure!).

Unless I can get an awesome refurb deal, I'm waiting for the speed bump, and then it's dual G5 for me, at last!

Any strong recommendations _against_ refurb units? (I don't care jack about cosmetic issues, as long as it works "as good as new" and carries the same warranty).

Chas

[WizOSX]

Originally posted by superflua
And there's no way a 1.6G5 is more "future proof" than a dual 1.25 or 1.42. It's a dead end machine in a heavily dual-oriented OS.

This statement makes no sense to me. If a 1.6 G5 is a "dead end machine" then an SP 933, 1ghz or 1.25 ghz machine is even more "dead end." The 1.6 G5 is a far, far better machine than any of those (in terms of tests, bandwidth, clockspeed, etc., etc.). But I don't think anyone here would come out and call any of those three "dead end." (And, BTW, I don't own a 1.6 G5).

[superfula]

Originally posted by WizOSX:
This statement makes no sense to me. If a 1.6 G5 is a "dead end machine" then an SP 933, 1ghz or 1.25 ghz machine is even more "dead end." The 1.6 G5 is a far, far better machine than any of those (in terms of tests, bandwidth, clockspeed, etc., etc.). But I don't think anyone here would come out and call any of those three "dead end." (And, BTW, I don't own a 1.6 G5).

Can't add any optical drives, can't add more than 2 hd, and only sata for that matter. Can't update processor, AND it's a single processor machine. OS X gets more optimized for dual processors at every major OS release.

I am not comparing a single G5 to a single G4. It's the single G5 vs the dual 1.25 or dual 1.42. Any G4 isn't a dead end machine, since you can update them quite abit. Especially the mdd machines.

[WizOSX]

All Originally posted by superfula

Can't add any optical drives.

Agreed, this is a flaw in the G5 design, and is very annoying. But it doesn't make the G5's dead end--I don't see anyone arguing that the dual 1.8 is dead end for this reason.

Can't add more than 2hd

I would doubt that even 1% of Power Macs have more than 2 hard drives. And again, the limit goes for all G5's--and, again, I don't see anyone arguing that the dual 1.8 is dead end for this reason.

Can't update processor, AND it's a single processor machine.

This is because it is a new design. It was a long time after the Quicksilvers came out before we saw processor upgrades. It's almost a guarantee that someone will have upgrades for all the G5 machines in a year or so (about the same time it took for Quicksilvers). But processor upgrades for fairly new machines almost never make good economic sense. You can almost always buy a new machine for less than the cost of the upgrade plus what you can sell an older machine for. The ability to upgrade the processor is a very poor reason to buy one machine over another. The problem, of course, is always one of price. I agree with you and the other posters that the 1.6 G5 is still overpriced. But, if the price comes down soon, to say $1200 for the current Superdrive, 256mb, 1.6 G5, then it becomes an outstanding bargain--a much better buy than a Dual 1.25 G4 at, say, $1,469 (the current ed. price).

OS X gets more optimized for dual processors at every major OS release.

True, but most of the tests seem to have the 1.6 G5 about even with a with a Dual 1 ghz G4 on dual processor aware processes. Which, of course, means that a 1.6 G5 is, overall, faster than a Dual 1 ghz G4. The point is that there is nothing magic or special about dual processors. Apple uses this technology mainly because they can't get their hands on 3+ ghz processors yet. A single processor machine, for any and all tasks, will always be more cost effective than a dual. There is no "megahertz myth," megahertz is still the cheapest way to make any software run faster.

In addition, Apple can only go so far with tweaking OsX for Duals. There is no doubt that the next big push by Apple will be major tweaks and optimizations geared specifically to G5/64 bit. In that sense, I think a 1.6 G5 may look better than any Dual G4 in a year or so.

[scottiB]

G5/1.6 all the way.

I own a DP800 w/ 1.5GB of memory, and yesterday used a G4 1.25 SP w/ 1.25 GB (helping a friend install Panther, iLife, add a second drive), and was greatly shocked at its snappiness. While I didn't run cleaner, Compressor or FCP rendering tests with it, I bet it'll be on par with my machine (Compressor seems to max at 150% processor usage as does cleaner).

We had most of the iApps open simultaneously, so I could show her the various features, etc. (with a heavy amount of GarageBand), and I felt little, if no, hesitation due to no second processor.

The extra 350mhz, greater bandwidth, higher memory capacity (while pricey now--it won't be forever), and quietness tilts my choice to the G5.

