Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

PwrMac.com · 07:54 PM

I decided to write about my "slow" G5. I just found it frustrating that people are quick to point out G5's (and other Power Macs for that matter) are obsolete. Here is the link to my blog:

http://www.pwrmac.com/2008/10/01/rea...d-speed-freak/

I have some info about upgrading and three videos (My machine booting, using cover flow, and a stress test). I think the stress test is kinda cool.. let me know what you think.

bballe336 · Oct 2, 2008, 09:43 PM

I didn't really read your blog post, however I will say that I think the G5's are obsolete. If you do anything related to processing power PPC macs are obsolete.

PwrMac.com · Oct 2, 2008, 09:54 PM

Why not? It proves that even under heavy load they still hold their own. Whats the basis of you thinking that?

Eug · Oct 2, 2008, 10:19 PM

If speed really matters, then G5s really are obsolete. I got rid of my G5 iMac years ago specifically because of its (lack of) speed.

I kept some G4s (Power Mac Cubes, iMac, iBook), but that's because I like their aesthetics.

bballe336 · Oct 2, 2008, 10:36 PM

Originally Posted by PwrMac.com

Why not? It proves that even under heavy load they still hold their own. Whats the basis of you thinking that?

They don't hold their own at all. The modern machines that took the place of the G5's are much faster.

At an internship I did earlier this summer they had me using a 1.8ghz dual G5 with 2 gigs of ram, it was so slow I could barely use it. And all I was doing was web surfing, and a little bit of diagnostic and disc burning work. My macbook pro is so much faster than that machine that after 2 days I just started bringing in my macbook pro and running it in closed lid mode.

I can't imagine trying to do any real work on a computer that slow.

mduell · Oct 2, 2008, 11:26 PM

You haven't really demonstrated anything that CPU intensive; your multitasking benchmark would depend more on RAM. There are some CPU bound benchmarks where the G5s are competitive, but they're rather niche. The Mac mini has a lower hard drive, but is generally faster for CPU bound tasks.

PwrMac.com · Oct 3, 2008, 01:30 PM

Originally Posted by mduell

You haven't really demonstrated anything that CPU intensive; your multitasking benchmark would depend more on RAM. There are some CPU bound benchmarks where the G5s are competitive, but they're rather niche. The Mac mini has a lower hard drive, but is generally faster for CPU bound tasks.

Well, I'm just curious, what do you or the average user user daily that is so processor intensive that my machine couldn't handle?

Catfish_Man · Oct 3, 2008, 01:43 PM

Average daily users are uninteresting for speed comparisons. A G4 would be (and was) adequate for almost all cases. For me, compiling WebKit is my big time sink, and the Intel switch sped that up immensely. I'm not certain if I would use that for overall comparison though. Compiling is ideally suited to highlight Core 2's strong points vs the G5 (integer/branchy code performance), and avoid the G5's strong points (streaming floating point).

Fundamentally, good performance comparisons are hard, and good performance comparisons that isolate one system component are much harder. Since we don't have the opportunity to custom-build Macs, it's generally best *for users* to look at the system as a whole running the applications they care about. Isolating components of a system is more interesting from a developer point of view, or for users looking at upgrading parts of a system (e.g. "hmm. Our performance scales almost linearly with IO speed. Maybe we should buy faster drives!").

PwrMac.com · Oct 3, 2008, 07:35 PM

Originally Posted by Catfish_Man

Average daily users are uninteresting for speed comparisons. A G4 would be (and was) adequate for almost all cases. For me, compiling WebKit is my big time sink, and the Intel switch sped that up immensely. I'm not certain if I would use that for overall comparison though. Compiling is ideally suited to highlight Core 2's strong points vs the G5 (integer/branchy code performance), and avoid the G5's strong points (streaming floating point).

Fundamentally, good performance comparisons are hard, and good performance comparisons that isolate one system component are much harder. Since we don't have the opportunity to custom-build Macs, it's generally best *for users* to look at the system as a whole running the applications they care about. Isolating components of a system is more interesting from a developer point of view, or for users looking at upgrading parts of a system (e.g. "hmm. Our performance scales almost linearly with IO speed. Maybe we should buy faster drives!").

I wasn't debating that G5's are fast. I am jut pointing out they aren't as obsolete as many think. Check out the last video on the blog. I'm running 10 applications, some of which are decently processor intensive, and my system stays responsive. I just think its interesting to see...

PwrMac.com · Oct 3, 2008, 07:53 PM

fixed the link issue:

http://www.pwrmac.com/2008/10/01/rea...d-speed-freak/

Eug · Oct 3, 2008, 08:25 PM

Originally Posted by PwrMac.com

Well, I'm just curious, what do you or the average user user daily that is so processor intensive that my machine couldn't handle?

This was my laptop, vs a 2.0 GHz G5 (single-core). ie. At the same clock speed, my laptop was 3.5X as fast, despite having only twice the cores.

