Dual Processor Powermac G4 Performance VS. Single CPU?

[bunnspecial]

Yes, the Quad has had it's day and is utterly smashed by modern workstations but it still has it's uses if you have one - but I'd never recommend getting one now to do any particular task as much more capable Macs can be bought at the same price.

I actually have a Quad in my office that has one specific primary task.

I often need a software package called ChemDraw, which is stupidly expensive new(4 figures). Someone gave me an older PPC native version which is useless now to them.

Consequently, I do a lot a lot of my writing that requires structures on the Quad. It's new enough that I can still do things like email stuff to myself(it's a shame Dropbox hasn't worked in a few years, as that use to be the easiest way to do it).

Still, though, I can sit down on that and get what I need to done. It's kind of a "heavy" program, especially when I'm using some of the more advanced features, and runs better on a Quad than it does even under on a good Intel system under Rosetta.

Plus, I have a good spot for it in my office and it's nice to just spin my chair around and use it when I need to. Plus, I get to write exams on a real, genuine IBM Model M(I have a Unicomp Spacesaver M on my Mac Pro, which I really like, but it's still not the real thing).

 

[Appleuser201]

I actually have a Quad in my office that has one specific primary task.

I often need a software package called ChemDraw, which is stupidly expensive new(4 figures). Someone gave me an older PPC native version which is useless now to them.

Consequently, I do a lot a lot of my writing that requires structures on the Quad. It's new enough that I can still do things like email stuff to myself(it's a shame Dropbox hasn't worked in a few years, as that use to be the easiest way to do it).

Still, though, I can sit down on that and get what I need to done. It's kind of a "heavy" program, especially when I'm using some of the more advanced features, and runs better on a Quad than it does even under on a good Intel system under Rosetta.

Plus, I have a good spot for it in my office and it's nice to just spin my chair around and use it when I need to. Plus, I get to write exams on a real, genuine IBM Model M(I have a Unicomp Spacesaver M on my Mac Pro, which I really like, but it's still not the real thing).

Waste of a quad... you can do that even with a single G5.

 

[Dronecatcher]

Waste of a quad... you can do that even with a single G5.

Probably not I think @bunnspecial can confirm that's a pretty resource hungry package.

 

[bunnspecial]

It's resource heavy, yes(especially stuff like the NMR predictor). I did it for a while on a Quicksilver, and even "simple" stuff like copying a structure from ChemDraw to Word(which is one of the main reasons why I even use the software) could take a minute or better depending on the complexity. I frankly don't have time for that. On a Quad, it's nearly instantaneous.

I could do it adequately on a lesser G5, sure. I have a couple of Quads, though, this one is university owned, I don't pay the power bills at work , and I like having the best PPC Mac in my office AND being able to put it to use.

 

[LightBulbFun]

But never in it's native resolution of 3840 x 2160 as there is just no PowerMac-vid card able to display this res.

whether or not a G5 Quad has enough CPU power to play a 4K video file

a Dual link DVI connection will happily do 3840x2160 at 30Hz

Both @Amethyst1 and @eyoungren have run 4K monitors from their PPC macs IIRC

 

[flyproductions]

a Dual link DVI connection will happily do 3840x2160 at 30Hz

Interesting news! So i will buy some 4K-capable DVI / HDMI cable or adapter and give this a try. As i have many dual-link G4s starting with a GeForce 6600GT equipped Quicksilver i won't even have to move the poor old Quad again.

But isn't 30Hz quite close to noticeable flickering? Or don't the LCDs flicker at all?

 

[dpny]

While mid to high end modern machines are so much more powerful than the old G5, the quad G5 destroys low end intel CPU's found in cheap notebooks and chromebooks. The Core 2 Duo is about twice as fast as these CPU's for most daily usages which says a lot about the G5.

I'm not sure that's much of an argument. I can pick up a Chromebook for ~$125. For $900 I can get a laptop with an i5 and a 1060 which is faster than a quad G5.

 

[sparty411]

I'm not sure that's much of an argument. I can pick up a Chromebook for ~$125. For $900 I can get a laptop with an i5 and a 1060 which is faster than a quad G5.

I’m fairly certain that even a Wolfdale C2D would beat the living snot out of a quad G5.

 

[flyproductions]

I’m fairly certain that even a Wolfdale C2D would beat the living snot out of a quad G5.

For me, aside of software issues, the point to look for something new was reached when i started to suspect the phone my customers called me on (iPhone X) to be faster than the computer to process their jobs.



As i said before: 3.500 in Geekbench 2 on final upgrade-state. Numbers don't lie every time.

