[Madrag]

hello all,

After reading many of the topics about this, I'm still in doubt.

Here goes:

I plan to buy a G5 double processor, but I'm not sure between the 1.8 and the 2 GHz...
(all these because of the price diference... if the 2 GHZ were at the price of today's 1.8, I would get it for sure).

is that 2 GHz much faster/better?

I mean, their're almost the same (I know the 2GHz has the possibility of 8GB of RAM, also the PCIX, but I won't need more than 4GB of RAM, and won't need the PCIX

Also, the video cards are the same, and the extra HD I can get for a low price...

I plan to use it as my work horse (graphic, multimedia, web, audio design) for the next four years, but was wondering if those extra 200 MHz are worth the difference...

thanks in advance for your input!

[az_matt]

I've been kicking around the same question- to buy the dual 1.8 or 2.0 when I get my G5...

Benchmarks have the dual 2.0 at something like 8.5% faster than the 1.8. Not much of an improvement, really. And since I'm in the same boat as you - doubting that I'd ever need the extra 4 slots for RAM or PCIX, I think I've come to a decision.

I'm going to get the dual 1.8 and spend the money I save vs the 2.0 and upgrade the video card, RAM, hard drives, etc. I think that spending the money on the video card especially would yield a machine that is more powerful in everyday use than an otherwise "stock" 2.0. But that's just my $0.02.

Matthew

[jamil5454]

I agree. The money is better spent upgrading peripherals because those Dualies should last a while. Quick question - Will the PM support PCI-X video cards?

[Madrag]

Nice reply!
that's a good suggestion...
I will probably do that as well (buy the 1.8 and upgrade the peripherals)

I'm just worried about the performance in the future compared to the 2.0...

Is there any hardware difference that will make the 1.8 and the 2.0 difference stand out in the future?

(I plan to have my G5 for four years (as my beloved G4 400), so I hope it will hold that long...)

I don't know if the PM will support the PCI-X video cards...

[Luca Rescigno]

There's no such thing as a PCI-X video card. At least, I don't think so. There are regular PCI video cards like the Radeon 9200, which will work fine in any PowerMac if you want to add extra monitors. There's also PCI Express, which will replace AGP fairly soon, but that isn't in any of the PowerMacs yet.

BTW, if you get a PowerMac, there's now a GeForce 6800GT available for it. $100 cheaper than the 6800 Ultra for almost the same performance, and only $50 more than the 9800XT for nearly twice the performance! I'd highly recommend it if you plan to do any gaming. And a dual 1.8 with a 6800GT is still cheaper than a dual 2.0 with an FX5200.

[Madrag]

but will the new video card (any upgrade I mean) give such a performance bump even if you just need your mac for work?

[Luca Rescigno]

Not really... I mean, go for the Radeon 9600XT for sure, because the extra VRAM actually WILL help with general use. Past that, though, you should only need an upgraded video card if you need it for a video-intensive task like gaming or Motion or something along those lines. If you're not gaming, I think upgrading to the 9600XT and buying lots of RAM (1 GB or more) would be the best way to go.

[johnmccaig]

i just got a 1.8 dual because my UAD-1 card doesn't like the PCI-X of the 2.0 and up.

IMO.. always go for the fastest you can afford, no mater what.

but i was kinda stuck with the PCI/PCI-X issue.

[Madrag]

I agree...
but the price difference is very big...

I am inclined to get the 1.8, but on the other hand, I find the 2.0 very appealing and almost worth the price dif.

It's more or less a psycological thing, the going over the 2GHz (equal in this case)

I will have to test both (where?), and if the 2.0 price drops, then, he's the one.

otherwise, if by Feb. the prices are the same (doubt it), the 1.8 will be the one.

In any case, I plan to get 2GHz of RAM, and upgrade the video card to one with at least 128MB

[Sparkletron]

The 1.8, 2.0, and 2.5 all differ by about $500. However, the difference between a 1.8 and a 2.0 is more significant than between a 2.0 and a 2.5. One reason is because both the 2.0 and 2.5 have eight memory slots while the 1.8 only has four. Of course it all depends what you're using it for. If you don't need eight memory slots...

With each $500 increase, you are essentially paying for performance.

-S

[az_matt]

Originally posted by Sparkletron:
...With each $500 increase, you are essentially paying for performance.

