Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Avanon · Feb 18, 2006, 01:52 AM

Hey guys,

Okay, I broke down and bought a refurbished dual-core 2.0 GHz from the Apple Store and am suffering a bit of buyer's remorse. $2000 after tax, keyboard, and Apple Care. My current computer is an Athlon 2500+ with 1 TB of storage space and a gig of RAM, which I use to do Avid editing, Photoshop, After Effects, Dreamweaver, and play games.

Was it a mistake to pick up the low-end Power Mac when it's being beaten by the new Core Duo iMac ($100 less brand-new!) in benchmarks? I couldn't justify the iMac because it has no Firewire 800, no expandability, and no RAID support. Plus, I already have a monitor. The refurb 2.3 was $500 more, and the quad nearly $1,000. It hasn't come yet, so I could just send it back, no harm no foul.

The PC I have now is competent (save for the OS...lol). I know intellectually that the dual-2.0 is plenty fast. But is it $2,000 fast and a worthy upgrade, or would patience be the better virtue? Thanks much.

24klogos · Feb 18, 2006, 08:30 AM

I would keep it man, if you need the machine right now, and could make good use of it for another year or two (before it turns into a useless-gigantic cheesse grinder).

I bought my dual 1.8G5 refurb too, and i am lucky i haven't had any issues, however, even with extended Applecare (which is the best to get in these cases) when you buy refurb, you can often be buying someone else's problems.

While i certanly don't look forward to buy a newer machine, specially an intel powered mac, I know my current gear will last long enough so this Intel transition will be 99% complete when we're basically forced to switch.

You're getting a good machine, there aren't many PC's under $3000 that would compare to it as it is today, and like i said, at the end of the day, when we all are mutated into PC users by default, you will have one kick-ass cheesse grinder!

Jason · Feb 18, 2006, 09:12 PM

I think you should keep it. From what i've heard the dual core iMac isn't doing aswell as good old steve jobs sadi it would. The times in day to day programs are obviously faster but i don't know if you will really be all that satisfied with it at the end of the day.

Personally I was trying to decide if it was better for me to get a MacBook Pro and then get another monitor and just use it as a desktop computer rather than a laptop, or to buy a PowerMac G5. I have decided that the G5 is going to be better for me, and since I have no need to take a laptop anywhere, the whole portability feature is kind of a waste of money. I would probably only ever take it out of the house 5 times a year.

I think you should keep the 2.0 when you get it, and stick some more ram in it if you haven't already ordered more! And a nice 30" monitor wouldn't do any harm either! Or if you don't want to shell out that much just go for a 23".

I'm counting the days when I can put my PC in a dark corner and let the PowerMac shine!

MichiganRich · Feb 19, 2006, 12:59 PM

Send it back, wait for the Intel PowerMacs. You've already got a very robust machine. If you want to satisfy some Mac urges, find an older MUCH cheaper tower to play around with.

Avanon · 03:35 PM

Hey guys, thanks for your helpful comments. You all raise really good points. I gather it's a difficult time for many who want an Apple right now and don't know whether or not to buy or wait.

For myself, I was really pleased with the 1.5GHz Mac Mini, as it felt faster (at most things) than my PC, so I would probably be really impressed with the Dual 2.0. I did some research, and at $450 less than the Dual-core 2.3 (refurb), the DC 2.0 is only a few seconds slower for a lot less money, which could then go to extra RAM, HD space, etc.. It also compares favorably price-wise to a comparably equipped Dell and is 3.4 times faster than my current computer at rendering Photoshop filters. Something about that number "2000," though... at $1699 it seems like a steal, but once you add it all in...

Hmm.

The Intel Power Macs sound pretty awesome from what I've heard, though the earliest I've heard speculated for their release is September. The idea that gaming on a Mac is going to be competitive with gaming on PCs (save for SLI, but who knows?) is just awesome, and could well be a reason to send the Dual 2.0 back. Then again, the market on eBay for old G4s is so crazy, am I wrong in thinking a Power Mac G5 would retain a lot of its value even after the switch?

The computer comes on Thursday. I'll have to make the decision then. Thanks much for your help

Lateralus · Feb 20, 2006, 03:31 PM

Keep it. Sell it later on if you want to go for an Intel Power Mac. You wont lose much money.

Todd Madson · 01:33 PM

Benchmarks don't equal real world performance.
Remember too the benchmarks are against single G5 performance (not dual).

Play with it and decide.

I did my own benchmarking at the Apple store by making the
CoreDuo barely be able what my dual DP 2.5 does with ease.

There you go.

foo2 · Feb 20, 2006, 11:03 PM

Originally Posted by Todd Madson

Benchmarks don't equal real world performance.
Remember too the benchmarks are against single G5 performance.

Play with it and decide.

I did my own benchmarking at the Apple store by making the CoreDuo barely be able
what my dual DP 2.5 does with ease.

There you go.

Can you explain with concrete examples what you mean, and what you tested? Most of what most people are likely to do that would stress the CPU (Photoshop CS2, Adobe apps, Apple Pro apps) aren't Intel-aware yet, so any test borders on useless. And of the in-box apps (iLife06, etc.) Intel CPU tends to do very well, from the benchmarks I've seen.

brysonda · Feb 21, 2006, 09:48 AM

I did a little playing with a 2.0 GHz Core Duo iMac at our local CompUSA Apple Shop. It was somewhat difficult to test, given that they have pretty much nothing on them. But some casual testing of the iLife stuff gave me a pretty good idea of the interface 'feel'.

Overall it seemed like a decently fast system. The system was responsive and quick to start apps. Scrolling through the medium sized sample iPhoto library seemed to lag randomly, not much out of the norm. GarageBand still took a while to initialize. I'd say my general impression was that it felt like a Mac, with some of the same achilles heels.