 

[bunnspecial]

For the use case I mentioned for the Quad in my office:

It beats the snot out of spending $4K on a program that will run on a modern computer

 

[Appleuser201]

[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure that's much of an argument. I can pick up a Chromebook for ~$125. For $900 I can get a laptop with an i5 and a 1060 which is faster than a quad G5.

Modern HP notebooks (in the $250 range) are crap, and slow as hell on Windows 10S, and they only let you use Edge as your browser (which is slower than even IE). Those things don't even run full Windows...
I've used older core 2 duo machines that felt much faster on internet and youtube than the one time I had to use an HP 10S notebook. Windows 10 is no good anyways, everything Microsoft touches they screw.
They've even ruined Minecraft (you have to pay for a lot of the extra features now and have to make a Microsoft account which they suspend within a month if you only use that account for Minecraft)
Why even spend money on ugly windows/plastic that will fall apart a couple years?
Even though most modern CPU's blow away a quad, if you use the old quad for modern internet, what most people buy those notebooks/laptops/chromebooks for, the quad is just fine and looking good at the same time.

 

[flyproductions]

...if you use the old quad for modern internet, what most people buy those notebooks/laptops/chromebooks for, the quad is just fine and looking good at the same time.

This was one of the main if not the main reason for me to retire the Quad: Sadly it is just not usable for modern internet anymore. At least not really. Not even with the very latest versions of the well known browsers like TFF or WebKit. Sure they work for most pages. "Somehow". But sometimes with incredible slow speeds. And sometimes not at all. I.e. STRAVA (some kind of "sports-facebook" for the ones who don't know it) became plain unusable with the quad recently. Also i all of a sudden was not able to give Amazon-feedback anymore using WebKit. And the number of sites behaving like that has been increasing fast lately...

 

[Appleuser201]

This was one of the main if not the main reason for me to retire the Quad: Sadly it is just not usable for modern internet anymore. At least not really. Not even with the very latest versions of the well known browsers like TFF or WebKit. Sure they work for most pages. "Somehow". But sometimes with incredible slow speeds. And sometimes not at all. I.e. STRAVA (some kind of "sports-facebook" for the ones who don't know it) became plain unusable with the quad recently. Also i all of a sudden was not able to give Amazon-feedback anymore using WebKit. And the number of sites behaving like that has been increasing fast lately...

It's because the bugs have not been fixed with Leopard Webkit yet, this browser has not been updated in almost a year. The only reason Webkit should be used is for YouTube, even then there are other apps that can play YouTube better. TenFourFox is more web standards compliant and stable and should be everyone's default browser for PPC Macs. The quad performed really well using Firefox in Linux 16.04. I prefer Mac OS, so I stick with TenFourFox and it's not bad at all.

I wouldnt call this performance useless.

 

[flyproductions]

I prefer Mac OS, so I stick with TenFourFox and it's not bad at all.

Hmm, in my experience in particular TFF has been incredibly slow and buggy for a waste lot of sites. Even with the Quad. Yes, WebKit doesn't get updates anymore. And as far as i know the developer behind it has given up on it. And, as metioned above, TFF never worked for me (yes, i had installed the right version for G5/Leo). But in the end even Aurora worked better.

So as i do not use Linux at all, webbrowsing had been a real pain in the ass the later days with the Quad.

 

[dpny]

Modern HP notebooks (in the $250 range) are crap

Once again, I'm not sure this is a good argument. A decent Chromebook is cheap and easily handles all web stuff. You can also install Linux on the thing, which gives you a modern OS/modern browser in a very portable platform. Or for $900 I can get a Dell XPS 13, which will do all that and more, and which will easily be useful for years.

Even though most modern CPU's blow away a quad, if you use the old quad for modern internet, what most people buy those notebooks/laptops/chromebooks for, the quad is just fine and looking good at the same time.

Except the Quad is a developmental dead end. Unless you install Linux on it you're using a 12-year old OS which is increasingly being left behind. Add to that the Quad sucks down power and doubles as a space heater. If all you want is web stuff, a $350 iPad will be far more useful than the Quad.

I'm not saying to get rid of the Quad. I'm just saying I don't think the argument that owning one is a good value proposition is a good one to make. I still have my old Mac Pro, running Linux, but not because it's a better value than my MBP, but because there's no reason to get rid of a working machine. However, I wouldn't tell anyone to buy a used one unless there's a specific reason they need that particular hardware.

 

[flyproductions]

Or for $900 I can get a Dell XPS 13, which will do all that and more, and which will easily be useful for years.

