[klinux]

Not judging whether MW's refurb is a good deal - just providing the facts:

Apple Store - customize your own. Same config as MicroWarehouse cost ~$150 more. However, Apple charges tax.

[BrettOZ]

Those prices you guys are getting in the USA are a great deal! I did the calculations into Aussie Dollars and I got a similar deal - BUT only after I traded in my G4 400MHz

[klinux]

Brett: Want me to bring you one?

I did this eBay deal once where I sold a high end DVD player ($2500 USD) to a bloke in NZ. After calculating various ways of getting it there, custom etc, we decided it was cheaper for everyone for me to fly there and bring it with me. If memory served me correctly, he paid for most of the airfare which then I upgraded with my miles to business class. Nice trip to NZ!

[BrettOZ]

That is crazy!! Damn a flight to NZ just for a DVD Player - what make/model?? Although I understand the thing with Customs/Taxes. I had a bad experience bringing a CPU upgrade into OZ from the States - looked like a good deal on paper, until customs hit me up with all of their charges (forgot about that)

Although used to buy CDs from the good ol' USA - until the Aussie dollar took a dive, may look back into it now that our dollar is getting back on track

[klinux]

Brett: It was a Denon DVD-2500. Cheap now but very $$$ then. I think you and I need to arrange a deal where I bring in a luggage full of electronics you need from the States and say it is for my personal use.

[BrettOZ]

Originally posted by klinux:
Brett: It was a Denon DVD-2500. Cheap now but very $$$ then. I think you and I need to arrange a deal where I bring in a luggage full of electronics you need from the States and say it is for my personal use.

Beautiful gear Denon - I have a Denon Amp, but yeah there sure would be money to be made on bringing stuff in - Planning on heading to the states next year - may be the best time to buy a powerbook at a good price while I am there??

[Roehlstation]

Keep this in mind.


Max RAM for G4.: 2 GB
Max RAM for G5 1.6 : 4 GB

That alone tells me to go for the G5.

But really, your best value is of course the Dual 2 GHz G5. That is why it is such a hot seller.

[gtabbott]

What I think has been interesting about this whole benchmark controversy has been the fact that in the "real world" performance demonstrations the new G5s actually appeared a lot faster than their benchmark performance suggest they should.

Why? The SPEC benchmark is designed to gauge processor performance, but a computer is much more than a processor. The bandwidth increases in getting stuff into and out of those processors (and all around the machine) are what will make the G5 a real screamer. Apart from the incredible new processor, Apple leap-frogged the MB designs currently in use by the PC crowd.

Buying a new G4 now, any G4, is a waste of money (unless you absolutely can't wait) if you are at all interested in performance.

If you absolutely can't wait, I'd try to get a used dual G4 off eBay, or maybe an inexpensive processor upgrade in order to meet any current performance needs. Then plunk down for a G5 when the prices come down a bit.

[Eriamjh]

That thing is HUGE! And it STILL only has one optical drive!

[freakboy2]

i remember once back in the day, i needed a new 601 box. The 7500's had been out for awhile,but I saved about 500$ and got the 7100 - it wasn't that much slower.

Man what a mistake.

That 7500 would be able to run a 1 gighertz g3 right now, but the 7100 is a total pos.

Get the one with the new achitecture. Get a g5.

it's a major improvement over it's predicessors.

If you can't affort a 1.8 - save some money to get one - in the mean time you'll end up with a faster machine anyway.

fb

[rytc]

Originally posted by Eriamjh:


That thing is HUGE! And it STILL only has one optical drive!

Jeez, that G5 looks like it's made of cardboard spraypainted with matt Silver paint! Is it the real thing or just a mockup?

[Sceeter]

If you remember from the keynote for WWDC, Steve mentioned that the new ASIC provided far better support for dual processors. He said there is 100% no overhead for the second processor.

Current G4's have a much greater overhead for communication for the second processor.

Rewatch the keynote introduction, its there.

-Scott

[ender2002]

just ordered a dual 1.25 G4, my first powermac, for 1399. I think it was a great buy.

[BrettOZ]

Originally posted by ender2002:
just ordered a dual 1.25 G4, my first powermac, for 1399. I think it was a great buy.

Congrats on your new machine, I love mine too

I am curious, did you get the superdrive in it?

[OsakaBill]

Hmmm...

