|
|
Is it worth getting the PPC G5 iMac now, compared to the Intel iMac
|
|
|
|
Junior Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: London, UK
Status:
Offline
|
|
Hi everyone.
Here is the dilemma.
My company wants to buy our graphics department new iMacs ASAP as they are moving offices. The problem is all the apps we use are currently not available as Universal Binaries. Adobe Creative Suite, QuarkXpress etc. My boss doesnt seem to want to wait 6 months or so for these apps to be updated and I am pretty sure we would not be satisfied with the performance under Rosetta.
So the thing is. Shall we get the PPC G5 with maxed out RAM etc and fastest processor or get the top Intel iMac with maxed out RAM instead and run the apps under Rosetta for a bit.
Just for the record we are going to upgrade to ACS2 and QuarkXpress 6.5 when getting the machines and I'm thinking we may have to pay another upgrade free when ACS3 and QuarkXpress 7 ships which is a bit of pain in the ass.
We tend to work with fairly large images in CS and multi-page documents in Quark (around 200+ pages) so I dont really want performance to suffer that much when running through Rosetta.
Can anyone help with this discision. Thanks.
[UPDATE] Just for more info. We are currently running PS7, Illustrator 10, Acrobat Pro 6 and Quark 5 (in Classic - I know there is no Classic on Intel Macs) on PowerMac G4 Dual 1.25GHz machines with around 1GB on each machine.
Ive read in another post - http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.php?t=282752 that running PS under Rosetta is faster than a G4 1.67GHz PB. So would running under Rosetta be faster or on a par with our current machines. Oh my head hurts trying to work all this out. LOL.
(
Last edited by thefunkymunky; Jan 24, 2006 at 09:54 PM.
)
|
MacBook Pro - 15.4-inch/2.16GHz Intel Core Duo/2GB RAM/100GB S-ATA 5400RPM HDD/ATI X1600 256MB/SuperDrive. PSN ID: kraized
facebook
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status:
Offline
|
|
Photoshop performance through Rosetta on the Intel's is generally reported to be good (Google around for some benchmarks)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Globetrotting
Status:
Offline
|
|
Buy the G5s. The software works now and most those companies should support the G5s for a while. Also if buying from Apple the refurb 1.8s and 2.0 are a bargain and I suspect the 2.1 will appear there shortly and carry the same warranty. Only issue with the 2.1 is it only has one RAM slot so upgrade prices may be a bit higher.
|
If a group of mimes are miming a forest and one falls down, does he make a sound?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Illinois
Status:
Offline
|
|
In your case, it would make sense to go with the G5 iMacs. There's no need to gamble with Rosetta's performance or any other incompatibilities you might run across. In fact, I can't really think of any reason why you'd want to get the Intel iMacs instead.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Regular
Join Date: Dec 2005
Status:
Offline
|
|
I guess I am in the minority. I would suggest you wait.
In the coming months, more and more UB's or natives will be out. Why buy new machines that may very well be outdated or have limited support in the near future?
Unless your company wants to have to upgrade again in the near future, you might be better off waiting it out. It may prove to be a more cost effective way to get where you want to go.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Arizona
Status:
Offline
|
|
I agree, get the G5.
The new iMacs are a step above the G5 iMacs, but not that large of a step. And the G5s have the software support and optimization now. As far as I'm concerened, especially after seeing benchmarks done on Intel Macs, the Intel Macs are next to useless at the moment for anybody who uses pro level software.
As far as support; There are 12 years worth and tens of millions of units of PowerPC Macs out in the field. I'd be surprised to see PowerPC support drop from any major application before 2010.
(
Last edited by Lateralus; Jan 24, 2006 at 11:32 PM.
)
|
I like chicken
I like liver
Meow Mix, Meow Mix
Please de-liv-er
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Illinois
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by jwoods
I guess I am in the minority. I would suggest you wait.
Sure, waiting is another good option. But I didn't get the impression from his post that he was in a position to wait very long.
In the coming months, more and more UB's or natives will be out. Why buy new machines that may very well be outdated or have limited support in the near future?
Unless your company wants to have to upgrade again in the near future, you might be better off waiting it out. It may prove to be a more cost effective way to get where you want to go.
I don't see any reason to think that PPC Macs are going to be obsolete in the near future. Universal Binaries are called Universal for a reason.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Status:
Offline
|
|
It is for the transition and they will be universal binaries I would say for about 2-3 years. If most software is meant for G5, get the G5 because not all software is going to be ready for intel in this year.
|
Mac mini 1.42 Ghz 1GB RAM 80 GB HD + 160 GB External HD
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2005
Location: West LA
Status:
Offline
|
|
I vote for the PPC G5, Im actually considering getting one in the coming months because my pbook is slowly crapping out, and T've finally admitted that I have NO need for the portability.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Regular
Join Date: Dec 2005
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Icruise
Sure, waiting is another good option. But I didn't get the impression from his post that he was in a position to wait very long.
