I am looking to get a new mac and got really excited about the Intel iMac, but now the excitement has died down a bit and tests are proving not much of an increase in comparison to the previous G5 iMac. A lot of apps are still not Univeral and it looks like the Powermac G5's will hold their own for a bit until possibly the Quad Intels come out. So is getting a Dual 2.5 at $2000 or a 2.7 at $2199 still a great value for the price?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Dual 2.5 or Dual 2.7 still great deals?
- Thread starter asencif
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
ummm how about a no on that one. the G5s have already been proven to be slower than the upcoming intel chips so basically if you bought a powermac and then the intel versions came out you would feel very cheated. save the cash until the intel versions arrive. your benchmarks will thank you
jamesi said:
I agree that you should wait - I think buying a powerPC would be a mistake at the moment.
as for the imac being slower - you might want to check out some user reviews (real people testing real machines)
like this one
if the intel is that much faster - think how blindingly amazing the powermacs will be
Wait. The fact that Steve Jobs mentioned they are going to replace the entire lineup says something about the Intel roadmap for this year alone. I bet next year's laptop could replace my current Powermac G5 in performance. Right now it seems to be around the same speed. And I have 8 GBs of ram.
I am so glad Apple didn't come out with a Celeron Mac with built-in graphics on the motherboard. They are focusing on the high-end for now. It probably makes Intel happy and perhaps Apple will get that special treatment I was predicting.
I am so glad Apple didn't come out with a Celeron Mac with built-in graphics on the motherboard. They are focusing on the high-end for now. It probably makes Intel happy and perhaps Apple will get that special treatment I was predicting.
DeSnousa said:
Bongo.
BUT, the dual G5s are still AWESOME machines, fast fast fast, and they will last you quite a long time. If you use pro apps then there is no reason not to get it - if you can wait for the intel, you will get a much faster machine for you money
something to keep in mind:
would the intel iMacs really have been that much faster if they were replacing dual-core G5's as opposed to a single-core G5?
also look at the major improvement in the intel iMacs gpu, which could account for some of the benchmarks, and the limited clock speed of the core duo.
call me crazy, but i'm willing to bet the powermac still comes in on top. when you double the amount of cores in a computer and double the power of the gpu, then you end up with benchmarks saying its doubly as fast...
i don't see the core duo being any faster clock per clock then the G5. I'm sure that will change once intel releases merom and conroe and woodcrest based chips, but suffice to say, a dual 2.7 G5 will kill any intel iMac with ease.
would the intel iMacs really have been that much faster if they were replacing dual-core G5's as opposed to a single-core G5?
also look at the major improvement in the intel iMacs gpu, which could account for some of the benchmarks, and the limited clock speed of the core duo.
call me crazy, but i'm willing to bet the powermac still comes in on top. when you double the amount of cores in a computer and double the power of the gpu, then you end up with benchmarks saying its doubly as fast...
i don't see the core duo being any faster clock per clock then the G5. I'm sure that will change once intel releases merom and conroe and woodcrest based chips, but suffice to say, a dual 2.7 G5 will kill any intel iMac with ease.
the powermac should come top - it wont always but it should because its a pro machine... the imac is just a consumer machine - just a bloody good one
I think a this moment the Powermacs still come out on top, but later this year the Intel PM's will top them. It appears that what helps the Intel iMacs in those tests are it's faster Ram and PCI-E X1600. Will this card be released AGP 8x for PM's?
Both the dual 2.5 and dual 2.7 are great machines.
I've processed over 60,000 images since August of this year on my dual 2.7 and it has never skipped a beat. Those are 12MP images, BTW, no small files, to say the least.
I've processed over 60,000 images since August of this year on my dual 2.7 and it has never skipped a beat. Those are 12MP images, BTW, no small files, to say the least.
BakedBeans, thanks for posting that quote. That review was awesome and really gave me a good idea of what to expect from the iMac's performance. All these so called "benchmarks" are giving false ideas. 
The dual 2.5 and 2.7 are great machines and it will be some time before Intel versions eclipse them in a significant way. The G5 is "current" and competitive and has a good FSB speed. The biggest differences in performance are in the laptops where the G4 systems have really lagged the rest of the market for some time now.
As always, this comes down to what you need now. If you need a machine now, then a dual 2.5/2.7 is a good buy. If you can wait - then you'll have to wait till the 3rd quarter.
As always, this comes down to what you need now. If you need a machine now, then a dual 2.5/2.7 is a good buy. If you can wait - then you'll have to wait till the 3rd quarter.
depends on when and what you are doing. Powermac G5's are still great machines, and as iGary said will get the work done if that's what your doing. AND, they will run all the PPC Apps NOW at full speed, you might need 6 months to get almost all pro apps Universal.
So, even though you might not want an Intel YET, having used a DUO iMac, they really do FEEL a lot faster (starting and using universal iLife apps mostly). Honestly the iMac Duo feels snappier in most cases than a quad Now when you get to rendering, filtering, compositing, ect, that will probably not be the case.