I think ArsTechnia conlcuded that in some ways, the G4 AltiVec unit and processor core were more efficient than the PPC970 when executing certain 32 bit instructions. Despite being more efficient though, the G4 is hobbled by a low bandwidth motherboard. If the G4 processor were wed to some of the motherboards found in PCs or what is found in the G5, that computer has the potential of being a screamer. But that, unfortunately, cannot happen.

The real question is, "Can a second G4 processor overcome the advantages of the greater bandwidth of the G5?"

I do know that when using the same external FireWire drive, my 450MHz DP PowerMac G4 and my 800MHZ PowerBook G4 can rip an MP3 at about the same rate. Why? iTunes makes use of the second processor.

You can get a 1.25GHz DP PowerMac with FireWire 800 for around $1600. (Many resellers still have stocks of these.) I think this is cheaper than the new-old modles on sale at the AppleStore.

Whatever you go with, it will knock the socks off of what you are using now.

[Eug Wanker]

I do know that when using the same external FireWire drive, my 450MHz DP PowerMac G4 and my 800MHZ PowerBook G4 can rip an MP3 at about the same rate. Why? iTunes makes use of the second processor.

Well, it would help to know what that rate is. Remember the speed also depends upon the drive speed and the iTunes settings.

Also, most programs are nowhere near that SMP-aware. I'm sure you're already aware of this myth, but many people think that OS X somehow magically SMP-ifies every app, but it doesn't.

[ender2002]

Originally posted by BrettOZ:
Congrats on your new machine, I love mine too

I am curious, did you get the superdrive in it?

nah, i got a refurb from macwarehouse. it comes with a combo drive. i wish it had the superdrive.

[superfula]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
Well, it would help to know what that rate is. Remember the speed also depends upon the drive speed and the iTunes settings.

Also, most programs are nowhere near that SMP-aware. I'm sure you're already aware of this myth, but many people think that OS X somehow magically SMP-ifies every app, but it doesn't.

For the 20th time, an app doesn't need to be SMP-aware to take advantage of the second processor. OSX will allocate resources to spread the load between both processors.

Buying a new G4 now, any G4, is a waste of money (unless you absolutely can't wait) if you are at all interested in performance.

And here we have a winner for "Worst advice of the Year" award.

Buying any rev A G5 is the biggest waste of money. For 400 dollars less, you can buy a dual 1.25 that will, in all likelyhood, keep up with the single 1.6 (yikes), and a whole 1000 less than the WAAAAY overprices 1.8. Talk about a waste of money. The only machine worth buying right away is the dual 2gig. The other two won't outperform the dual 1.25 to make up for the huge price difference.

If your smart, you'll but a G4 now, and sell it once the Rev B G5 (or later) comes out. Buying a Rev A machine from apple is just asking for trouble.

[davecom]

Thought I'd put my two cents in. I have a Rev A 500 MHZ G4 that they shipped late, remember? Anyway GREAT purchase except the video card until I upgraded it. It's still great to this day. I"m probably going to get a 1.8 GHZ G5. I think it's wiser to spend more and keep the machine an extra year than to have the hastle of constantly changing machines(and the expense for that matter). Oh and I have had three great Rev A s from Apple. Macintosh LC (original) and the G4 and the iPod (5 gb).

[cowerd]

For the 20th time, an app doesn't need to be SMP-aware to take advantage of the second processor. OSX will allocate resources to spread the load between both processors.

Want to throw up some benchmarks to prove this. This review shows a 1GHZ Powerbook beating a DP867 PowerMac in a series of tests with Adobe software.

http://www.corporatemedianews.com/20...ghz0212182.htm

For the 20th time OSX doesn't magically SMP-ize every app.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by superfula:
Buying any rev A G5 is the biggest waste of money. For 400 dollars less, you can buy a dual 1.25 that will, in all likelyhood, keep up with the single 1.6 (yikes), and a whole 1000 less than the WAAAAY overprices 1.8. Talk about a waste of money. The only machine worth buying right away is the dual 2gig. The other two won't outperform the dual 1.25 to make up for the huge price difference.

