I've a question on dual-G4 vs. G5 Powermacs.

I'm considering geting one of these two options over the next month or so.
As a bit of background - the speed of either (if I were to do it 'right now'
for instance I'd be talking a 1.6ghz G5 vs. a dual-1.25ghz G4) is going
to both be *much* faster then I have now (which is an older x86 machine
running linux) and definitely overkill for my needs.

One of the things that led me to a single G4 to the G5 was an eye to the
future - I konw that most likely the overall speed of the machine would
suit me for a few years (unlike 5-10 years ago when things were changing
so quickly that I generally upgraded CPU and such every few months, now
I get by on a "every few years" schedule, heh) but was thinking that as things
move to a 64bit world that the G5 would have more "future-proofing" built
in then the G4 would.

One friend suggested the dual-G4 option, saying that for "right now" that it
would generally be faster then the G5 - and he felt it was just as "future
proofed" as the G5 would be as while it isn't 64bit, at the same time many
apps are starting to be made that are multiprocessor aware (so I'd be getting
the one but not the other).

What are people's feelings here on this - which do you feel would "last longer"
from a performance standpoint?

In article <fdvUb.182389$sv6.946010@attbi_s52>, jester@hexdump.org wrote:

> I've a question on dual-G4 vs. G5 Powermacs.
>
> I'm considering geting one of these two options over the next month or so.
> As a bit of background - the speed of either (if I were to do it 'right now'
> for instance I'd be talking a 1.6ghz G5 vs. a dual-1.25ghz G4) is going
> to both be *much* faster then I have now (which is an older x86 machine
> running linux) and definitely overkill for my needs.
>
> One of the things that led me to a single G4 to the G5 was an eye to the
> future - I konw that most likely the overall speed of the machine would
> suit me for a few years (unlike 5-10 years ago when things were changing
> so quickly that I generally upgraded CPU and such every few months, now
> I get by on a "every few years" schedule, heh) but was thinking that as things
> move to a 64bit world that the G5 would have more "future-proofing" built
> in then the G4 would.
>
> One friend suggested the dual-G4 option, saying that for "right now" that it
> would generally be faster then the G5 - and he felt it was just as "future
> proofed" as the G5 would be as while it isn't 64bit, at the same time many
> apps are starting to be made that are multiprocessor aware (so I'd be getting
> the one but not the other).
>
> What are people's feelings here on this - which do you feel would "last
longer"
> from a performance standpoint?

Comparing the 1.6 G5 to the 1.25 G4 is bordering on ridiculous. Dual all
the way or 2 ghz G5 or higher. Go to barefeats.com and do some serious
data searching.

In comp.sys.mac.hardware Smokerz <smokerz@nospamcomcast.net> wrote:
: Comparing the 1.6 G5 to the 1.25 G4 is bordering on ridiculous. Dual all
: the way or 2 ghz G5 or higher. Go to barefeats.com and do some serious
: data searching.

From what I saw tho, the places where the G4 MPs were doing better were
in apps that didn't have a 64bit version out yet - which was the real
gist of my question. I don't care which is better *now*, which is most
likely to be better 2 years from now (as apps come out that are both
MP-aware as well as 64bit).

jester@hexdump.org wrote:

> I've a question on dual-G4 vs. G5 Powermacs.
>
> I'm considering geting one of these two options over the next month or so.
> As a bit of background - the speed of either (if I were to do it 'right now'
> for instance I'd be talking a 1.6ghz G5 vs. a dual-1.25ghz G4) is going
> to both be *much* faster then I have now (which is an older x86 machine
> running linux) and definitely overkill for my needs.
>
> One of the things that led me to a single G4 to the G5 was an eye to the
> future - I konw that most likely the overall speed of the machine would
> suit me for a few years (unlike 5-10 years ago when things were changing
> so quickly that I generally upgraded CPU and such every few months, now
> I get by on a "every few years" schedule, heh) but was thinking that as things
> move to a 64bit world that the G5 would have more "future-proofing" built
> in then the G4 would.
>
> One friend suggested the dual-G4 option, saying that for "right now" that it
> would generally be faster then the G5 - and he felt it was just as "future
> proofed" as the G5 would be as while it isn't 64bit, at the same time many
> apps are starting to be made that are multiprocessor aware (so I'd be getting
> the one but not the other).
>
> What are people's feelings here on this - which do you feel would "last longer"
> from a performance standpoint?
>

What are you going to be using it for?