Just some thoughts...
So, even though you might not want an Intel YET, having used a DUO iMac, they really do FEEL a lot faster (starting and using universal iLife apps mostly). Honestly the iMac Duo feels snappier in most cases than a quad
Now when you get to rendering, filtering, compositing, ect, that will probably not be the case.Just some thoughts...
Test Results
I am definitely leaning towards just getting a Dual 2.5 model. If ATI releases an x1600 for these models then it can perform even better. It seems the test results of the Intel iMacs show that the simpler apps run faster on it and it also boots faster which is probably because of the EFI. However, once you load the G5 up with Ram the performance is a amazing and a lot of tests have shown it to trounce the iMac for iTunes encoding and heavy photoshop work. Not sure how iLife 06 runs on the 2.5 or 2.7 models though. I imagine well since most of Apple's products, although Universal are still better optimized for PPC.
I am definitely leaning towards just getting a Dual 2.5 model. If ATI releases an x1600 for these models then it can perform even better. It seems the test results of the Intel iMacs show that the simpler apps run faster on it and it also boots faster which is probably because of the EFI. However, once you load the G5 up with Ram the performance is a amazing and a lot of tests have shown it to trounce the iMac for iTunes encoding and heavy photoshop work. Not sure how iLife 06 runs on the 2.5 or 2.7 models though. I imagine well since most of Apple's products, although Universal are still better optimized for PPC.
asencif said:
Photoshop is running through rosetta an emulation layer - so wont run natively yet.
however when it is native i would thin the performance wont be 'much' faster (if at all) that the dual 2.0/2.3 G5. the 2.5 and 2.7 are just stunning machines- the imac will be no slouch though
to me the intel imac will last longer than a PPC machine, but that's just me. and the intel imac is cheaper.
Longevity
I have thought about the longevity of the Intel iMac....Yes it's Intel and the future for the mac, but PPC has to be supported for at least another 3 years since there are tons of Macs out there in Big companies that don't upgrade often. Also, an Intel PM to me would have an even greater value and long term value. The Intel iMac looks like a great system and yes it is amazing, but it is the first one made. The Rev B/C Intel iMac will probably be even 2x faster than this by the end of the year. You can't upgrade the Intel iMac either or change the Video Card. It's just a matter of what one needs now and for how long you want it before the next upgrade. I'm thinking I can get a great value by buying a 2.5 or 2.7 for under $2300 which will last me till the Intel Quad PM arrive and most software is Universal. The Intel iMac is very tempting indeed, but more will come with even greater temptation which actually makes me want to wait on the Intel side.
I have thought about the longevity of the Intel iMac....Yes it's Intel and the future for the mac, but PPC has to be supported for at least another 3 years since there are tons of Macs out there in Big companies that don't upgrade often. Also, an Intel PM to me would have an even greater value and long term value. The Intel iMac looks like a great system and yes it is amazing, but it is the first one made. The Rev B/C Intel iMac will probably be even 2x faster than this by the end of the year. You can't upgrade the Intel iMac either or change the Video Card. It's just a matter of what one needs now and for how long you want it before the next upgrade. I'm thinking I can get a great value by buying a 2.5 or 2.7 for under $2300 which will last me till the Intel Quad PM arrive and most software is Universal. The Intel iMac is very tempting indeed, but more will come with even greater temptation which actually makes me want to wait on the Intel side.
jamesi said:
To tell the truth, the current Intel chips have already been proven to be slower than the upcoming Intel chips.
Max.
Two simple rules
It's simple:
(1) If you need a computer NOW you have to buy what is available NOW
(2) If you don't need a computer buying any computer is a waste of money
It's simple:
(1) If you need a computer NOW you have to buy what is available NOW
(2) If you don't need a computer buying any computer is a waste of money
ChrisA said:
Only problem with that is the definition of "need." Almost any of us could do what we need on an early G4 tower/powerbook... it will just take longer than with a more modern system.
So if you've been using a powermac G4 400 mhz for 5 years and it's god-awful slow, do you "need" a new one?
Actually if you really need a powermac you should buy a used one at least you can save some money. Even ati's x800gpu on older powermacs is sufficient. There are some great deals on ebay for used dual processors. Having said that by september you willl have your dream machine if you can wait that's when the new intel 64 bit cpus come out.
twoodcc said:
How is that? The PPC was designed to outlast the imac especially in expandability. You want it to go faster, add upt to 16 Gigs of ram even another "internal" hard drive. How much could you add to and Imac?
Do you honestly believe that the the new Intel Imac is way faster then the latest quad processor G5's? I don't. Especially in video, 3D animation, rendering and compositing. Whoa! It starts up faster, that's not what I need.
Granted the new Intel macs are cool and apple is going in the right direction, but there's just way too much hype out there, it's like every one "needs" these new macs will blow everything away rather then just seeing it for what it is, another step up revision.