I'm not sure I agree. Let's assume that at a given clock speed, a dual adds 20-30% in performance, which might make a dual 1.25 G4 about equal to a single 1.6 G4. Then let's assume that at a given clock speed, a G5 is 20-30% faster than a G4. So a single 1.6 G5 would be 20-30% faster than a dual 1.25 G4 (which is equal to a single 1.6 G4). And we haven't even mentioned bandwith or the other features offered by the G5s - serial drives, audio, FW 800, quieter, etc. So, while each person will have to decide if the extra performance/feature-set of a G5 is worth the extra money, I'm not sure if it's as clear-cut in favor of the G4 as you're suggesting, although I do agree with you that getting a discounted G4 while waiting for Rev. B of the G5 might be prudent for those who need a new machine sooner rather than later, or for those who are nervous about Rev. A products.

I acknowledge up front that my numbers are speculative and are based solely on things I've read - I don't claim to have any technical expertise so I welcome informed comment - but even if my numbers are off, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the performance advantages of the G5.

[superfula]

Originally posted by cowerd:
Want to throw up some benchmarks to prove this. This review shows a 1GHZ Powerbook beating a DP867 PowerMac in a series of tests with Adobe software.

http://www.corporatemedianews.com/20...ghz0212182.htm

For the 20th time OSX doesn't magically SMP-ize every app.

Honestly people. I never said the program itself would be affected by smp (the program itself utilizes both cpus). When doing your normal run of the mill stuff, OSX will distribute resource loads on each processor WITHIN THE OS, NOT WITHIN THE PROGRAM. IE, Mail won't be running on both processors, but Mail may be running on one, while another app is on the other.

This really isn't that hard to understand.

A dual processor 1.25 will almost double your processor speed while running in OSX, and in games or other apps if the game/app itself does smp.

Then take your precious 2gig G5 which BARELY beat a single processor 3gig P4. Now imagine how well your yikes 1.6 or 1.8 would do.

[saru boy]

Originally posted by superfula:
A dual processor 1.25 will almost double your processor speed while running in OSX

Ok, assuming this is correct, then a dual 2Ghz G5 would be almost the same as a 4Ghz machine and thus kick the 1.25's butt all over the place. But then you say:

Then take your precious 2gig G5 which BARELY beat a single processor 3gig P4. Now imagine how well your yikes 1.6 or 1.8 would do.

What this is telling me is that I should run out and buy a 3Ghz P4, since there's no way in hell a dual 1.25Ghz G4 can compete if a dual 2Ghz G5 barely beats it.

I guess what I'm saying is that stating that a 2Ghz G5 barely beats a 3Ghz P4 tells me nothing about whether a 1.6Ghz G5 will be faster than a dual 1.25Ghz G4, which is the issue here.

Personally, having bought several end-of-life Macs (Quadra 840, PB2400, Cube), I'd rather go with a platform that has some legs rather than one that's already been axed by Cupertino.

[Simon]

Originally posted by superfula:
Then take your precious 2gig G5 which BARELY beat a single processor 3gig P4.

Stop spreading FUD.

The real-world tests showed the dual 2GHz 970 beat the pants off a P4 3GHz by about 100%.

So we have a brand new chip killing a rather old design. We have a long way to go on this architecture. Intel has to come up with something new to be able to compete again. I'd say that's quite a swell spot for Mac users to be.

You may impress newbs with those meaty statements, but in front of the more experienced crowd here you're making an idiot out of yourself.

[pixegenguy]

Well, after following this thread, I've decided to replace my G4/800DP with a dual 1.25G4 instead of getting the middle of the road single 1.8G5... Here's my rationalization...

1-Price... The refurb 1.25G4 for $1399 was a great deal. Throw in a Superdrive for $160, and a gig of RAM for $120. Total cost $1680.

2-Components...Sure, you can fit 8GB of RAM in the G5. But do you have the money to max it out? 1GB PC3200 RAM is still quite expensive. Since you have to install in pairs, if you go w/ 512MB DIMMS, then you are limited to 4GB. Still better than the 2GB of the G4, but more than I will probably need.

3-Hard drives... The serial ATA drives in the G5 are very cool, but Serial ATA is still pretty new and carries a premium. Regular ATA drives that fit in the G4 are very cheap right now, and I can fit four of them inside, giving me a total of 480GB (4 x 120 HD). More than I would need...

4-Rev A Syndrome... Over the last 12 years, I've bought way too many Rev. A machines to learn that it's always wise to wait for the Rev. B to shake out the major flaws. The G4 is not only a Rev. B, but it's really the culmination of 4 years of improvements to the G4 platform. Most of the kinks have been worked out.

