# buying an imac: g5 or intel?



## unispherephoto (Jan 18, 2006)

my 500 mhhz g4 tibook is on its last legs...so heres the question: for roughly the same price i could get either a 1.8 ghz imac g5 with a 20" screen or a 17" 1.9 ghz intel version.
anyone have suggestions? i'm leaning toward the larger screen since i dont run super intensive apps all that often (some photoshop, final cut, reason) and thus performance shouldnt differ much. but am i stranding myself with the older chip? getting set up for obsolescence? 
as much as id like it, i cant afford the 20" intel, so please dont suggest getting that.

thanks


----------



## SubaruWRC (Jan 18, 2006)

unispherephoto said:
			
		

> my 500 mhhz g4 tibook is on its last legs...



Why?



> but am i stranding myself with the older chip? getting set up for obsolescence?



Yes.




> as much as id like it, i cant afford the 20" intel, so please dont suggest getting that.
> 
> thanks



Save your money, buy the Intel 20" iMac.  The screen size is never something you should ever try to save money on.


----------



## unispherephoto (Jan 18, 2006)

wow. that was helpful.
you told me the ONE thing i asked specifically not to bother mentioning. 
i need to buy a new computer _now_ and i cant afford the 20" intel.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Jan 18, 2006)

Your 500MHz PowerBook is still very usable by today's standards -- I work solely on a 500MHz G4 machine with a 100MHz bus and it suits me well for heavy design work.  Still, I understand that some people will not put up with the amount of progress-bar waiting that I do, so your point is very valid...

With that being said, I do not think you'll be setting yourself up for obsolecense with a G5-based Macintosh.  They'll still be fully supported for the next 4 or 5 years at least, and probably beyond that.  They're quite nice processors, too.  Saying that purchasing a G5-based Macintosh is setting yourself up for obsolecense is like saying that purchasing a 2005-model car instead of a brand-spankin' new 2006 model car is setting yourself up for obsolecense: it's simply not true.  I don't know why SubaruWRX said that.  Universal Binary applications (applications that run natively on PPC or Intel processors) will be available -- in fact, you'd be stranding yourself MORESO, at least for a while, if you went with the Intel iMac, since not all software currently runs (or runs all that great) on the Intel-based Macintoshes.  In addition, your Final Cut Pro will not run at all on the Intel-based machines, and requires a $50 cross-grade from Apple to get it running on the Intel processor.

What are you more concerned with -- raw performance and bragging rights, or a big screen and a great computer even if it's not bleeding-edge new?  If the former, go with the 17" Intel iMac.  If the latter, 20" G5 iMac.

I would get the 20" G5-based iMac if I were in your situation, but then again, I use computers until they just won't run anymore.  Your level of proficiency and ability to be productive is not based upon how fast the processor is inside your computer.  A 500 GHz processor will not increase your artistic ability, nor will it make you type any faster or cut video any better.

Just my few cents worth...


----------



## unispherephoto (Jan 18, 2006)

thanks, eldiablo. thats pretty much what i was thinking. i'd fix my powerbook, but its got hard drive issues, a broken optical drive and a cracked case, so i'm not feeling like putting $400 into it.


----------



## Mikuro (Jan 18, 2006)

There's some relevant discussion at this thread: Will the future software be still working for G5?


"Obsolete" is such a subjective word. My father still uses a 9-year-old Power Mac 9600 with an "obsolete" 604e processor running the "dead" Mac OS 9 that works like a horse every day. It's not obsolete if it's still useful, right?

I guess you've been using your TiBook for 4 or 5 years now. If you expect your machines to last for that long (as well you should!), then it's hard to say. Certainly Intel-based machines will be more useful in 4 or 5 years. On the other hand, as someone who uses computers for a good long while, you're probably accustomed to being off the cutting edge, so maybe that won't matter so much to you. Hmm.

It all comes down to your personal expectations, I guess, and I can't offer any advice on that.

I wonder if there will be any Blu-Ray/HD-DVD drives that work with PPC-based Macs. Hmm. I hadn't even considered that before, but that's something that would be important to me. And while I think Apple has said that OS 10.5 Leopard will by universal, who knows what's in store for 10.6 or 10.7?


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Jan 18, 2006)

I would assume that the Blu-ray/HD-DVD situation would be the same as it is now for DVD-R and dual-layer DVD-R drives... as long as they use an interface that the Mac can handle (IDE, SATA, etc.), then it's simply a matter of drivers.  I don't see why they would be processor-dependent... maybe I'm misunderstanding your comment?


----------



## fryke (Jan 18, 2006)

If you really need the computer _now_, I'd go with a Mac mini and a 20" display (doesn't have to be Apple, any DVI-display would do). Later, you can replace that mini with an intel Mac mini but keep display/keyboard/other external peripherals. I'd just _look_ into it before buying an iMac.