As for the Rosetta apps, all there really was to test was the office test drive. Word was slower than it is native, obviously. My first mac was a 1GHz TiBook, and I'd say it would easily outperform Rosetta. Though, thats not really the point. It would probably be workable for a casual user. Task switching back and forth between it was REALLY slow, though. Getting word to come back after it had hidden all of its toolbars took about ~5s.

As a consumer machine, I think the iMac Core Duo is a good choice. Its future proof, and for multitasking, the second core would be good.

For anything that requires PPC support for now (Photoshop, etc), I'd go with the PowerMac. That Dual 2.0 will still feel fast, has plenty of upgradability, and will run everything today and for the next couple years at native speed.

foo2 · Feb 21, 2006, 01:32 PM

Originally Posted by brysonda

easily outperform Rosetta. Though, thats not really the point. It would probably be workable for a casual user. Task switching back and forth between it was REALLY slow, though. Getting word to come back after it had hidden all of its toolbars took about ~5s.

As a consumer machine, I think the iMac Core Duo is a good choice. Its future proof, and for multitasking, the second core would be good.

For anything that requires PPC support for now (Photoshop, etc), I'd go with the PowerMac. That Dual 2.0 will still feel fast, has plenty of upgradability, and will run everything today and for the next couple years at native speed.

Benchmarks have repeatedly shown that Rosetta eats RAM for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. Plan on 1.5GB minimum if you want to do anything serious under emulation without lots of swapping.

Apple again does a tremendous disservice to its' userbase by shipping such low-RAM machines. When Acer can ship dual-core laptops with Radeon x1400 graphics, 120GB HDD, and 2GB of RAM for $1299 (CompUSA sales price), Apple's *got* to get its butt in gear. 512MB in this day and age, particularly with Rosetta's massive memory requirements, just doesn't cut it.

Todd Madson · Feb 21, 2006, 01:38 PM

Example?

I did 26 tracks of software synthesis on a CoreDuo 2.0 machine
with each track creating 32 voice polyphony simultaneously.

The machine seized at that point at 165% cpu utilization. Backing
off slightly 23 tracks was a more realistic (and less system stressing
level of performance). I'd say real world results would be 50-60
tracks likely.

Impressive but I get better actual performance on my DP 2.5
but I would expect to.

The benchmark comparisons Apple is touting is their new dual
core machine versus a single, single core CPU.

Of course the performance is going to be better.

But I'm not saying it's a bad machine, I'm just saying "this is
what I experienced when stress testing it for things I would do".

And yeah, I wouldn't run with less than 2 GB ram which isn't a
huge amount these days. Hell I see the CompUSA ads selling a
family PC with 2 GB so it's not esoteric anyone and hasn't been
for a while.

foo2 · Feb 21, 2006, 02:02 PM

26 tracks in what program?

Apple has compared this year's model to last year's models. I think that's fair, particularly when the price is the same or less.

I'm very disappointed the new machines can only go to 2GB.

mduell · Feb 21, 2006, 08:44 PM

Originally Posted by foo2

I'm very disappointed the new machines can only go to 2GB.

As soon as you can get a 2GB DDR2-667 DIMM for each slot, the machines will be happy to take them.

Avanon · Mar 2, 2006, 02:30 AM

Hey all, thanks for your help. I got my Dual 2.0, set her up, and am truly blown away. She's in desperate need of RAM, so I ordered 2 gigs from OWC and a 500GB hard drive. I think the added RAM will make it feel even faster - I have something like 244,000 pageouts lol...

Thanks again

chris v · Mar 2, 2006, 07:16 AM

Originally Posted by Avanon

Hey all, thanks for your help. I got my Dual 2.0, set her up, and am truly blown away. She's in desperate need of RAM, so I ordered 2 gigs from OWC and a 500GB hard drive. I think the added RAM will make it feel even faster - I have something like 244,000 pageouts lol...

Thanks again

The RAM will help a lot. Someone posted some benchmarks showing Photoshop performance on a G5 with varying amounts of RAM. Once you get over 2 gig, it gets a dramatic speed boost. I've got 3.5 gig in mine, and I pretty much use it all, regularly.

Todd Madson · Mar 2, 2006, 09:47 AM

To foo2:
26 tracks in garage band which was the only multitrack audio app
installed on that particular machine.

Logic or Cubase would likely produce better results but I tend to do
28 tier wedding cake music - lots of layers and lots of overdubbage
and I can reduce a lesser machine to its knees pretty quickly.

foo2 · Mar 2, 2006, 10:18 AM

Originally Posted by mduell

As soon as you can get a 2GB DDR2-667 DIMM for each slot, the machines will be happy to take them.

That was not true of the original Mac Mini, so I'm concerned that Apple could limit this one as well to 2GB. How certain are you of what you wrote above? Are you sure it isn't an Intel 945 chipset limitation, also?

mduell · Mar 2, 2006, 09:11 PM

Originally Posted by foo2

That was not true of the original Mac Mini, so I'm concerned that Apple could limit this one as well to 2GB. How certain are you of what you wrote above? Are you sure it isn't an Intel 945 chipset limitation, also?

Unless Apple spent time and effort crippling it, 945PM supports 4GB.

shabbasuraj · Mar 3, 2006, 05:38 AM

Originally Posted by MichiganRich

Send it back, wait for the Intel PowerMacs. You've already got a very robust machine. If you want to satisfy some Mac urges, find an older MUCH cheaper tower to play around with.

agreed...

I am in the same boat as the OP...

I kinda need it now, and I kinda have a bad feeling about buying now considering the phase Apple is in with regards to hardware develpment, and the Intel/Software performance issues that are currently being worked out...

...so I wait, and watch for further Apple developments...