Since I usually keep my desktops for about 12-18 months, I should be in good shape until next summer when the G5 will hit 3ghz, and 2/2.5ghz machines are available for the price of the 1.6ghz today (if not cheaper).

Now, if I can just muster up the money to get a nice 20" Cinema display...!

[rjwill246]

Originally posted by BrettOZ:
Thanks ScottiB - It does feel good seeing that the 1.25 Duals seem to all be gone from stock at all dealers here in Brisbane

I have the same configuration at work and it runs everything as fast as I could want. Photoshop flies and you can have many apps open without taking a hit in speed.

Good choice!

[nek]

If you compare prices on the Apple online store a dual 1.25GHz G4 is identical in price to a 1.6GHz G5, and the 1.8GHz G5 is only $150 more. I mean the prices are the same if you put 512MB RAM, 160GB hard drive in them all, and GeForce4 in G4/ GeforceFX in G5. But of course a G4 can be bought for less elsewhere.

I think the 1.8GHz G5 is the one I would buy, but since I can't afford a new computer at the moment, I will likely get a much faster computer in about a year. I think the PowerMac G4 is only really any good for someone who needs OS9 boot, or someone considering an iMac but wants upgradability.

[ralphh]

Originally posted by rytc:
Jeez, that G5 looks like it's made of cardboard spraypainted with matt Silver paint! Is it the real thing or just a mockup?

Renderman CGI, I believe....

[kugino]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by DaedalusDX:
[B]This is not entirely true... While drive speed is a concern, ripping to MP3 or AAC is processor capped to a great deal.

A big part of it is drive speed. The superdrive, for all its neat features, is abysmal in terms of audio extraction. Its perfectly conceivable that you'd see such a great increase in speed from a faster CD-RW.

Another issue is whether you're reading from the center of the CD or the outside of the CD. Because of the CAV (constant angular velocity... the disc always spins at the same speed) nature of modern CD drives, linearly, the disc spins much faster on the outside. Therefore, the fastest track that you can extract from is the last track of the CD.


Are you saying that because the end of the disc spins faster, that extracting will be quicker? Does that mean that if two cars are going around a track, the one on the outside will reach the finish line first b/c it's going faster? You're misunderstanding some fundamental physics about rotational velocity - the "outside" of the disc has a higher velocity than the interior, but it HAS to. Both the outside and the inside complete the same number of rotations. The only reason the outside tracks might be quicker to extract is not because of increased velocity, but because of the increased distance that is covered in the same amount of revolutions. Thus, if two tracks of equal length are extracted, the one on the outside might fit in 100 revolutions while the inside track might require 150. The important thing to note is that distance, not velocity, is what distinguishes inner vs. outer tracks. The outer tracks can go through the same distance in fewer rotations.

[CIA]

Rabble Rabble Rabble!

• It's a Rev A.
• SerialATA, while nice, can't, and won't be maxed out for awhile. It's hard to max out a ATA100 RAID. Plus serial ATA drives are more $$$
• Superdrives are slow at audio extraction. I bought a DVR-105 to replace my 103. While audio extraction (Mp3/AAC encodeing) is better, it's not as good as my firewire 48x CD-RW.
• Really, who needs 8GB of RAM? Very few people. Do you have your MDD Mac maxed out at 2GB? I maxed out my QS Dual800 to 1.5GB, but only because it cost $150 total for the 3 sticks. Maxing out these new machines will cost a pretty penny. And pretty much everyone would do just fine with 4GB, much more so 2GB, and if you need 8GB in Sept... Most XP machines ship with 256, seems like every PC I know has 512. I've never met anyone with over 1GB running XP. (Obviously they exist, I've just never met anyone who's not running a server with over 1GB)
• Re-sales. Duals are better than singles. A dual G4 sells for a higher price down the road then a single G4. The same will apply to the G5. It's hard to tell what the re-sale of these machines is going to be when we don't even have them shipping new to customers yet.

I bought my QS Dual 800 last fall, and ended up paying nearly as much as the new (at the time) MDD dual 867. Granted I had a few extras that the MDD didn't have, (Superdrive, GF3) but still..... I have a feeling my dual G4 will be worth very little in 1 year.

[OsakaBill]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
Well, it would help to know what that rate is. Remember the speed also depends upon the drive speed and the iTunes settings.