Thus, I replaced the iMac G5 with a Core 2 Duo iMac. I look forward to getting a quad iMac in 2009 or 2010.

PwrMac.com · Oct 3, 2008, 08:28 PM

Originally Posted by Eug

This was my laptop, vs a 2.0 GHz G5 (single-core). ie. At the same clock speed, my laptop was 4X as fast.

Thus, I replaced the iMac G5 with a Core 2 Duo iMac.

My machine is a dual processor, which is more of a fair fight. (2 cores in the macbook, 1 processor in the iMac) How often do you encode h.264?

Eug · Oct 3, 2008, 08:51 PM

Yeah, but what I'm saying is 2.0 GHz of a Core Duo is equal to 3.5 GHz of a dual G5. Therefore, my (2.5 year old laptop) is twice as fast as your dual G5 tower in this app.

And my iMac Core 2 Duo 2.33 is much faster. And even then, it's still not fast enough IMO. If I do a 2-pass encode, it still takes roughly 4 hours to complete, depending on the settings and the length of the movie. Your machine would take around 10 hours, give or take.

I encode H.264 fairly regularly. I am converting many of my DVDs to H.264, for streaming to my Xbox 360 and for playback on my iPhone.

PwrMac.com · Oct 3, 2008, 09:04 PM

Originally Posted by Eug

Yeah, but what I'm saying is 2.0 GHz of a Core Duo is equal to 3.5 GHz of a dual G5. Therefore, my (2.5 year old laptop) is twice as fast as your dual G5 tower in this app.

And my iMac Core 2 Duo 2.33 is much faster. And even then, it's still not fast enough IMO. If I do a 2-pass encode, it still takes roughly 4 hours to complete, depending on the settings and the length of the movie. Your machine would take around 10 hours, give or take.

I encode H.264 fairly regularly. I am converting many of my DVDs to H.264, for streaming to my Xbox 360 and for playback on my iPhone.

How long is the clip in question? I two pass code everything, I'm currently converting a movie as I type this. A faster mac might benefit you, but it doesnt mean my computer is slow.

Eug · Oct 3, 2008, 09:08 PM

Your computer is slow by today's standards. Is it acceptable for you? Yes, and that's great for you, cuz you don't need to spend more money for something faster.

However, by today's standards, a tower with that sort of speed is simply slow.

And trust me, I know slow, as I have G4 machines too. Those are REALLY slow. But for some basic stuff, they're fine. In fact, I use a G4 1.25 as my main Mac at work, cuz it's all I need there. But that doesn't change the fact that it's slow.

PwrMac.com · Oct 3, 2008, 09:31 PM

Originally Posted by Eug

Your computer is slow by today's standards. Is it acceptable for you? Yes, and that's great for you, cuz you don't need to spend more money for something faster.

However, by today's standards, a tower with that sort of speed is simply slow.

And trust me, I know slow, as I have G4 machines too. Those are REALLY slow. But for some basic stuff, they're fine. In fact, I use a G4 1.25 as my main Mac at work, cuz it's all I need there. But that doesn't change the fact that it's slow.

I just have to disagree. Yes my computer is slower then yours, I already said that. The title of the article is (Real World) Speed Freak. In the video I'm using Google Earth, Windows XP and Windows Safari under emulation in Virtual PC 7, Aperture, and the list goes on, the other apps are less resource hungry. Doing all that my machine remains responsive, and my workflow wouldn't be impeded. h.264 encoding is slower, no doubt. The point is, it "does" everything fast.

imitchellg5 · Oct 3, 2008, 09:31 PM

I don't think the dual processor G5's are obsolete, but the single processor ones are a little outmoded. IMO the quads are plenty powerful for most things these days.

VPC7 was never fast on ANYTHING.

Eug · Oct 4, 2008, 09:01 AM

Originally Posted by imitchellg5

VPC7 was never fast on ANYTHING.

Indeed. His statement is suspect as soon as VPC was mentioned.

VPC is slow as molasses on every PowerPC machine in existence.

PwrMac.com · Oct 4, 2008, 12:27 PM

Originally Posted by Eug

Indeed. His statement is suspect as soon as VPC was mentioned.

VPC is slow as molasses on every PowerPC machine in existence.

umm.. I never said VPC was fast, I just said my system was responsive even while running Windows XP and Windows Safari. What exactly is suspect? in the video it proves my point that all of that can be running and my tower remains responsive... no suspect needed

TomD3 · Oct 4, 2008, 04:22 PM

well thats great i guess anyone dumping a g5/or g5 dual i need some parts to test a unit ive got thats sposed to work i need a sata hard drive .. apcix agp 8 video card to replace the thought to be faulty 9600 uncooled 64 mb card thank you .. im outta work and connot afford to get this thing new parts and my daughter needs for school tombukt2@gmail.com