I don't see any reason to think that PPC Macs are going to be obsolete in the near future. Universal Binaries are called Universal for a reason.
I understand they might want something now, and I wasn't meaning to imply they should wait for ever.....just a few months. If you can present a pretty good cost factor for waiting.....in the facility I work at, at least, it can pay dividends when you do need to buy.
I didn't mean to imply the G5's would be obsolete (I said outdated), but I think the fact that the intels are out and a bit sooner than alot of folks thought, it might be wise to wait a few months and see what else pans out. If it comes to naught, you may very well be able to pick up the G5's even cheaper.
UB's are universal of course.....so platform shouldn't matter much. I took it that they wanted more performance, and if you are going that route, why not get as much performance as you can for each dollar spent?
Either way, I wish him well in whatever course he decides to take. The rest of us....I think we can agree to disagree.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Oct 2003
Status:
Offline
|
|
Get the Intel iMac unless you have to use Classic for some funky 'ol scanner or whatnot.
Dual processors are worth any emulation hit, and the video card is so much better than the G5 iMac's.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Junior Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: London, UK
Status:
Offline
|
|
Hey guys thanks for all your replies. I am swaying towards getting the PPC G5 but on there other hand the Intel iMac has a much better graphic card (we would get the 256MB ATI and 2GB RAM) and faster memory, FSB and of course Dual Core. Which should help with PS and Quark even though they will be running under Rosetta for a bit.
The only reason we are using Classic now is because of Quark 5. But since we will be upgrading Quark, we will never need to use it again.
One thing though. As we will be upgrading to CS2 and Quark 6.5. We will need to pay again to upgrade to CS3 and QXP7 when they go UB. Not sure my boss will want to do that, depending of course on how much Adobe and Quark charge for the upgrade and when they actually ship.
|
MacBook Pro - 15.4-inch/2.16GHz Intel Core Duo/2GB RAM/100GB S-ATA 5400RPM HDD/ATI X1600 256MB/SuperDrive. PSN ID: kraized
facebook
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Staffs, UK
Status:
Offline
|
|
Only you can work this out. How often do you replace your machines ? Is the difference in speed between Rosetta and native G5, for the next x months, going to outweigh the benefit of faster Intel native photoshop for the next y years ?
I think the sensible money says that you go Intel - it's a wash as far as performance compared to your current setup, but you'll get a huge speed boost as things move to Universal binaries this year.
If you go G5, your buying a very mature technology at the peak of it's lifecycle - but if you go Intel you're riding a new wave that arguably is going to take you further in the long run.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dangling something in the water… of the Arabian Sea
Status:
Offline
|
|
My company wants to buy our graphics department new iMacs ASAP as they are moving offices. The problem is all the apps we use are currently not available as Universal Binaries. Adobe Creative Suite, QuarkXpress etc. My boss doesnt seem to want to wait 6 months or so for these apps to be updated and I am pretty sure we would not be satisfied with the performance under Rosetta.
No question, get the G5 iMacs. They are pretty good machines, without all the potential headaches of dealing with non-native software applications and hardware driver compatibility issues.
For personal use, it's fine to wait and deal with a bit of headache, but for departmental purchases for real work, it's just insane to assume/hope everything works itself out in the next year, for all your apps and peripherals, while potentially crippling yourself in the meantime.
(
Last edited by Eug Wanker; Jan 25, 2006 at 11:12 AM.
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Globetrotting
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Crusoe
I suspect the 2.1 will appear there shortly and carry the same warranty.
The 1.9s and 2.1s are now on the refurb store.
|
If a group of mimes are miming a forest and one falls down, does he make a sound?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Status:
Offline
|
|
Why don't you buy half and half? I would assume your different jobs have different requirements. For now, use the G5s for serious projects, the Intel/Rosetta for lighter duty ones. When the UB apps come out, flip the duties.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Junior Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: London, UK
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by scdean
Why don't you buy half and half? I would assume your different jobs have different requirements. For now, use the G5s for serious projects, the Intel/Rosetta for lighter duty ones. When the UB apps come out, flip the duties.
Well we will be keeping one of our current Dual G4's so I guess it could work. I just didnt want to pay for upgrading all our software then pay again for upgrading to UB versions.
|
MacBook Pro - 15.4-inch/2.16GHz Intel Core Duo/2GB RAM/100GB S-ATA 5400RPM HDD/ATI X1600 256MB/SuperDrive. PSN ID: kraized
facebook
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|