Also, most programs are nowhere near that SMP-aware. I'm sure you're already aware of this myth, but many people think that OS X somehow magically SMP-ifies every app, but it doesn't.

The drive does 32x.
iTunes is set to VBR 160.
I get around 12x-14x rip rates.

[BrettOZ]

Originally posted by ender2002:
nah, i got a refurb from macwarehouse. it comes with a combo drive. i wish it had the superdrive.

I also got one with just a combo, have added a Pioneer A05 and now I have (for roughly the same price) - 2 x Optical and I am Very happy!

[superfula]

Originally posted by Simon:
Stop spreading FUD.

The real-world tests showed the dual 2GHz 970 beat the pants off a P4 3GHz by about 100%.

So we have a brand new chip killing a rather old design. We have a long way to go on this architecture. Intel has to come up with something new to be able to compete again. I'd say that's quite a swell spot for Mac users to be.

You may impress newbs with those meaty statements, but in front of the more experienced crowd here you're making an idiot out of yourself.

Here's a hint for you, go look at the tests Apple did at MacWorld. Then take into account that Apple did "cheat" on those benchmark tests.

Real world tests show the 1.8 IS NOT faster than a 3gig P4, yet somehow the processor is about 2 times as fast in a Mac machine as it is in an ibm machine. I wonder how that happened?

So go flame someone else

[Nebrie]

Originally posted by superfula:
Here's a hint for you, go look at the tests Apple did at MacWorld. Then take into account that Apple did "cheat" on those benchmark tests.

Real world tests show the 1.8 IS NOT faster than a 3gig P4, yet somehow the processor is about 2 times as fast in a Mac machine as it is in an ibm machine. I wonder how that happened?

So go flame someone else

Shut up if you can't even get basic facts right. First of all. Apple has done no tests at MacWorld, it was WWDC. Second, there have been no real world tests other than a few apps here and there. Third of all, you clearly made no effort to read the benchmarks at all. No one has proved that Apple cheated, we won't know that till the machines are shipping.

So go flame someone else.

[colpolyp]

Originally posted by zigzag:
And we haven't even mentioned bandwith or the other features offered by the G5s - serial drives, audio, FW 800, quieter, etc.

Don't forget to mention the extra attention you get from friends, colleagues, nerds, chicks etc. just because you have a new hunky G5 on top of your desk. (Not below it of course, you wouldn't be able to stroke it then.)

[superfula]

Originally posted by Nebrie:
Shut up if you can't even get basic facts right. First of all. Apple has done no tests at MacWorld, it was WWDC. Second, there have been no real world tests other than a few apps here and there. Third of all, you clearly made no effort to read the benchmarks at all. No one has proved that Apple cheated, we won't know that till the machines are shipping.

So go flame someone else.

Since you obviously don't know, I'll share with you. There have been a ton of REAL WORLD benchmarks done with a 970 in IBM machines (since they've been available for awhile), and it doesn't do near as well as the Apple benchmarks suggest.

And perhaps the fact that the Pentium Sparc tests done by apple were WELL below the tests done by Sparc themselves. Now If you actually read my post, you'll see no flame in the at all.

If you've been around computers for a long enough time, you'll realize EVERY company tries to make their product look better than it really is. AMD, intel, nvidia, ati, etc etc. The product NEVER performs as well as what the company claims.

[davecom]

Originally posted by superfula:
Since you obviously don't know, I'll share with you. There have been a ton of REAL WORLD benchmarks done with a 970 in IBM machines (since they've been available for awhile), and it doesn't do near as well as the Apple benchmarks suggest.

And perhaps the fact that the Pentium Sparc tests done by apple were WELL below the tests done by Sparc themselves. Now If you actually read my post, you'll see no flame in the at all.

If you've been around computers for a long enough time, you'll realize EVERY company tries to make their product look better than it really is. AMD, intel, nvidia, ati, etc etc. The product NEVER performs as well as what the company claims.

Yes, a company cae lie, but only to a point. Apple couldn't keep using the 'world's fastest personal computer' without getting trampled by Intel legal if it wasn't atleast true in some ways. Also, the real world tests are probably inflated, but they can't be inflated THAT much. In some tests the G5 won by over 150%. So maybe it would really win only by 90%. That still means it's way faster and the 1.8 would probably win too.