[tonywong]

Originally posted by chasg:

HD throughput for scratch isn't an issue, as I will be moving over my Adaptec 2940U2W SCSI card and two SCSI drives (how many drives can I fit into a G5 anyway?).

Your 2940 may not be compatible with the PCI bus on the new G5s. Make sure it is 3.3V compatible for the 1.6GHz machine. All other G5s will not accept normal PCI cards at all.

[yoesh]

my 2 cents:

Dual 1.25 G4 > single G5 1.6
Dual 1.25 G4 =< single G5 1.8
Dual 1.25 G4 < dual G5

the refinement of the dual G4 is a factor when comparing it to the bottom of the G5 line. i think only when you get into the middle of the line up (1.8, single or dual) do the benefits of the version1 G5 machines win.

[chasg]

Thanks Everyone for weighing in on the debate. I'm about 99% certain I'm going to be getting a dual 1.8 G5 (big budget stretch, but makes too much sense to go any other way).

tonywong, thanks _very_ much for the PCI bus info, I hadn't noticed that issue when reviewing the technical specs (what a bummer, more legacy hardware!).

Chas

[Don Pickett]

Originally posted by superfula:
It may be older, but the dual G4s still put out better performance than the 1.6 and 1.8 G5. You have to realize that there will be very few apps that, even if they were optimized for the G5, will be that much faster on G5s. We're talking games, heavy audio,video, and image editing. I highly doubt any other smaller app would make the change. And there's no way a 1.6G5 is more "future proof" than a dual 1.25 or 1.42. It's a dead end machine in a heavily dual-oriented OS

I know you said, "heavy audio,video, and image editing," but I would like to make the point that if your work involves these activities, there is no comparison: the strangled bus of the G4 makes Photoshop crawl even next to a 1.6 G5.

[superfula]

Originally posted by Don Pickett:
I know you said, "heavy audio,video, and image editing," but I would like to make the point that if your work involves these activities, there is no comparison: the strangled bus of the G4 makes Photoshop crawl even next to a 1.6 G5.

Not really. If the apps he will be using are smp aware, the dual 1.25 will have no problem beating a 1.6 G5. If they only take advantage of one processor, of course the G5 will win.

[kw99]

Originally posted by superfula:
And there's no way a 1.6G5 is more "future proof" than a dual 1.25 or 1.42. It's a dead end machine in a heavily dual-oriented OS

If the "future" for you mean the next two years, you are right. However, for the real future, the PowerMac G5 is "more future proof" because it has a 64-bit processor. There will come be a time (probably sooner rather than later) when the G4 compared to a G5 will be like the 68040 compared to the first PPC. Apple will continue to support the G4 for a few years after the last Mac model transitions to a G5, but all the good stuff after that point will increasingly be 64-bit only (and the 1.6 GHz Power Mac G5 will be the low end cut off).

[paperfrog]

I admit to agonizing over this same question when I bought my new Mac last month. In the end, I settled on a factory refurb dual 1.8 G5. Seemed the best value of the G5 line, and buying a refurb means you know the machine has been thoroughly benched.

Someone gave me a great rule of thumb while I was making my decision, and it seems pretty apt: G4s are for those who need to boot OS 9. Otherwise, buy the G5 you can afford. Apple will deliver a 64-bit OS well within the lives of G5s purchased today, and you want to be able to run it. Go for the G4 if you have a substantial investment in legacy apps.

On the other hand, I intend to buy some used G4s for friends and family this year. Best value on the planet.

Fun choice, in any case. All new computers are good computers. ;-)

[Tony Edwards]

You can add two additional hard drives inside a G5 by using Wiebetech's G5 jam.

http://www.wiebetech.com/products/G5Jam.html

[Don Pickett]

Originally posted by superfula:
Not really. If the apps he will be using are smp aware, the dual 1.25 will have no problem beating a 1.6 G5. If they only take advantage of one processor, of course the G5 will win.

Absolutely not. I spend all day in front of a 1.6 G5, working with 500+ MB Photoshop files. There are other people in the office working on G4s. The strangled bus speed of the G4s kills them for Photoshop work –_opening, saving and manipulating large files bring the G4s to a dead halt as they move all that data in and out of memory and hit the disk. The G5's much faster bus isn't bothered.

[loco]

Originally posted by Tony Edwards:
You can add two additional hard drives inside a G5 by using Wiebetech's G5 jam.

http://www.wiebetech.com/products/G5Jam.html

Come on. At a price of $500, its way cheaper to get that G4 and add a SATA card to *it*.