-S

I disagree. The jump from the 1.8 to 2.0 is more about expansion - adding the PCI-X slots and 8 memory slots vs 4. Benchmarks for the 2.0 are something like only 8.5% better.

If you're a pro user who will need and use the extra slots for RAM or high-speed PCI-X cards, then it's not even a question of which model you need. But I gotta think that for most users, spending that $500 difference on a better video card and more RAM would make for a better performing machine in day-to-day use.

Matthew

[Mafia]

Originally posted by az_matt:
But I gotta think that for most users, spending that $500 difference on a better video card and more RAM would make for a better performing machine in day-to-day use.

thats what i did and i'm glad i did it.

[Madrag]

you're glad, but does your 1.8 perform? (I mean, do you feel that you would need a faster machine?)

[Mafia]

Originally posted by Madrag:
you're glad, but does your 1.8 perform? (I mean, do you feel that you would need a faster machine?)

no, this thing performs.(PERIOD) i use a lot of heavy photoshop work, illustrator, fcp, and even gaming and i have never felt i needed more power. i do however wish i had a decent monitor but that will come in april.

[Madrag]

Originally posted by Mafia:
no, this thing performs.(PERIOD) i use a lot of heavy photoshop work, illustrator, fcp, and even gaming and i have never felt i needed more power. i do however wish i had a decent monitor but that will come in april.

That's what I like to listen!
If it does, then maybe the 200MHz difference isn't that bad...
Hope you get the monitor you want!

[Mafia]

Originally posted by Madrag:
That's what I like to listen!
If it does, then maybe the 200MHz difference isn't that bad...
Hope you get the monitor you want!

thanks and i will, 23" apple display is my graduation present. the g5 was supposed to be but i couldn't wait so summer job took care of that.

[Feathers]

I agonised over the exact same thing. What finally swung it was that for the 15% more money it seems that you get an almost exact 15% increase in real world performance. Apple seem to have structured the pricing very carefully in that regard.

Secondly, although I don't anticipate putting 8 Gigs of RAM into the puppy straight away, there's is no doubt that extra RAM has a more immediate impact on performance than an incremental processor boost. With the 2.0, at least I know that there's space in there for the future.

Thirdly, there are already video capture and raid cards that are PCI-X only and that's before the standard has been widely adopted. I don't want to be left with my cheese hanging in the wind in two years time.

Where I saved money was that I opted for a Formac ProNitron 22" CRT rather than an Apple 20" LCD, less than half the price, and ordered the CTO Radeon 9800 XT.

I'm still watching my estimated ship date with baited breath. The original date has passed and got an e-mail from Apple with a new date of the 15th (Nov) but online status still shows the old date!

Finally, I didn't push the boat out to the 2.5Ghz machine because:

a) I don't want to wait three months and...

b) I don't like the idea of water inside a computer no matter how good the plumbing!

[wtmcgee]

I had the same dilema. I went ahead and got the dual 1.8, used the money I saved to get 2GB of RAM (bringing me up to 2.25GB), and upgrading the video card/HDD.

I don't regret the decision at all - This puppy absolutely flies. Illustrator, photoshop, after effects, even the one game i have (call of duty) runs like a dream.

Go for the dual 1.8.

[Madrag]

Now I'm more into getting the 2.0...
This because I just tested one (unfortunately I couldn't test the 1.8...)

the main reason is that if you think in terms of height (I'm 1.8mt tall, and compared to someone who is 2mt tall, the difference is uge!), so, I've decided to get the 2.0.

I believe those ±10% will pay up.

[AC Rempt]

I also went for the 1.8 for the same reasons, though I have yet to upgrade the vid card because it's an expensive upgrade. I did pump the RAM and add a larger HD, and that made me extra happy.

The 1.8 is a great machine for those who want a good amount of power but don't need to push it to the max. If this machine lasts as long as my last one, an original twin gig G4, then I will be a happy man.

[UnixMac]

It's like comparing a Corvette with a Porsche Carrera

Both are very fast.. both impress the hell out of you in work done. One is just a few percent faster and you will only notice it when you've got them both maxed out and that additional 10-20% is noticed.

I.E. unless your app is going to use 100% of both CPU's you won't notice the difference between the 1.8 and the 2.0 (or 2.5 for that matter).