[freaktornado]

Since you obviously don't know, I'll share with you. There have been a ton of REAL WORLD benchmarks done with a 970 in IBM machines (since they've been available for awhile), and it doesn't do near as well as the Apple benchmarks suggest.

Well, don't hide them from us, where are the links?

[MauroCol]

Hi!

With the G5 you not only will get more speed and performance, but new technologies and more "util life" with the new Mac... Then, you will get more ROI (Return on Investment).

[Nebrie]

Originally posted by superfula:
Since you obviously don't know, I'll share with you. There have been a ton of REAL WORLD benchmarks done with a 970 in IBM machines (since they've been available for awhile), and it doesn't do near as well as the Apple benchmarks suggest.

And perhaps the fact that the Pentium Sparc tests done by apple were WELL below the tests done by Sparc themselves. Now If you actually read my post, you'll see no flame in the at all.

If you've been around computers for a long enough time, you'll realize EVERY company tries to make their product look better than it really is. AMD, intel, nvidia, ati, etc etc. The product NEVER performs as well as what the company claims.

First of all, it's SPEC not Sparc. Second of all, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. What you're whining about has been talked about over and over since the day Apple released the figures, but apparently you haven't taken the time nor the effort to find out. The SPEC tests Apple did and the SPEC tests SPEC did are NOT directly comparable. This has been well established. You can even search this board, but don't post back because it's getting really really old.

Second of all, the IBM tests. Prove it.

And last, DUH, companies fudge numbers. But not by the amount you're claiming. Just like the "natural flavors" in your food could be crushed bugs or civet anus, every company on earth stretches the truth. It's been done for hundreds of years. Don't tell me it took a bunch of tech companies for you to finally realize that.

[Simon]

Originally posted by Nebrie:
So go flame someone else.

I'm not flaming you.

I tried to tell you to stop spreading FUD and shut up when you don't have a clue.

Instead of following my advice you decided to make a complete idiot out of yourself in this thread. Congrats!

The head always straight through the wall. Yeah!

[nil]

Originally posted by Superchic[k]en:
Shoudln't a 1.6 more than cream a DP G4? Dual doesn't mean twice the Mhz, so with a Dual 1.42 even you'd still see an almost 200Mhz jump, plus the fact that the G5 is significantly faster at the same Mhz than a G4, and I have no dout the G5 would be faster.

Not to mention for your altivec stuff the G5 will cream the G4 period.

IMO focusing on the "DP", or not aspect relative to performance is losing sight of the ancient (weaker) G4 chipset and overall weakness of the G4 architecture.

Hypertransport will help, faster (true use of DDR) memory will help, S-ATA will help, AGP8x will help (a little, at first anyway).. all these things will, in the end, help in their own ways for different tasks that a G4 box with 4 CPU's can't dream of.

Add basic things like much better sound (5.1 / optical) and at face value a single CPU G5 is a better machine in just about every way.

Is it better for you though?, that's a question you can answer.

Again, IMO, the G5 is Apples first computer that doesn't remind me of the late 1990's.

edit: few errors

[danengel]

Don't forget the noise. I'm really happy with my Dual 1.25, but the noise is annoying. It's acceptable, I even don't notice it after a while, but sometimes it makes me sleepy

[scottiB]

Originally posted by nil:
IMO focusing on the "DP", or not aspect relative to performance is losing sight of the ancient (weaker) G4 chipset and overall weakness of the G4 architecture.

Hypertransport will help, faster (true use of DDR) memory will help, S-ATA will help, AGP8x will help (a little, at first anyway).. all these things will, in the end, help in their own ways for different tasks that a G4 box with 4 CPU's can't dream of.

Add basic things like much better sound (5.1 / optical) and at face value a single CPU G5 is a better machine in just about every way.

Is it better for you though?, that's a question you can answer.

Again, IMO, the G5 is Apples first computer that doesn't remind me of the late 1990's.

edit: few errors

Damn straight, and welcome, nil.

The ability to cram the 1.6 with 4GB of memory (while I understand expensive now, but not forever) with fast throughput trumps a narrow bus that's overwhelmed by a 2x 1.25Ghz G4.

I hope I'm not wrong.....

[idyll]

No contest, get the G5. It'll suit you better in the long run. 64 bit processor.. 4 gigs of ram.. faster hard drives.. the list goes on.