[MikeD]

I have a dual 2.7 G5 PowerMac that I'm trying to see if it would be worth upgrading to the intel chipsets now and was curious about how much faster they would be than the one I have now. This computer is our main home computer that streams our music / video throughout the house, does the bulk of our photo editing (large screen) and video encoding/decoding. That way, we put the strain off of our laptops. Maybe waiting for refurbished is the way to go for savings but just trying to gauge what's out there now compared to what I have.

Mike

[mduell]

The Mac review sites (barefeats.com, a variety of Mac magazines) usually compare one generation back (sometimes two), but yours is so old most won't bother comparing it.

Upgrading to a Mac Pro isn't going to make a difference for media streaming, it will make a difference for photo editing (moreso if you use something like Aperture rather than just iPhoto), and it will make a huge difference for video encoding.

[MikeD]

See, I was thinking about changing my macbook to a macbook air since I take the laptop with me wherever I go, but then I thought for aperture or any other RAW file editor, it would be best to work on a faster PowerMac (our main home computer). I'm just wondering if the current crop of PowerMacs are 2x, 3x 4x faster than what I have now. Especially since almost everything is finally native to the intel (Office, Adobe Products etc)

I feel bad that my computer is 'so old' It's still chugging away though... slowly!
Mike

[angelmb]

In terms of CPU power something like a 1,83GHz intel core duo would match (if not slightly faster than) your G5 Mac, so you could look for comparisons between the newer Macs and the first Mac Mini or iMac that came with the aforementioned intel 1,83GHz CPU.

IMHO I would look at this from another perspective, wondering if your current Power Mac is still (or not) fast enough instead of how much faster the new Macs would be.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by MikeD 

See, I was thinking about changing my macbook to a macbook air since I take the laptop with me wherever I go, but then I thought for aperture or any other RAW file editor, it would be best to work on a faster PowerMac (our main home computer). I'm just wondering if the current crop of PowerMacs are 2x, 3x 4x faster than what I have now. Especially since almost everything is finally native to the intel (Office, Adobe Products etc)

Look through the benchmarks here... it's using the first generation Mac Pros, but it compares them to the dual 2.5Ghz G5s.
Not everything is CPU bound and well threaded, so don't expect a 100% speedup from quad to 8-core, but of course you can do more at the same time.

As anglemb said, if you're satisfied with your PowerMacs performance, why upgrade, but if you're not satisfied, it's probably well worthwhile.

[OreoCookie]

Upgrade when you need to.
Simple pixel pushing doesn't really warrant for a newer machine in most cases, e. g. when you edit simple 12 MP files from your digital camera in Photoshop. Aperture is a lot more demanding, but still, doesn't make an upgrade an absolute necessity.

Some people here would like to upgrade simply because they'd like to have `the latest and greatest,' immediately put in 12 GB of memory, regardless of whether they use even 6 or 8. Prices for equipment steadily decline, today's top-of-the-line machine will offer just half to a fourth of the processing power in three years time.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by MikeD 

See, I was thinking about changing my macbook to a macbook air since I take the laptop with me wherever I go, but then I thought for aperture or any other RAW file editor, it would be best to work on a faster PowerMac (our main home computer).

The problem with the air is not the CPU but the really small and slow hard drive. I'd be careful if you want to use it with RAW photos.

[SierraDragon]

Originally Posted by MikeD 

I have a dual 2.7 G5 PowerMac that I'm trying to see if it would be worth upgrading to the intel chipsets now and was curious about how much faster they would be than the one I have now... ...Maybe waiting for refurbished is the way to go for savings but just trying to gauge what's out there now compared to what I have. Mike

Allowing for the fact that all benchmark testing is somewhat arbitrary, you can find performance comparisons at these sites:
Primate Labs Blog : Mac Performance (February 2008)
Real World Speed Tests for Performance Minded Mac Users (Info is there but you need to look for it).

IMO upgrading chipsets is seldom appropriate, because overall performance is dependent on the complete architecture of any given computer, seldom just the chipset. Buying a refurb MP is the way to go when you do decide to upgrade.

-Allen Wicks

[MallyMal]

Here is the full list of Macworld benchmarks. The list includes your specific model and the latest Mac Pros. MacWorld

[SierraDragon]

MacWorld has proven itself time after time as producing incompetent test data and reviews. I strongly recommend that folks look elsewhere for real data. MW is great for entertainment value and for putting on Mac Expo SF, but a bad place to go if one wants information unbiased by flawed testing.

-Allen Wicks

[peeb]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Prices for equipment steadily decline, today's top-of-the-line machine will offer exactly the same processing power in three years time.

Fixed that for you.

[Leonard]

Originally Posted by SierraDragon 

MacWorld has proven itself time after time as producing incompetent test data and reviews. I strongly recommend that folks look elsewhere for real data. MW is great for entertainment value and for putting on Mac Expo SF, but a bad place to go if one wants information unbiased by flawed testing.

-Allen Wicks

Yes, I'd have to agree that you have to watch MacWorld tests. I've often seen them test multi-core/multi-processor machines with alot of single processor tests, which of course doesn't show the proper increases in "speed".

[SierraDragon]

Originally Posted by Leonard 

Yes, I'd have to agree that you have to watch MacWorld tests. I've often seen them test multi-core/multi-processor machines with alot of single processor tests, which of course doesn't show the proper increases in "speed".

Or the way MW runs tests with arbitrarily limited RAM. Intentionally limiting modern computers to 2 GB RAM for testing is worse than ridiculous. Folks who need the kind of power that such tests are alleged to demonstrate are unlikely to be dumb enough to constrain themselves to minimum RAM.

Kind of like putting $20 tires on a Ferrari then taking it to the track and reporting on the performance of the Ferrari: Ooh look a Ford Escort runs as well as a Ferrari... Ooh look an iMac runs as well as a Mac Pro... Ridiculous!

BareFeats.com with probably less than 1% of the resources available to MW provides much, much more relevant performance info.

-Allen Wicks

[drissa]

I have a Dual 2GHz G5 and recently got a 2.2GHz Core 2 Macbook. The difference in apparent raw processing power seems big - the Macbook is much more powerful. Tracks in Logic 8 which make my G5 feel very sluggish open in no time on the Macbook and playback without breaking a sweat.

I agree that we usually persuade ourselves that we *need* more power when we don't. And always having the latest machine seems like a dangerous inclination. However, there are some times, such as working with audio apps, when the capacity of the machine can be the difference between being able to work on a project and not.