Get a better GPU, more RAM and a faster OS X drive and you'll be very happy.

[Madrag]

(but you got a 2.5 for some reason )
let's just say you have a ferrari

I'm still not convinced that the 1.8 is a good buy...

[jcadam]

I'm also trying to decide on this issue

Things to consider:

1. You MUST upgrade the RAM immediately. Apple charges way too much, so you'll order the RAM elsewhere (like from crucial) and get the Mac in stock config.

2. The 1.8 has 4 RAM slots. 2 of them are occupied with skimpy 128 meg sticks. 512Mb DIMMs are the best price/meg/stick right now, so if you add 2 of those, you're sitting at 1.2 GB of RAM only. To upgarde further, you have to pull those 128 DIMMs out, grind them up, mix the dust with beer, and drink.

3. The 2.0 has 8 RAM slots. In stock config, you have 2 of them occupied with 256 meg sticks. You can add 2 512 meg DIMMs, giving you 1.5 GB of RAM AND 4 EMPTY SLOTS. This will be especially useful when 1GB DIMMs become cheaper.


Hmm........

[wtmcgee]

Originally posted by Madrag:
(but you got a 2.5 for some reason )
let's just say you have a ferrari

I'm still not convinced that the 1.8 is a good buy...

Then don't buy it. You've asked for input and you've gotten it.

[UnixMac]

Originally posted by Madrag:
(but you got a 2.5 for some reason )
let's just say you have a ferrari

I'm still not convinced that the 1.8 is a good buy...

I had cash to burn, so I got the best I could with it... I'm blessed in that respect.

If I had to mind my money, then the dual 1.8 would have done me fine actually. My point about the speed is that unless you are doing something that requires all of the processing power of you machine (which is going to be rare), you will not notice the difference.

I have a good friend with a Dual 1.0 G4 and his machine seems as fast as mine with 80% of the apps we use together... My mom's iMac G5 1.6.. same..

So get the faster 2.0 if you have no worries about the extra money... otherwise I vote for the 1.8, or for a few more dollars dual 1.8.

[Feathers]

Originally posted by wtmcgee:
Then don't buy it. You've asked for input and you've gotten it.

Hey, that sounds a bit harsh!

Anyway, as an addendum to my own previous post, I also chose the CTO 9800XT because it certainly looks like Apple is going to hike more and more of the processing over to the GPU. This may in part be a short-term response to the poor scalability of the G5 (so far). Look at "Motion". I just had a gut feeling that Panther is going to do more of the same.

Also, hard as it was to scrape the do$h together, I felt that I would kick myself if I sold the thing short by $400 and then additional funds came available. Ironically, that is exactly what has happened. A protracted row with my bank was finally resolved with a not insignificant refund, so I'm delighted that I did go the little bit extra with the 2 x 2.0Ghz machine that I can now afford!

I think it's on "Barefeats.com" that the guy advises to always buy the fastest machine "you can afford". That's the crucial point. Generally, things like RAM and HD's get cheaper a lot quicker than Mac CPU's so money spent on the raw hardware depreciates less quickly than money spent on expansion. By way of example, I recently paid $430 for a 4Gig CF card for my Canon 10D, two months earlier I would've paid $799!!!! That applies pretty much across the board as far as memory is concerned, and HD's follow pretty close too.

I will be putting 4 x Seagate 200Gig drives in my machine, but not for a few months. (Another reason I chose PCI-X was that it seems that the 4-port and 8-port SATA cards are PCI-X) As the machine pays for itself, I'll build it up to the goal state!

Of course, this is all "humble opinion" sh1t, but take from it what you will!

[Feathers]

Hey Unixmac,

That's damn fine set-up you have. I have a question though. Did you consider CRT's at all when you were choosing the display? I know the 23" is beautiful, but she's an expensive puppy. Just wondering what made the decision for your set-up?

[Cadaver]

To the original poster...

If you're really going to keep your machine for 4 years, then make sure you get as much oomph as you can possibly afford. Get the dual 2.0GHz model (or the 2.5GHz if you can swing it). You may not need it now, but in two years you might.