----------



## scruffy (Jan 18, 2006)

How can you afford a 20" G5 iMac, but only a 17" Intel one?  iMacs are the exact same price regardless of the processor, aren't they?  Or is the 20" G5 a special deal you've rounded up somehow?


----------



## unispherephoto (Jan 18, 2006)

refurbished 20"


----------



## Mikuro (Jan 18, 2006)

ElDiabloConCaca said:
			
		

> I would assume that the Blu-ray/HD-DVD situation would be the same as it is now for DVD-R and dual-layer DVD-R drives... as long as they use an interface that the Mac can handle (IDE, SATA, etc.), then it's simply a matter of drivers.  I don't see why they would be processor-dependent... maybe I'm misunderstanding your comment?


Yeah, I basically mean drivers. I'm not sure exactly what goes into making drivers, so I'm not sure how easy they'd be to port (and even when supporting "outdated" systems is easy, a lot of companies are too stupid to care...). I wonder if drivers might be one of the first areas to go Intel-only.


----------



## fryke (Jan 18, 2006)

Hm. Nah. If you look at the number of PPC Macs still in use, the number of intel Macs will probably take a year or two before being equal, and even after that, the market is still too big. Also, I really guess that BluRay and HD DVD drives will be supported by the OS itself, not by the maker of the drives... And Toast will have to support it, of course, but _they'll_ add support for the drives probably before Apple will add drives...


----------



## tumbleguts (Jan 18, 2006)

Okay... lets be logical about this.

I can understand if you're struggling under a 500MHz G4 ti-book. That's pretty much the absolute basic minimum for running OS X in my opinion. So anything better is going to be worthwhile...  And either iMac machine is going to seem x10 better. The two almost seem identical - and reports tend to suggest that they would be identical in performance with your current software. So, lets look at the differences between the two iMacs you've selected:

> 1.8 GHz PPC G5 		
> 512K L2 cache		
> Nvidia GeForce FX 5200	64MB DDR memory (x8 AGP)
> 20" screen

> 1.83 GHz Intel Core Duo (two processors in one chip)
> 2MB L2 cache
> ATI Radeon X600 Pro 128MB GDDR3 memory (PCI Express)
> 17" screen
> iSight camera inbuilt
> Apple remote and Mighty Mouse
> (+ bonus Apple software that comes with new purchase...)

Okay, assuming that the size of other things such as hard-drives, RAM memory, etc, are the same - the above are the only real hardware differences. First off, you would be getting a better processor with the intel direction. Not only is it slightly faster, but it is a dual core chip (which would mean increased speed and responsiveness). On top of that, you will notice that the intel chip comes with 2MB of shared L2 cache - x4 the amount on the G5 iMac version. 

Moving on to graphics cards - the intel version comes with a card nearly twice as good. Much faster, double the memory, and on a newer (better) interface: (PCI Express vs AGP x8). And then there are the little bonuses such as the iSight camera, Mighty Mouse, Apple Remote, and the 06' versions of Apple software. Based on the specifications - the intel iMac is clearly the winner here. It has singlehandedly dealt with two of the most important components that make up a computer: the CPU and graphics card. 

However, things are never that simple... (eh?)

Lets face it. You want the 20" screen. And given that the screen will be the thing you look at the most - better 20" than 17". I can fully understand. A bigger screen will definitely make things seems better... Or will it...? The 20" screen combined with the *lesser* Nvidia graphics card, I believe your G5 might find itself lagging considerably behind the the intel version as the graphics (within applications and on the web) become slicker over time... This combination of bigger screen, less capable graphics card, and 'slower' processor could mean early disappointment... 

Time and experience has taught me never to be an "early adopter" of technology. However, if I were to put myself in your shoes - I can understand the dilemma. Although, getting a G5 chip isn't going to make you or your computer obsolete overnight - eventually, that will be the outcome. The Intel iMac is going to have a much greater re-sale 3-4 years down the track when you sell it. For right now, yes the G5 (with added 20" screen) might seem the more desirable. But looking further towards the future - the Intel iMac with dual processor, larger L2 cache, better graphics card, iSight camera, remote and Mighty Mouse, (+ software) is absolutely going to last the longer distance...

What do they say?: "Out with the old, In with the new!"


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Jan 19, 2006)

i've just picked up Dells version of apples 20" display for half the price apple sell theirs for.  i'm writing this on it now in vertical mode. it's a nice display, and it'd compliment the mac mini wonderfully.


----------



## fryke (Jan 19, 2006)

If one could only safely remove the "Dell" logo, eh?  ... Otherwise, those displays are quite nice.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Jan 19, 2006)

the design is horrible, yes, but at the end of the day, the wallet says it's the right choice.