[superfula]

Originally posted by Don Pickett:
Absolutely not. I spend all day in front of a 1.6 G5, working with 500+ MB Photoshop files. There are other people in the office working on G4s. The strangled bus speed of the G4s kills them for Photoshop work –_opening, saving and manipulating large files bring the G4s to a dead halt as they move all that data in and out of memory and hit the disk. The G5's much faster bus isn't bothered.

Sorry, I don't buy it. I've used both for that purpose, and there really is no contest. The 1.6 doesn't keep up. As much as I hate using benchmarks, the only tests that the 1.6 won, were the apps that aren't smp aware. That's just the way it is.

[SierraDragon]

• Architecture for the next 2-3 years is key. Forget G4, and forget single processor G5 boxes because they have less modern architecture, and architectural changes are what matter most. The dual G5 1.8 is best value for folks like us (PS, Illy, etc.) at this instant in time, but if you can wait 30 days or so for the next G5s because choices and prices will change.

• Stick to dual processor, because Adobe and Apple are designing to it.

• Usually - if not always - Apple's lowest end choice should be avoided by professional users as not being the best value for heavy PS use.

• Continually falling prices and improving value in personal computers is a GOOD thing. Whining about not forever having the very best value because progress happens is totally lame.

• Refurbished boxes are usually a great way to go. Typically they have been more thoroughly tweaked by higher quality techs than a new box.

• There are excellent engineering reasons (heat, cost, size, etc.) to limit to 2 hard drives. 500 GB is plenty for a standalone box. Folks who need larger capacities can go to external FW drives or XServe RAID.

• Modern SATA drives are pretty fastand lack SCSI's anomalies. You may want to end up mounting your SCSI drives into external drive modules.

[Note above commentary applies only to this thread, professional Photoshop-type usage.]

[Don Pickett]

Originally posted by superfula:
Sorry, I don't buy it. I've used both for that purpose, and there really is no contest. The 1.6 doesn't keep up. As much as I hate using benchmarks, the only tests that the 1.6 won, were the apps that aren't smp aware. That's just the way it is.

I'm not talking about benchmarks. I'm talking about watching it happen with my own eyes. I have designers who have me open files for them, so they can make minor changes, because the files are so much easier to work with on my machine. Two processors don't help when they spend most of their time waiting for slow memory access.

[SierraDragon]

Your observed slowness is in throughput, which is much more complex than just G4 vs. G5 or dual vs. single processor. Overall though, purchasing a box today for PS, a dual G5 is the way to go. Purchasing less would be a bad decision, not appropriate, because you are buying for the software of 2004-05-06, not 2003-04.

[same PS pro qualification as before]

[Don Pickett]

Originally posted by SierraDragon:
Your observed slowness is in throughput, which is much more complex than just G4 vs. G5 or dual vs. single processor. Overall though, purchasing a box today for PS, a dual G5 is the way to go. Purchasing less would be a bad decision, not appropriate, because you are buying for the software of 2004-05-06, not 2003-04.

[same PS pro qualification as before]

Considering that the machines are on the same network, accessing the same files through the same gigabit ethernet, and that the only marked differences between the G4s and the G5s in this studio is processor configuration, it's an observation I feel confident in making. These are large Photoshop files – 500 or more megs, many layers, many masks – and the G4s choke moving all that data around and in and out of memory. The G5s, with their much-improved memory bandwidth, are noticeably faster.

Anywho, that aside, you are correct: buy the dual G5s. Watching a dual 1.8 chew its way through making PDFs is a thing of beauty.

[Link]

Dual 1.8 will beat a dual 1.25 hands down.

I'd do anything to keep from getting an MDD as well. Like the 3g ipods they never really caught on to me.

[scottiB]

AppleStore has updated its refurb section:

G5 SP 1.6 - $1399
G5 SP 1.8 - $1599
G5 DP 1.8 - $1999
G5 DP 2.0 - $2399

The SP 1.8 isn't a bad deal at all (as I look at my DP800 distastefully).

[superfula]

Originally posted by Don Pickett:
I'm not talking about benchmarks. I'm talking about watching it happen with my own eyes. I have designers who have me open files for them, so they can make minor changes, because the files are so much easier to work with on my machine. Two processors don't help when they spend most of their time waiting for slow memory access.

The benchmarks I am referring to are realworld tests. More specifically, any photoshop benchmark you see, the dual 1.25 beats the 1.6 quite easily. In this case...the PS bench is just as good as real world usage.