The other option, and many people do this, is to buy the low-end machine and replace it every 18 months. If you don't need a super powerful machine, but you want to stay current, then buy the low-end and frequently replace it. That way, (perhaps) when in two years Macs have advanced PCI-Express graphics busses and dual-core processors, you'll be able to snag one right away. Otherwise, you'll still be riding out your original purchase for another two years.

As for me, I tend to buy the top end and keep my machines for about 2.5 years. I bought a dual 2.0GHz in Oct, '03, and one year later is still going strong. I did add a faster hard drive (Raptor 10K) and video card (bought stock so I couldn't get the top end), but I can't see the need to replace the machine itself for another year and a half at least.

Gee... my "advice" probably didn't help, did it?

[UnixMac]

Originally posted by Feathers:
Hey Unixmac,

That's damn fine set-up you have. I have a question though. Did you consider CRT's at all when you were choosing the display? I know the 23" is beautiful, but she's an expensive puppy. Just wondering what made the decision for your set-up?

It follows my addege of buy a top of the line machine every 5 years or so.. My last unit was a dual 500mhz G4 with Apple 17" CRT etc... and I loved it (the CRT) but I wanted more real estate...

basically the Apple display had this in it's favor for me:

1 - Wide view resolution which is unavailable in CRT
2 - Brightness was awesome
3 - Style of the hardware fits right in with G5 (I posted pics in the PowerMac picture thread if you wana see)
4 - I wanted the 30", but wife said it would look stupid in our computer "nook" and threw a fit until I changed my mind. But I got the Nv40 card so that I can add it later should I talk sense into her.

[Feathers]

Originally posted by UnixMac:
It follows my addege of buy a top of the line machine every 5 years or so.. My last unit was a dual 500mhz G4 with Apple 17" CRT etc... and I loved it (the CRT) but I wanted more real estate...

basically the Apple display had this in it's favor for me:

1 - Wide view resolution which is unavailable in CRT
2 - Brightness was awesome
3 - Style of the hardware fits right in with G5 (I posted pics in the PowerMac picture thread if you wana see)
4 - I wanted the 30", but wife said it would look stupid in our computer "nook" and threw a fit until I changed my mind. But I got the Nv40 card so that I can add it later should I talk sense into her.

Yup, purely for cost reasons I went for a Formac 22" CRT. Now it's bright!!!! but one thing that bugs me, like you mention, is that cosmetically it's horrible, it's the first beige/bone coloured thing that's sat on my desk in about five years, in that regard I hate it but I'll live with it for awhile. It has also struck me that the wider aspect would've been useful for FCP timelines but money rules at the moment.

Pretty sneaky getting the "Nv" anyway, that's thinking ahead.

[UnixMac]

Originally posted by Feathers:
Yup, purely for cost reasons I went for a Formac 22" CRT. Now it's bright!!!! but one thing that bugs me, like you mention, is that cosmetically it's horrible, it's the first beige/bone coloured thing that's sat on my desk in about five years, in that regard I hate it but I'll live with it for awhile. It has also struck me that the wider aspect would've been useful for FCP timelines but money rules at the moment.

Pretty sneaky getting the "Nv" anyway, that's thinking ahead.

Was the CRT that much less?

What about the older style 20 or 23" Apple display?? I've seen those for below 1 G.

Eitherway, there are areas where CRT still out performs LCD I'm told so you're not doing to bad actually.

[Feathers]

Originally posted by UnixMac:
Was the CRT that much less?

The ProNitron 22/880 cost just less than half the price of an Apple 20" LCD

What about the older style 20 or 23" Apple display?? I've seen those for below 1 G.

In my neck of the woods there is little opportunity to source "end-of-life" or even used Apple gear. In the past 9 months, both High-Street Mac retailers have gone out of business. There are one or two business-to-business type dealers but they're basically the "we don't have it but we can order it for you" types, which is the same as ordering from Apple oneself!!!

Either way, there are areas where CRT still out performs LCD I'm told so you're not doing to bad actually.

Certainly the CRT has "true" variable resolution but the one thing that bugs me is the two horizontal "trinitron" lines supporting the aperture grille. The Formac tube is NEC/Mitsubishi but it's Diamontron which has the same two lines as a SONY Trinitron. Even going for a LaCie Electron Blue IV would still have had those lines!!!! I have no doubt that I will probably get an LCD within the next year and will have a willing recipient for the CRT in the form of my brother!!! Hopefully, over the next twelve months LCD prices will fall considerably.

