[striker100]

To the low end MacPro when released. I'd consider selling it if there was a really a nice speed bump going from the dual 2GHz G5 to the least expensive MacPro model. Or will there only be an impressive speed bump by going with one of the higher end MacPro models?

[Big Mac]

That's what I'd expect. If the Mactel replacements for the G5 line are based on Woodcrest/Xeon then you're going to have to really pay up for performance. DP 2.0s rule the world perpetually anyway.

[flabasha]

I have a dual 2.0 G5 as well, and I'm hoping to sell it to pick up the low-end Intel. Based on the fact that my friend's MacBook Pro laptop renders faster than my giant silver box, even the lowest end Intel desktop will probably significantly outpace the dual G5 (unless you're a heavy Photoshop user).

Plus, every program from now on will be written/optimized/updated to make it run better on Intel. The G5 is a good machine, but it will be like OS9 soon enough.

The problem is, everybody's selling their G5 now (just check eBay), so I probably won't get much for it...

[harrisjamieh]

Yeh, as flabasha said, a 2.0 Ghz Core Duo can beat a 2.0 Dual G5 on a lot of things. AFAIK, Core2Duo is supposed to be 30% faster than Core Duo, so that really will be a rather large speed increase. I reckon there will be a 30-50% speed increase on all Professional Mac lines with the introduction of Intel.

[Tritium]

I have a dual 2.0GHz G5 at home and a 2.16GHz Macbook Pro at work - there's no comparison, the Macbook utterly destroys the G5 at any task that isn't running in rosetta. I can't imagine the desktops will be slower than the laptops so...

[angelmb]

Originally Posted by flabasha

Plus, every program from now on will be written/optimized/updated to make it run better on Intel. The G5 is a good machine, but it will be like OS9 soon enough.

As long as they keep delivering apps able to run under PowerPC I guess a Power Mac G5 is still a fine machine… don't you think all so?

[Catfish_Man]

Originally Posted by angelmb

As long as they keep delivering apps able to run under PowerPC I guess a Power Mac G5 is still a fine machine… don't you think all so?

I'd imagine it'll be much like it always is. One year after purchase it's fast, two years it's acceptable, three it's getting a little slow, 4-5 it's starting to be unable to run the highest-end apps. My laptop is around 2.5 now, so I'm starting to whine about compile times relative to the new machines

[Mac Write]

Originally Posted by Catfish_Man

I'd imagine it'll be much like it always is. One year after purchase it's fast, two years it's acceptable, three it's getting a little slow, 4-5 it's starting to be unable to run the highest-end apps. My laptop is around 2.5 now, so I'm starting to whine about compile times relative to the new machines

I wonder where my DP 1.25GHZ G4 stands. I got it on Sept 26, 04 and my mom got hers Dec 5, 04. 1.79GB RAM, 3 HD's (OS/Apps, Data, Misc), Radeon 9800Pro 256MB 4xSuper/32xCombo.

[Briareus]

I still love my dual 2GHz G5 and it's not feeling poky to me at all yet. I'll be eyeballing the new Intel Mac Pros with great interest and techno-lust, of course, but until the likes of Office, Adobe CS, & Digital Performer go universal, I won't really be tempted to open the wallet. Probably by sometime mid-2007, I'll guess.

It all depends on the apps: if what you need would really benefit, your desire for the new machines will be much greater and easily justified. All you'll have to worry about is potential Apple "Revision A" hardware jitters

[redoid]

Dual 2.5GHZ here, bought last year in January. Like Briareus said, I will also eyeballing the new machines but as far as buying one, the one I use now is definitely enough.

[Cadaver]

Originally Posted by Tritium

I have a dual 2.0GHz G5 at home and a 2.16GHz Macbook Pro at work - there's no comparison, the Macbook utterly destroys the G5 at any task that isn't running in rosetta. I can't imagine the desktops will be slower than the laptops so...

Yep. Replaced my DP2.5GHz G5 with a 2.16GHz MBP... Its like carrying around the G5 in a 1" thin laptop!

[Big Mac]

A 2.16 Core Duo "destroys" a 2.0 G5? Hyperbole meter running wild. A little faster at many tasks, yes. Destroys, no.

[Chinasaur]

Yes. Destroys.

I upgraded from a DP 1.8 for a CoreDuo iMac. The iMac, even with stock 512MB, was faster than the DP 1.8. With 2GB now, it's even faster. And that's with the drop in FSB between the two.

The iMac destroys the DP 1.8 G5 I had.

[Lateralus]

Why not conduct a few benchmarks then to illustrate this destruction? Because nearly every benchmark I've seen shows that the G5 and the Core Duo/Solo are in the same performance range pretty much across the board, each having advantages in different areas.

If you're basing your opinion on the speed of OS X/Finder, I hate to burst your bubble but OS X being snappier has nothing to do with the processor itself being faster. It's the simple fact that OS X was built on NeXTSTEP. And NeXTSTEP was heavily optimized for x86 in a way that OS X never was for the PowerPC.

[Chinasaur]

Nah, I prefer my illusions intact It's enough for "me". I don't speak for anyone else. For sheer usablity, this iMac is faster "for me". I'm not here to have a Holy War™ about chip platforms, I was just throwing in my 2 cents FWIWW. That's all.

Now on OGR, the G5 does beat this faster machine by 3g n/s which shows the PPC is still King of OGR. Otherwise, the whole system is/feels faster.

And that's good enough for me.