The G5 will be significantly faster for any application which doesn't
effectively use 2 CPUs, which is probably most. As well as the clock
speed, the G5 has much better memory bandwidth than the G4.

Incidentally, G5 versions of applications aren't 64-bit, AFAIK, just
optimised for the G5.

Tom

In article <40234e66$0$28872$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au> ,
Tom Davies <tomdavies@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

> jester@hexdump.org wrote:
>
> > I've a question on dual-G4 vs. G5 Powermacs.
> >
> > I'm considering geting one of these two options over the next month or so.
> > As a bit of background - the speed of either (if I were to do it 'right
> > now'
> > for instance I'd be talking a 1.6ghz G5 vs. a dual-1.25ghz G4) is going
> > to both be *much* faster then I have now (which is an older x86 machine
> > running linux) and definitely overkill for my needs.
> >
> > One of the things that led me to a single G4 to the G5 was an eye to the
> > future - I konw that most likely the overall speed of the machine would
> > suit me for a few years (unlike 5-10 years ago when things were changing
> > so quickly that I generally upgraded CPU and such every few months, now
> > I get by on a "every few years" schedule, heh) but was thinking that as
> > things
> > move to a 64bit world that the G5 would have more "future-proofing" built
> > in then the G4 would.
> >
> > One friend suggested the dual-G4 option, saying that for "right now" that
> > it
> > would generally be faster then the G5 - and he felt it was just as "future
> > proofed" as the G5 would be as while it isn't 64bit, at the same time many
> > apps are starting to be made that are multiprocessor aware (so I'd be
> > getting
> > the one but not the other).
> >
> > What are people's feelings here on this - which do you feel would "last
> > longer"
> > from a performance standpoint?
> >
>
> What are you going to be using it for?
>
> The G5 will be significantly faster for any application which doesn't
> effectively use 2 CPUs, which is probably most. As well as the clock
> speed, the G5 has much better memory bandwidth than the G4.
>
> Incidentally, G5 versions of applications aren't 64-bit, AFAIK, just
> optimised for the G5.
>
> Tom
>

If you enjoy multitasking, get a dual proc. In fact, I would recommend
waiting until the next G5 speed bump and get the dual proc that best
fits your needs and budget. The dual 1.8 GHz G5s will probably be a
nice price after the speed bumps (no idea when, rumors are anywhere from
now until March 20 something.

In comp.sys.mac.hardware Tom Davies <tomdavies@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
: What are you going to be using it for?

General usage (which for me can be anything from periods of no more
then web browsing & SSH connections to gaming to number crunching). As
I said, I realize that either option will most likely be way overkill
for me for a couple of years at least (but one never knows of course)

: The G5 will be significantly faster for any application which doesn't
: effectively use 2 CPUs, which is probably most. As well as the clock
: speed, the G5 has much better memory bandwidth than the G4.

To mirror my reply to the first responder - isn't the plan to have a lot
more MP-aware apps over time? (Much like having more G5 optimized apps
over time) or is that not really the case?

: Incidentally, G5 versions of applications aren't 64-bit, AFAIK, just
: optimised for the G5.

Hmmm. Is that always going to be the case? Why have a64-bit CPU if
not to make 64-bit apps? Can one compile things as 64-bit (for open
source code, etc)