[jcadam]

Originally posted by Feathers:
Certainly the CRT has "true" variable resolution but the one thing that bugs me is the two horizontal "trinitron" lines supporting the aperture grille. The Formac tube is NEC/Mitsubishi but it's Diamontron which has the same two lines as a SONY Trinitron. Even going for a LaCie Electron Blue IV would still have had those lines!!!! I have no doubt that I will probably get an LCD within the next year and will have a willing recipient for the CRT in the form of my brother!!! Hopefully, over the next twelve months LCD prices will fall considerably.

I've been using Trinitrons forever (using a 21" SONY right now), and don't notice the lines anymore unless I look for them. LCDs just don't have the flexibility/versatility of CRTs. Not to mention they cost a lot.

[Madrag]

Originally posted by wtmcgee:
Then don't buy it. You've asked for input and you've gotten it.

Uhhhhh...
I didn't mean to upset you, all I said was that I'm not convinced, it doesn't mean that I disregarded the opiniums...

Anyway, thanks for the latest replies, indeed helped (as did the first ones, of course)

Where I'm standing ATM:

I plan to get a machine for the next 4 years, and the suggestion of getting a 'better' mac, and that the RAM and HD are cheaper to upgrade than the processors, made me feel that getting the 2.0 may be the choice for me...

Of course the 1.8 may be a good buy (I probably won't take it to the max, but who knows?)

So, I'm now going to save a bit more money and get the 2.0 and this way I won't regret not getting it...

thanks all for the excelent input!

[jcadam]

If you can find one of the OLD model dual 1.8s, it would probably be cheaper than the 2.0s and would still have the 8 memory slots and the PCI-X......

[Feathers]

Originally posted by jcadam:
I've been using Trinitrons forever (using a 21" SONY right now), and don't notice the lines anymore unless I look for them. LCDs just don't have the flexibility/versatility of CRTs. Not to mention they cost a lot.

Just curious, have you found an optimum resolution and refresh that the lines are least visible or put another way, what are you currently running your monitor at?

On the other point, what you say about LCD vs CRT is almost verbatim what my programmer brother said, creepy!

I also apologise for dragging things slightly off-topic to the CRT vs LCD debate but for the cost conscious buyer of a new system, it might be relevant!

Glad to hear that some of the posts have been helpful to madrag. My 2.0Ghz DP shipped today so I'm cross-legged with anticipation ATM!

[Madrag]

not some of the posts, all!

I envy you already for your 2.0!

[d.fine]

My 2.0 has seriously dissapointed me this week while playing Halo.
It was so choppy (like 4-5 fps)* that I couldn't believe my eyes ...

Otherwise it's an awesome machine. I can throw anything at it (in the photoshop, illustrator, dreamweaver, final cut etc etc sense) and it just keeps going !!!

*Halo @ 800x600 on a DP2.0 w/ 2GB DDR, 9600XT

[UnixMac]

Originally posted by d.fine:
My 2.0 has seriously dissapointed me this week while playing Halo.
It was so choppy (like 4-5 fps)* that I couldn't believe my eyes ...

Otherwise it's an awesome machine. I can throw anything at it (in the photoshop, illustrator, dreamweaver, final cut etc etc sense) and it just keeps going !!!

*Halo @ 800x600 on a DP2.0 w/ 2GB DDR, 9600XT

I have a dual 2.5 with 6800 and it still sucks... I think Halo is a poorly ported piece of software and that's it.. nothing more.

[jcadam]

Originally posted by Feathers:
Just curious, have you found an optimum resolution and refresh that the lines are least visible or put another way, what are you currently running your monitor at?

On the other point, what you say about LCD vs CRT is almost verbatim what my programmer brother said, creepy!

I also apologise for dragging things slightly off-topic to the CRT vs LCD debate but for the cost conscious buyer of a new system, it might be relevant!

Glad to hear that some of the posts have been helpful to madrag. My 2.0Ghz DP shipped today so I'm cross-legged with anticipation ATM!