----------



## chevy (Jan 19, 2006)

fryke said:
			
		

> If you really need the computer _now_, I'd go with a Mac mini and a 20" display (doesn't have to be Apple, any DVI-display would do). Later, you can replace that mini with an intel Mac mini but keep display/keyboard/other external peripherals. I'd just _look_ into it before buying an iMac.



If you need a computer now and cannot aford the new iMac, limit the waste and go for the Mac mini. You'll upgrade later with either an Intel Mac mini or a PowerMac depending on your money and on what Steve proposes.


----------



## SubaruWRC (Jan 20, 2006)

unispherephoto said:
			
		

> wow. that was helpful.
> you told me the ONE thing i asked specifically not to bother mentioning.
> i need to buy a new computer _now_ and i cant afford the 20" intel.



Look, I simply cut through the bullshit to give you my first response, I'll be more specific with this response.

1)  Let's look at some prices at www.apple.com as of 01/20/2006:


Intel 17" iMac:  $1299
Intel 20" iMac:  $1699
PPC 17" iMac:  $1299
PPC 20" iMac:  $1699

So, what is your problem again?  The 20" models of each iMac are the same identical price, as are the 17" models.  There is no financial difference between a PPC and an Intel.

2)  If you are so broke you cannot afford the $400 difference between the 17" and 20" model, then fix what you have, and wait until you have a job before spending any more money.

3)  Unlike what posters such as ElDiabloConCaca think in his post immediately following mine, I am not telling you that you should pick the Intel over the PPC because of "bragging rights" or "buy the 2006 model because the 2005 is setting yourself up for obsolecense" or any other crap like that.  Look, if you cannot afford the $400 price difference today, there is no indication you will be able to afford the $400 price difference 2-3 years from now either.  And computers are not automobiles, they are computers.  Software companies only have limited resources at their disposal for making software/drivers/etc.  Therefore, new developers will start on Intel, existing developers will move to Universal, and very quickly most existing developers will move to the Intel platform exclusively due to limited development time and resources.  And anyone who says that it is easy or quick to make Universal binaries of large, complicated existing PPC-only products hasn't got the first clue in the world what they are talking about.  You can look at the industry today to see how quickly and easily companies like Adobe and Microsoft have simply "targeted both platforms".  By the time their products come out in Universal format, they will have spent over one year on the conversion.  There are other factors involved, such as the switch the XCode, but the point is made nonetheless.  It is %100 gauranteed now that PPC is a dead-end, so why would any new or existing company pour resources into Universal binaries for no reason?  Which brings me back to my main point, if you are forward thinking, then by buying the Intel iMac now will allow you to be able to run your existing PPC applications now as well as all Intel applications and hardware now and in the future.  If you buy PPC, you are gauranteed into obsolecense.  Are you going to be able to afford buying a new computer now which is PPC and then trying to dump it in 2-3 years for an Intel based Mac, especially when no major developer in the market is going to care anymore about the PPC platform?  Or just buy an Intel now and future-proof any more computer purchases for the forseeable future?

4)  The Intel hardware is ridiculously better than the PPC hardware, excluding the difference in CPU.

5)  And for ElDiabloConCaca, it is SubaruWRC, not SubaruWRX.  WRC as in "World Rally Championship".  Rally is the greatest motorsport in the world, one of the oldest motorsports in the world, the most popular live motorsport in the world along with Formula 1 (i.e. 2003 WRC had more live viewers per event than Formula 1), and Rally is catching on very quickly in the US (Canada is already huge into Rally and Mexico already has an official FIA WRC event).  The Subaru WRX exists in the US because of Rally, so to pay homage and attention to the WRX's true roots, I specifically chose WRC as part of my handle on this forum.


----------



## Mikuro (Jan 20, 2006)

SubaruWRC said:
			
		

> So, what is your problem again?  The 20" models of each iMac are the same identical price, as are the 17" models.  There is no financial difference between a PPC and an Intel.


Used/refurbished, as he said.



> It is %100 gauranteed now that PPC is a dead-end, so why would any new or existing company pour resources into Universal binaries for no reason?


How long do you think it will take before the lion's share of the Mac market is running on Intel processors? We're talking at least a couple years here; probably more. So there is far from "no reason" for developers to maintain PPC support for a long time to come. Apple has committed to several years of PPC support (I forget exactly how many).

Porting apps IS a lot harder then people make it out to be, but that's only a huge issue going from PPC to Intel, really. All developers writing for Intel will know darned well that there's another chipset out there they should keep in mind  an advantage PPC developers have not had. When you write an application from the ground up with portability in mind, it really _isn't_ that hard. The biggest problem is testing. Eventually this problem will be too great to justify the small PPC market, but again, the PPC market will surely be large enough to motivate developers to make universal binaries for years.

And using slightly outdated software is not the end of the world, of course.