"Avelino Santa Ana Jr." <aN2OdSaPjAM@AMSPAYmac.com> wrote in message news:<aN2OdSaPjAM-284097.01174606022004@netnews.comcast.net>...
> In article <40234e66$0$28872$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au> ,
> Tom Davies <tomdavies@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> > jester@hexdump.org wrote:
> >
> > > I've a question on dual-G4 vs. G5 Powermacs.
> > >
> > > I'm considering geting one of these two options over the next month or so.
> > > As a bit of background - the speed of either (if I were to do it 'right
> > > now'
> > > for instance I'd be talking a 1.6ghz G5 vs. a dual-1.25ghz G4) is going
> > > to both be *much* faster then I have now (which is an older x86 machine
> > > running linux) and definitely overkill for my needs.
> > >
> > > One of the things that led me to a single G4 to the G5 was an eye to the
> > > future - I konw that most likely the overall speed of the machine would
> > > suit me for a few years (unlike 5-10 years ago when things were changing
> > > so quickly that I generally upgraded CPU and such every few months, now
> > > I get by on a "every few years" schedule, heh) but was thinking that as
> > > things
> > > move to a 64bit world that the G5 would have more "future-proofing" built
> > > in then the G4 would.
> > >
> > > One friend suggested the dual-G4 option, saying that for "right now" that
> > > it
> > > would generally be faster then the G5 - and he felt it was just as "future
> > > proofed" as the G5 would be as while it isn't 64bit, at the same time many
> > > apps are starting to be made that are multiprocessor aware (so I'd be
> > > getting
> > > the one but not the other).
> > >
> > > What are people's feelings here on this - which do you feel would "last
> > > longer"
> > > from a performance standpoint?
> > >
> >
> > What are you going to be using it for?
> >
> > The G5 will be significantly faster for any application which doesn't
> > effectively use 2 CPUs, which is probably most. As well as the clock
> > speed, the G5 has much better memory bandwidth than the G4.
> >
> > Incidentally, G5 versions of applications aren't 64-bit, AFAIK, just
> > optimised for the G5.
> >
> > Tom
> >
>
> If you enjoy multitasking, get a dual proc. In fact, I would recommend
> waiting until the next G5 speed bump and get the dual proc that best
> fits your needs and budget. The dual 1.8 GHz G5s will probably be a
> nice price after the speed bumps (no idea when, rumors are anywhere from
> now until March 20 something.

I've been using a dual 533 MHz G4 can say they are well used by any
application under OS X. Even if a particular app is single threaded
you are running a lot of other applications even when you are doing
"nothing". Multiple processors are always in use in OS X and that
much more processor bandwidth will be used.

With hard economic reality my choices would be 1st Dual 2.0GHz G5,
moving toward reality we have dual 1.8 GHz G4 and last would be a dual
g4. On a really tight budget I would look at used/reconditioned Dual
g4's. This way when times got better I would not be too poor to
afford a dual G5.

--jim

jester@hexdump.org wrote:

> To mirror my reply to the first responder - isn't the plan to have a lot
> more MP-aware apps over time? (Much like having more G5 optimized apps
> over time) or is that not really the case?

As someone else pointed out, you don't really need "MP-aware" apps
(what programmers call "multi-threaded" apps) to use an MP machine.
You just need to run 2 non-threaded processes at the same time.

If my understanding of the Mac graphics system is correct, it's
a good candidate for an SMP machine, because the stuff that does
the rendering to the screen is a separate process from the app
you're running. That means you've *always* got at least two big
processes "on the run queue." As an aside, this is the way UNIX/X11
setups work too.

That being said, I'd get the G5 because the case is so cool. :->
And because in a year or two there'll be some aftermarket upgrade
for the CPU in your G5, but the G4 it probably the end of the line

Duke

Tom Davies <tomdavies@optusnet.com.au> writes:
[...]
> Incidentally, G5 versions of applications aren't 64-bit, AFAIK,
> just optimised for the G5.

They aren't 64-bit yet.

Whether "64-bitness" is necessary at all is another question.

--
David Magda <dmagda at ee.ryerson.ca>, http://www.magda.ca/
Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under
the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well
under the new. -- Niccolo Machiavelli, _The Prince_, Chapter VI

jester@hexdump.org writes:
[...]
> Hmmm. Is that always going to be the case? Why have a64-bit CPU
> if not to make 64-bit apps? Can one compile things as 64-bit (for
> open source code, etc)

Why do you need 64-bit apps? Generally the two main uses are a large
address space (databases use this a lot), and better precision in
floating point numbers.

There have been multiple threads on this topic in comp.arch over the
years (since news of the DEC Alpha going 64-bit came out). For a very
good summary use Groups.Google (advance search) to lookup Message-ID:

<ce9d692b.0312111414.5bd74bdd@posting.google.com >

for a post my John Mashey on 2003-12-11.

