1.6 G5 or dual 1.25 G4?

Hypernate

Hypernate

McGeek
My little ole 333mHz iMac has finally dsecided to die. Almost. I think me runing Mac OS X.2 with 96mb of RAM probably didnt' help it, but hey ;)

To replace it, I can afford either a 1.6gHz G5 with the 17" screen, or a new dual 1.25gHz with a 17". I'd have them both specced the same, with 1GB RAM, and the 80 (or possibly 160GB) HDD.

The only difference in specs, apart from the processor, would be the graphics card, which doesn't bother me, as I'm not really a gamer.

Also, woudl the G4 PowerMacs be shipped with Panther (after the release) or woudl only the G5s?

My main use for the system would be Photoshop, Internet, iTunes (LOTS) and Word, so I'm guessing a G5 wouldn't really give me a huge advantage.

Thanks
 
Well, I have a Dul 1.25 and it is really good... a G5 1.6 is not worthed the change for me...

The G5 is more silent... the G4 is a little noise...

if you need more than one CD and more than 4 HardDrives... go for the G4

If yo need USB2 and Firewire on the front of the case... go for the G5

Well... the 1.6 should be a little less powerfull... maybe... but you should wait to see with 10.3 the difference between a G4 and a G5
 
The G5 will have better longevity, as it is equipped to run 64-bit applications. It also includes Hypertransport and DDR RAM, which will help Photoshop out a bit. The G5 is almost silent in normal operations, but it is also much larger than the G4.

I think you should get the G5.
 
I would also go for the G5. I believe it will speed up a lot after panther and some optimized apps.
Also, as arden pointed out, the memory access is much more optimized.
Last but not least: it looks darn sexy to me! ;) :)
 
I would definitely go with the dual G4. Photoshop, IIRC, is dual processor aware, so it would indeed run faster on the dual G4. Moreover the 1.6 G5 is severely nerfed w.r.t. the other G5's(slower RAM, slower PCI, less RAM slots etc.).
The dual G4 is probably more than enough for what you do and will certainly bring a huge improvement over your iMac.
 
I suggest that, if it's possible, you run side-by-side comparisons of both machines, like at your local friendly Apple authorized retailer. Tell them you're interested in buying one of the machines, and I'm sure they'd be more than happy to set it up for you, or they could lose your business on an expensive piece of hardware.
 
Get enough ram and you'll be fine with either over your current model. If the price is right and you don't have an iPod, you might want to consider getting the cheaper model and an iPod (unless you can afford it).
 
Originally posted by Randman
Get enough ram and you'll be fine with either over your current model. If the price is right and you don't have an iPod, you might want to consider getting the cheaper model and an iPod (unless you can afford it).
Click to expand...

I've got an iPod... a rather beaten up looking original 10GB model ;)

The main comparison I'd liek to make isn't against my 333 iMac, because I know a bottom spec eMac would cream that heap-o-junk, but against my original release 700mHz G4 iMac with 512 RAM. I want one that will be notiably faster, I'm guessing both will, and I'm still heading towards the G4 option at the moment...
 
G5 1.6 is too seriously hampered to be considered as a long-term future machine. IMHO it will be old sooner than the Dual.

There are other threads around that dispel the myth that 64 bit is twice as fast as 32 bit. Of course 64 is the future, but before that arrives, the 1.6 will be part of the past.

So I think that if you want to go G5, go 1.8. Otherwise, the Dual is more expandable and more adaptable.
 
Despite the (not very many) hinderings Apple included in the G5, like the PCI slots, the 1.6 Ghz G5 is still an incredibly fast machine and will last quite a long time. It still has an 800 Mhz bus, 333 Mhz DDR RAM and a Serial ATA drive bus. I've used a couple 1.6 Ghz G5's, and they are quite the screamers (performance-wise, not noise-wise, of course ;)). All this "The 1.6 Ghz machines are crap because they don't have as good specs as the others" bullflop should stop because all 3 models are excellent machines.
 
Nobody argues they are bad machines, just that the dual G4 are probably better. It has been observed on several sites and fora that the dual G5 gives you the best value for money, and the dual G4 still has a very good performance, especially when considering AltiVec performance.
The advice is simply to get a dual G4 or wait for the second generation of G5's.
 
i am in this same situation... all i really care about is having Photoshop, Illustrator, Dreamweaver and Flash all run together without any slowdown
 
I am going to stick with my suggestion and say get the G5. It is still plenty fast, and it has better longevity because it is compatible with 64-bit applications; the G4 may not fare very well with 64-bit applications.
 
Many of you may not remember that the G3/233 was about the same speed as the 9600/300 (using a PPC604e/300). The last supported OS for the 9600 was Mac OS 9.2 while the G3/233 made it to 10.2.

When you consider how long we usually keep our Macs, the fact that the G5/1.6 is most likely going to be supported longer then the Dual G4/1.25 should be something to keep in mind.

Actually, I would bet that the Dual G4/1.42 is going to go further in support then the Dual G4/1.25. The Dual G4/1.25 are over stock that Apple made for the education market last year. Apple thought more schools would want them then actually did. These are basically systems from August 2002.
 
I would bet the 1.6 will be dropped pretty quickly from Apples offerings
It's a common topic on forums that the 1.6 is throttled down and looks to be be a dead end. I read a test on Dual G4 vs G5 and the G5 definitly needs 2gb of memory to perform at it's optimum. I say G4 and get a G5 in it's 2'nd or 3'rd revision later down the road.
 
I wouldn't be surprised if they dropped the 1.6 at the next revision. They tend to release models that have been crippled a little bit (not a whole lot, it's not like it's using PC100 RAM or something) and release models with all the same technologies later down the road.
 
arden said:
I wouldn't be surprised if they dropped the 1.6 at the next revision. They tend to release models that have been crippled a little bit (not a whole lot, it's not like it's using PC100 RAM or something) and release models with all the same technologies later down the road.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't invest in a G5 just yet....just like AMD is out with their new Athlon64...the technologies change, the socket layout changes, they become more effecient after the first few revisions....It's all a matter of taste, if you want the newest of the new, get yourself a nice G5...if you want proven stability and hardware, get yourself the dual G4's. I remember when Pentium 4's came out as socket 423..then everyone got screwed when they jumped to socket 478...Amd has even announced it's going to be changing the socket layout for their athlon 64's soon and the product is barely out the door. I just wouldn't jump into a pool of untested water, you may get cooties.... ;)
 
As I actually own a 1.6GHz model, I can say that they certainly feel quicker than the Dual 1GHz and the 1.25GHz. Not sure about the dual 1.42 though.

With 10.3, XBench results are around 150, which quite high up compared to the Dual 1.25GHz results on the site.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top