[Tomchu]

Originally Posted by Lateralus

And NeXTSTEP was heavily optimized for x86 in a way that OS X never was for the PowerPC.

Except that the responsiveness of the Finder will have everything to do with the amount of free physical memory you have, and the speed of your processor, and nothing to do with what architecture NeXTSTEP was optimized for.

Carbon code will be Carbon code on either architecture -- the only difference when it comes to optimizations will come from the compiler used. If you get into the internal workings of the Mach kernel, then perhaps archaic code that has remained untouched from the NeXTSTEP days still remain performance-biased in x86's favour.

[angelmb]

The iMac destroys the DP 1.8 G5 I had.

Even so, the Quad G5 destroys any other G5 out there… I think a comparison between the Quad G5 and the Core Duo would be great. We have to be honest… since we don't know how would a hypothetical G6 compare with the current intel offer, at least use the very best G5 available out there to check out how good the intel CPUs are.

[Catfish_Man]

Originally Posted by Lateralus

If you're basing your opinion on the speed of OS X/Finder, I hate to burst your bubble but OS X being snappier has nothing to do with the processor itself being faster. It's the simple fact that OS X was built on NeXTSTEP. And NeXTSTEP was heavily optimized for x86 in a way that OS X never was for the PowerPC.

...heh.

[Tritium]

Originally Posted by Lateralus

Why not conduct a few benchmarks then to illustrate this destruction? Because nearly every benchmark I've seen shows that the G5 and the Core Duo/Solo are in the same performance range pretty much across the board, each having advantages in different areas.

Sorry - I forgot I posted on this thread.

Here are some benchmarks to show why my Macbook Pro destroys my G5. Maybe if you're doing pure number crunching they're the same speed, but as far as "teh snappy" goes, the MBP is the clear winner.

machines are a dual 2.0 G5 with 1GB RAM and a 256MB radeon 9600 and a 2.16GHz MBP with 2GB ram and a 256MB x1600. Both running 10.4.7. I rebooted the G5 and ran the tests with no apps open. I didn't bother closing anything on the MBP except the web browser in question before the test.

Since I code in Ruby a lot, here's a super-simple ruby benchmark:
time ruby -e '1.upto(10000000) {|f|}'

G5:
real 0m3.319s
user 0m3.295s
sys 0m0.018s

MBP:
real 0m1.609s
user 0m1.601s
sys 0m0.006s

How about a javascript benchmark in Firefox?? (http://www.24fun.com/downloadcenter/...s/benchjs.html)

G5:
TEST 1 time: 1.318 sec.
TEST 2 time: 3.445 sec.
TEST 3 time: 1.155 sec.
TEST 4 time: 0.822 sec.
TEST 5 time: 0.289 sec.
TEST 6 time: 3.215 sec.
TEST 7 time: 0.994 sec.

MBP:
TEST 1 time: 1.274 sec.
TEST 2 time: 1.264 sec.
TEST 3 time: 0.483 sec.
TEST 4 time: 0.475 sec.
TEST 5 time: 0.153 sec.
TEST 6 time: 1.808 sec.
TEST 7 time: 0.637 sec.

Oh, you say Firefox is highly optimized for x86 and not PPC? Okay then, let's try Safari which Apple had years more time to optimize for PPC than x86....


G5:
TEST 1 time: 1.061 sec.
TEST 2 time: 0.626 sec.
TEST 3 time: 0.867 sec.
TEST 4 time: 0.672 sec.
TEST 5 time: 0.191 sec.
TEST 6 time: 1.969 sec.
TEST 7 time: 0.224 sec


MBP:
TEST 1 time: 0.719 sec.
TEST 2 time: 0.374 sec.
TEST 3 time: 0.376 sec.
TEST 4 time: 0.479 sec.
TEST 5 time: 0.127 sec.
TEST 6 time: 1.538 sec.
TEST 7 time: 0.144 sec

Originally Posted by Lateralus

If you're basing your opinion on the speed of OS X/Finder, I hate to burst your bubble but OS X being snappier has nothing to do with the processor itself being faster. It's the simple fact that OS X was built on NeXTSTEP. And NeXTSTEP was heavily optimized for x86 in a way that OS X never was for the PowerPC.

What are you talking about? The finder is Carbon, and Carbon didn't exist in NeXTSTEP, it couldn't have been optimized for x86. Where's the proof that OS X is much more optimized for x86? I doubt there is any. I question how much code OS X and NeXTSTEP share in common at this point - yes I know cocoa has lots of NS_ functions, but that doesn't mean they haven't been rewritten.

One of the biggest reasons for the speed difference is that gcc produces much better code for x86 than PPC, apple made some improvements for PPC but there are still far more eyes and far more money going towards making it better on x86. I don't care where the speed improvements come from - this is a real world speed difference. So yeah, in synthetic benchmarks written in assembler, the G5 compares clock for clock to a Core processor. In the real world, they don't. But apple has been the master of using very "special" (that's a nice term) benchmarks to show off how fast their processors have been. Maybe the marketing worked on you.

[Todd Madson]

There are so many variables:
-cpu processor speed
-ram amount and speed
-video card clock speed
-video ram amount
-hard drive speed and cache amount

But hard figures are hard to argue with.

[Jerk_circus]

I'm not positive, but isnt a comparison between a new (low end) macpro and a DP 2.0 G5 not even fair? I thought all the new mac pros are 2 dual-core's (Quad)???

[polendo]

Yup... all Mac Pro are quads. Fortunately ,new owners of Mac Pro's nowadays, receive more bang for the buck than couple of months ago.