--
David Magda <dmagda at ee.ryerson.ca>, http://www.magda.ca/
Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under
the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well
under the new. -- Niccolo Machiavelli, _The Prince_, Chapter VI

<jester@hexdump.org> wrote in message
news:fdvUb.182389$sv6.946010@attbi_s52...
> I've a question on dual-G4 vs. G5 Powermacs.
>
> I'm considering geting one of these two options over the next month or so.
> As a bit of background - the speed of either (if I were to do it 'right
now'
> for instance I'd be talking a 1.6ghz G5 vs. a dual-1.25ghz G4) is going
> to both be *much* faster then I have now (which is an older x86 machine
> running linux) and definitely overkill for my needs.
>
> One of the things that led me to a single G4 to the G5 was an eye to the
> future - I konw that most likely the overall speed of the machine would
> suit me for a few years (unlike 5-10 years ago when things were changing
> so quickly that I generally upgraded CPU and such every few months, now
> I get by on a "every few years" schedule, heh) but was thinking that as
things
> move to a 64bit world that the G5 would have more "future-proofing" built
> in then the G4 would.
>
> One friend suggested the dual-G4 option, saying that for "right now" that
it
> would generally be faster then the G5 - and he felt it was just as "future
> proofed" as the G5 would be as while it isn't 64bit, at the same time many
> apps are starting to be made that are multiprocessor aware (so I'd be
getting
> the one but not the other).
>
> What are people's feelings here on this - which do you feel would "last
longer"
> from a performance standpoint?
>

If you're thinking of "future proofing" from a speed stand point, I think
the dual G4 will always be faster. If you're thinking from a
hardware/software upgradability and compatibility "future proofing", get a
G5, but think twice about the 1.6GHz. It has older/slower PCI slots and
slower memory bus. http://www.apple.com/powermac/specs.html
From a hardware standpoint, if you think you might do a processor upgrade in
the future, I read somewhere that G4 systems might not be able to handle G5
processor upgrades (I don't remember the technical details). As for
software, you know there will be a time, probably within the next 5 years,
that Apple will release an OS that will only work on 64 bit hardware.

I'm planning on getting a G5 once the next rev comes out. My cube suits me
just fine now, so I can wait.

bro

jester@hexdump.org writes:
>
> I'm considering geting one of these two options over the next month
> or so. As a bit of background - the speed of either (if I were to
> do it 'right now' for instance I'd be talking a 1.6ghz G5 vs. a
> dual-1.25ghz G4) is going to both be *much* faster then I have now
> (which is an older x86 machine running linux) and definitely
> overkill for my needs.

I think either of these two will perform similarly.

I would probably go with the dual-1.25 G4 if forced to choose between
these two. Mostly due to the price.

Note that the 1.6GHz G5 is not really the same architecture as the
two faster models:

http://www.apple.com/powermac/specs.html

The 1.6 GHz model uses slower RAM (333MHz vs. 400MHz) and doesn't have
PCI-X slots. IMO, this is significant.

Personally, I would really prefer to get a dual-1.8 G5 or a
dual-2.0. But you may not be able to afford such a machine at this
time. If you can afford to wait until Apple releases the next model
G5, you will probably be able to get one of these for a nice price.
(Either from Apple, if they don't stop making the model, or as a
discontinued model from a reseller if they do.)

If you can't wait, or don't want to wait, and your budget won't let
you get a dual-processor G5, then I would pick the model that costs
least. This will probably be the dual-1.25GHz G4.