Keep in mind I am also a programmer. (Well, not at the moment, I've got a BS in Computer Science, but the Army paid my tuition, so I am their indentured slave for another 1.5 years, before I can get out and get a job I enjoy. i.e., programming) Anyways, programming is a hobby at the moment. When messing around coding in OpenGL, you want to be able to do things like test performance across a wide variety of resolutions. Hence, the need for a CRT.

No to mention a CRT is so much better for gaming (response time and resolution flexibility). For example, it may be nice that your LCD has a native resolution of 1600x1200, but if you think you're going to be running Doom 3 at that resolution.....

I'll admit an LCD is better for general usage, and is easier on the eyes for staring at lines of code for hours on end.

My ideal setup would be one (1) medium-sized LCD and one (1) Big-arse CRT (have one of those now), but I'm cheap.

I normally run my 21" Sony at 1600x1200. It could go higher, but I have a prescription of -8.25. In my experience, the visibility of the 2 guide wires/lines does not change with resolution. They are the same size in 1600x1200 that they are in 320x200. They are most noticeable against a white background. But in exchange, you get a nice, crisp, FLAT, display (the color quality on trinitrons has never been fantastic, though, but I've been using trinitrons for so long, other monitors just look weird to me, like the fuzzy-arse KDS they make me use at work, with a PeeCee).

[macaddict0001]

halo isn't the best way to show off your systems speed, not only that but it isn't tuned for the g5 processor or duel processor. If you want to show off the power of your machine with a 3d game unreal tournament 2004 is a good choice.

[Luca Rescigno]

No it's not. Unreal Torunament 2004 is almost entirely CPU bound. Upgrading your processor will help it a lot, but upgrading your graphics card doesn't help at all. Besides, it's an old game with no shaders like there are in Halo.

Halo is the way to go. It scales well as you upgrade your graphics, and it's the only Mac game I know of (for now anyway) that makes use of pixel shaders. If you want a good benchmark as to how well future shader-heavy games (Doom 3, and any other modern FPS) will run, then Halo is what you want to look at.

Basically, using UT for measuring game performance will tell you how well your Mac will run old games. If you use Halo, you'll see how well it'll run new (and future) games.

If you're getting bad performance in Halo, I'm sure there's something you can do to improve it. Turn off detail objects (in the dialog box at startup) and shadows (in the game settings), and mess with the resolution a bit. The other settings you can change how you want - I've noticed that turning off "specular" effects doesn't really help much, but turning off decals does. But turning off decals makes the game look crappy, so leave them on if you can. If you haven't installed the latest 1.0.5 update, do so. Halo tends to run better on nVidia cards than on ATI cards, but a dual 2.0 with a 9600 should be fine for it. Even so, the 9600XT isn't the most powerful card out there... it's low-middle end by today's standards. Shader-heavy games like Halo want a faster card, like a Radeon 9800, X800, or GeForce 6800. Also remember that Halo is not very well optimised for Mac (as macaddict said), so it's not going to run that well even with a capable system.

[d.fine]

Originally posted by Luca Rescigno:
If you're getting bad performance in Halo, I'm sure there's something you can do to improve it. Turn off detail objects (in the dialog box at startup) and shadows (in the game settings), and mess with the resolution a bit. The other settings you can change how you want - I've noticed that turning off "specular" effects doesn't really help much, but turning off decals does. But turning off decals makes the game look crappy, so leave them on if you can. If you haven't installed the latest 1.0.5 update, do so. Halo tends to run better on nVidia cards than on ATI cards, but a dual 2.0 with a 9600 should be fine for it. Even so, the 9600XT isn't the most powerful card out there... it's low-middle end by today's standards. Shader-heavy games like Halo want a faster card, like a Radeon 9800, X800, or GeForce 6800. Also remember that Halo is not very well optimised for Mac (as macaddict said), so it's not going to run that well even with a capable system.

Thanks for the advice. I was kinda dissapointed at the poor performance in some of the bigger levels, but it doesn't weigh through. In all other aspects the G5 is a kickass system. It was just a, I guess natural reaction, to expect more from a over 3500 euro system.
But gaming is not its primary use anyway ... but I will definitively try out what you advised, thanks !

[Cadaver]

Originally posted by UnixMac:
I have a dual 2.5 with 6800 and it still sucks... I think Halo is a poorly ported piece of software and that's it.. nothing more.

Halo is a dog even on a tricked-out game-optimized PC.