Obviously the dual G5 is the way to go...but where in the title of this topic does the dual G5 even come up? It doesn't...this is about the dual 1.25 vs the single 1.6.

[scottiB]

I believe Don means actually opening the file and using PShop day-to-day. And I'd tend to agree--opening and manipulating a 500MB file on a G5 would be a lot faster than a G4 (we're talking about 533mhz faster bus and using DDR to its full potential).

[SierraDragon]

Actually, the thread is about a pro Photoshop user replacing a dying G4. He requested comparison of two replacement choices, but the fact is that a third choice - DP G5 - is IMO a much better choice for his needs. To not mention that would be lame.

Often the appropriate info regarding a topic posed in a forum thread deviates from the exact wording of the thread topic.

[superfula]

Originally posted by SierraDragon:
Actually, the thread is about a pro Photoshop user replacing a dying G4. He requested comparison of two replacement choices, but the fact is that a third choice - DP G5 - is IMO a much better choice for his needs. To not mention that would be lame.

Often the appropriate info regarding a topic posed in a forum thread deviates from the exact wording of the thread topic.

You're right....a comparison of TWO choices. It's like going into a thread where someone is asking for an opinion on two Macs, and you tell him to buy a pc. The opinion has nothing to do with what he asked.

Opening the file, saving the file...whatever it is. The single 1.6 doesn't compare.

[SierraDragon]

Like I said, IMO it would be lame not to point out a _much_ more appropriate choice. "Which is faster today" is not actually the right question to ask anyway. Buying a new box for graphics pro use in 2004 should not be decided solely based on folks' 2003 experiences or benchmark testing, even though those are definitely of interest. Such a decision should be based on expected performance during the FUTURE useful pro graphics life (typically, 2-4 years) of the box.

Once you ask the right question and look at expected performance of OS X10.4 and later, running PS8, 9 and 10 rather than last year's experience with OS 10.1-10.2 and PS 7, the needs analysis changes. All G4s are less than desirable; designers have not optimized for G4 since 2002. All graphics apps are aimed at G5 processors, with multi processor support but not ignoring single G5 usage because single processor G5 laptops are a significant market.

Similarly, next generation (next month) desktop Macs are expected to be all dual processor. PSCS is fully MP capable as well. The small additional cost of the second G5 processor will continue to produce a very substantial graphics performance benefit in the future.

Hence, [A] G5 not G4 and [B] dual not single processor. However if forced to pick between the two inappropriate choices given, I would pick the single processor G5 for expected 2004-2005-2006 performance running 2004-2005-2006 OSs and PS versions..

[SierraDragon]

Today some of the best modern drivers, peripherals, cards, applications, etc. will not work on G3 boxes. It is very likely that two years from now - well within the expected useful life of a new box bought for pro PS use today - there will be drivers, peripherals, cards, applications, etc. that will not work on G4 boxes, only on G5s.

And look at cost. Over the life of a new box the difference between righteous (DP G5) and marginal (G4 or single processor) is something like US$10 monthly. The difference between working professionally on a righteous box vs. working on a marginal one is worth way more than US$10 a month. Just for the way it improves your mood if nothing else! <g>

[Don Pickett]

Originally posted by superfula:
You're right....a comparison of TWO choices. It's like going into a thread where someone is asking for an opinion on two Macs, and you tell him to buy a pc. The opinion has nothing to do with what he asked.

Opening the file, saving the file...whatever it is. The single 1.6 doesn't compare.

For the last time – wrong. You are giving bad advice.

Because of the strangled bus of the G4, those dual processors will spend most of their time waiting for data and memory access. On the other hand, the 800 MHz bus of the G5 has no problem keeping the processor supplied with memory and data. I am a pro Photoshop user – eight to twelve hours a day – and have used Photoshop since version 1.0. When running silly stuff like filter tests, the dual G4 may beat a G5. But for actual day-to-day use pro use, which doesn't involve much in the way of filter use, the G5's bus and memory speed makes it a much better choice. You need a machine on which you can add and edit masks, do channel calculations, clone, etc., without looking at the spinning beach ball. The only time I see the beachball on the G5 is when I'm resizing huge files. Other than that, it never skips a beat.

Don't believe me? Put a dual G4 and a 1.6 G5 next to each other, and open a 500 MB .psd. Now work on it for an hour. See how much time you spend on the G4 waiting for the machine to catch up to you.