-- David

In article <e9ydnZ6pYpj2V7jd4p2dnA@comcast.com>,
"heybro" <johnbert_two2******.comRemoveTwo> wrote:

> <jester@hexdump.org> wrote in message
> news:fdvUb.182389$sv6.946010@attbi_s52...
> > I've a question on dual-G4 vs. G5 Powermacs.
> >
> > I'm considering geting one of these two options over the next month or so.
> > As a bit of background - the speed of either (if I were to do it 'right
> now'
> > for instance I'd be talking a 1.6ghz G5 vs. a dual-1.25ghz G4) is going
> > to both be *much* faster then I have now (which is an older x86 machine
> > running linux) and definitely overkill for my needs.
> >
> > One of the things that led me to a single G4 to the G5 was an eye to the
> > future - I konw that most likely the overall speed of the machine would
> > suit me for a few years (unlike 5-10 years ago when things were changing
> > so quickly that I generally upgraded CPU and such every few months, now
> > I get by on a "every few years" schedule, heh) but was thinking that as
> things
> > move to a 64bit world that the G5 would have more "future-proofing" built
> > in then the G4 would.
> >
> > One friend suggested the dual-G4 option, saying that for "right now" that
> it
> > would generally be faster then the G5 - and he felt it was just as "future
> > proofed" as the G5 would be as while it isn't 64bit, at the same time many
> > apps are starting to be made that are multiprocessor aware (so I'd be
> getting
> > the one but not the other).
> >
> > What are people's feelings here on this - which do you feel would "last
> longer"
> > from a performance standpoint?

I just got a 1.8ghz G5 single processor. It has most of the specs that
the dual processors have and it is cheaper than the 1.6ghz single now on
the market. These are available from MacMall or ClubMac. These are the
leftover ones from when Apple introduced the 1.6ghz. Mine came with
Jaguarinstalled and Panther in the box. I love it!

"Henry Helvie" <hejunkhelvie@snet.net> wrote in message
news:hejunkhelvie-567D5E.21464208022004@newsclstr01.news.prodigy.com ...
> In article <e9ydnZ6pYpj2V7jd4p2dnA@comcast.com>,
> "heybro" <johnbert_two2******.comRemoveTwo> wrote:
>
> > <jester@hexdump.org> wrote in message
> > news:fdvUb.182389$sv6.946010@attbi_s52...
> > > I've a question on dual-G4 vs. G5 Powermacs.
> > >
> > > I'm considering geting one of these two options over the next month or
so.
> > > As a bit of background - the speed of either (if I were to do it
'right
> > now'
> > > for instance I'd be talking a 1.6ghz G5 vs. a dual-1.25ghz G4) is
going
> > > to both be *much* faster then I have now (which is an older x86
machine
> > > running linux) and definitely overkill for my needs.
> > >
> > > One of the things that led me to a single G4 to the G5 was an eye to
the
> > > future - I konw that most likely the overall speed of the machine
would
> > > suit me for a few years (unlike 5-10 years ago when things were
changing
> > > so quickly that I generally upgraded CPU and such every few months,
now
> > > I get by on a "every few years" schedule, heh) but was thinking that
as
> > things
> > > move to a 64bit world that the G5 would have more "future-proofing"
built
> > > in then the G4 would.
> > >
> > > One friend suggested the dual-G4 option, saying that for "right now"
that
> > it
> > > would generally be faster then the G5 - and he felt it was just as
"future
> > > proofed" as the G5 would be as while it isn't 64bit, at the same time
many
> > > apps are starting to be made that are multiprocessor aware (so I'd be
> > getting
> > > the one but not the other).
> > >
> > > What are people's feelings here on this - which do you feel would
"last
> > longer"
> > > from a performance standpoint?
>
> I just got a 1.8ghz G5 single processor. It has most of the specs that
> the dual processors have and it is cheaper than the 1.6ghz single now on
> the market. These are available from MacMall or ClubMac. These are the
> leftover ones from when Apple introduced the 1.6ghz. Mine came with
> Jaguarinstalled and Panther in the box. I love it!

Good move, IMO. If I needed a machine today and was on a $1749 budget,
that's what I'd do.

bro

Henry Helvie <hejunkhelvie@snet.net> writes:
>
> I just got a 1.8ghz G5 single processor. It has most of the specs
> that the dual processors have and it is cheaper than the 1.6ghz
> single now on the market. These are available from MacMall or
> ClubMac. These are the leftover ones from when Apple introduced the
> 1.6ghz. Mine came with Jaguarinstalled and Panther in the box. I
> love it!

I would also consider it a much better machine than the 1.6. In
addition to the 200MHz faster clock, it has 400MHz memory and PCI-X
slots, which the 1.6 doesn't have.

-- David