----------



## HoZ (Jan 20, 2006)

Go, Intel.

the mac book pros are better then my first gen imac G5!

it is and will be an important time for macintosh, and i missed the OS9 to OSX thing. I sure as hell dont want to miss this one.

It is kida a no brainer. but it is your money.


----------



## mattsuzu (Jan 20, 2006)

Apple are maintaining manifacture of the G5's alongside the Intels, so both are supported. Honestly, go the G5 - or wait a while until there are enough apps written for the intel. Running G based programs on the intel mac compramises performance and has been found to be sslower than the G5 - BUT when intel programs come out they will fly past the G's... Tough Call!


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Jan 21, 2006)

SubaruWRC said:
			
		

> 5)  And for ElDiabloConCaca, it is SubaruWRC, not SubaruWRX.  WRC as in "World Rally Championship".  Rally is the greatest motorsport in the world, one of the oldest motorsports in the world, the most popular live motorsport in the world along with Formula 1 (i.e. 2003 WRC had more live viewers per event than Formula 1), and Rally is catching on very quickly in the US (Canada is already huge into Rally and Mexico already has an official FIA WRC event).  The Subaru WRX exists in the US because of Rally, so to pay homage and attention to the WRX's true roots, I specifically chose WRC as part of my handle on this forum.


My apologies.  It was simply a typo, as in the United States, the "X" key is directly next to the "C" key on our QWERTY keyboards.  I meant to type your handle correctly, but my fingers are not 100% accurate like your insight into the future of computers.

I also know that computers are not cars, but setting up an analogy (even a bad one, like mine) requires that I compare two things that are different.  My analogy would have been even worse had I compared computers to computers.

Any developer who codes solely for Macintosh computers with Intel processors (making their software PPC-incompatible) has no business calling themselves a developer.  Only a very, very, very small percentage of Macintosh users use Macintosh computers with Intel processors -- developing an application that will run solely on Intel processors and shutting out 99% of Macintosh users would be shooting themselves in the foot.

In the end, I'll stick to my thinking that purchasing a PPC-based Macintosh right now would _not_ be setting yourself up for obsolecense.  They will still be very usable 4 years from now.



> If you are so broke you cannot afford the $400 difference between the 17" and 20" model, then fix what you have, and wait until you have a job before spending any more money.


If he/she was 12 years old and had no money-management experience, I'd think this comment would be a pretty good one.  I highly doubt he/she is 12 years old, though.


----------



## unispherephoto (Jan 22, 2006)

SubaruWRC said:
			
		

> 1)  Let's look at some prices at www.apple.com as of 01/20/2006:
> 
> 
> Intel 17" iMac:  $1299
> ...



i already explained which model G5 i was looking at, and why it is cheaper.



			
				SubaruWRC said:
			
		

> 2)  If you are so broke you cannot afford the $400 difference between the 17" and 20" model, then fix what you have, and wait until you have a job before spending any more money.



since you didnt bother to ask what was wrong with my powerbook, you have absolutely no reason to think that repair should be an option. so, fyi, the hard drive is failing, the optical drive is broken, and the case is cracked. still think i should repair my 5 year old computer?

as a student and also a member of the workforce, i am being as logical as i can while deciding what to buy. i do a lot of work - for profit as well as school - on my computer, and at this particular, very specific time, i cannot either afford $1700 nor afford to wait until i have more money.  it would be nice if you made some tiny bit of effort to be helpful instead of judging someone elses position in life without an iota of information to back it up.



			
				SubaruWRC said:
			
		

> Look, if you cannot afford the $400 price difference today, there is no indication you will be able to afford the $400 price difference 2-3 years from now either.



again, what the hell are you talking about? you have absolutely no idea who i am, how old i am, or what i do for a living. did it occur to you that maybe i just had a car accident and had to buy a new car? or maybe im extremely ill and have thousands of dollars in medical bills to pay. or maybe both. stop being an arrogant, presumptuous ***.


----------



## fryke (Jan 22, 2006)

Hey, don't let this get into an ugly fight, eh... I think the pros and cons about the different iMac models as well as an alternative like an iBook or the Mac mini with a 3rd party display have been laid out well enough by now.

So, unispherephoto: Have you come up with a decision yet? Have you _thought_ about the Mac mini option?


----------



## HoZ (Jan 22, 2006)

mac mini is kinda ummm crappy compard to the rest


----------



## unispherephoto (Jan 22, 2006)

i ordered the 20" g5.  i really think itll do everything i want it to, plus more - and ill have no problem sellin it and buying something new when the PPC it not well enough supported. for the time being, im more exited to have such a big screen and a computer thats a bazillion times faster than my current one.


----------



## swm2000 (Feb 1, 2006)

Apple just dropped the price of the G5's iMacs today, at least the 20in model. 
Now it's $1499 for the 20in G5.
Do you still go for the Intel? I think so.
G5 or Intel


----------