What i did with something around $900 to spend was buying a 5,1 and upgrade it (close) to it's max.

Sure this machine is nearly ten years old too. But it easily runs all the latest releases of the software i need. From ADOBE CC 2019 to begin with to (if only i wanted to) most likely even Catalina. And the horsepower should be good to go for all the rest of my professional life: A solid 24.000 Geekbench which is nearly ten times of what the Quad has to offer.

And i don't really miss this "Oh, nice! There is this app which does exactly what i need! Oh, sh**t it requires INTEL-CPU / OS 10.anything above 5.8.“-scenario.

 

[Appleuser201]

Once again, I'm not sure this is a good argument. A decent Chromebook is cheap and easily handles all web stuff. You can also install Linux on the thing, which gives you a modern OS/modern browser in a very portable platform. Or for $900 I can get a Dell XPS 13, which will do all that and more, and which will easily be useful for years.



Except the Quad is a developmental dead end. Unless you install Linux on it you're using a 12-year old OS which is increasingly being left behind. Add to that the Quad sucks down power and doubles as a space heater. If all you want is web stuff, a $350 iPad will be far more useful than the Quad.

I'm not saying to get rid of the Quad. I'm just saying I don't think the argument that owning one is a good value proposition is a good one to make. I still have my old Mac Pro, running Linux, but not because it's a better value than my MBP, but because there's no reason to get rid of a working machine. However, I wouldn't tell anyone to buy a used one unless there's a specific reason they need that particular hardware.

I can agree there is no point in BUYING a G5 quad (unless you're an apple collector like myself).
If you were given a PPC mac, found one, or had one laying around, I'm sure there is a use for it whether it would be as a file server, dedicated music player (iMac G3), or even using it for nostalgia (Mac OS9). No point in getting rid of a working machine if you can find a good use for it because even PPC's have uses even in 2019. If a poor student like myself had a Quad, lived in an apartment (landlord paid the electricity bill), there is no point in going out and buying a new machine. The Quad even doubles as a space heater, and living in Canada is something I can appreciate. Even I can daily use an iBook G4 1.33ghz, for the internet so I'd have no problem with a G5.

 

[z970]

What i did with something around $900 to spend was buying a 5,1 and upgrade it (close) to it's max.

Sure this machine is nearly ten years old too. But it easily runs all the latest releases of the software i need. From ADOBE CC 2019 to begin with to (if only i wanted to) most likely even Catalina. And the horsepower should be good to go for all the rest of my professional life: A solid 24.000 Geekbench which is nearly ten times of what the Quad has to offer.

And i don't really miss this "Oh, nice! There is this app which does exactly what i need! Oh, sh**t it requires INTEL-CPU / OS 10.anything above 5.8.“-scenario.

I think the thing to take away here is for people to use whatever brings out their best, be it OSes or architectures. Whatever makes them most productive, and happiest using. To that end, congratulations to you for finding your space.

x86 is not a one-size-fits-all solution. PowerPC is not a one-size-fits-all solution. ARM and POWER are not one-size-fits-all solutions. Obviously, x86 is probably the easiest and most versatile route for most people, but they all have different methods of usage that fit different individuals and workflows.

Which is great, because it means we have a choice when it comes to our digital ships of imagination. We can all fly what we really want to, if need be.

This is a fact to be celebrated!

 

[flyproductions]

(unless you're an apple collector like myself)

That’s what i would call myself too.

And therefore i wouldn't give this beautiful piece of technology and design - which served me well for nearly a decade - away. Even if there weren't this two small but important purposes i still need it for. As little as i would give the Cube away. Or even the well upgraded QS or some more pieces from the "old world"-aera.

The Quad will be much less involved in my daily routines. That's all.

 

[LightBulbFun]

Interesting news! So i will buy some 4K-capable DVI / HDMI cable or adapter and give this a try. As i have many dual-link G4s starting with a GeForce 6600GT equipped Quicksilver i won't even have to move the poor old Quad again.

But isn't 30Hz quite close to noticeable flickering? Or don't the LCDs flicker at all?

id highly recommend picking up an AT-DP400

it will let you use a modern Displayport monitor with your DVI PPC Macs

and it will happily drive a 4K Displayport monitor when given a Dual link DVI signal

LCDs dont flicker but at 30Hz things like moving the mouse may be quite choppy and the such like

 

[flyproductions]

id highly recommend picking up an AT-DP400

Thanks for the recommendation. But, as the only "4K-display" i have at hand is my 55" TCL TV, i'd need something to convert to HDMI.

The motion problem will not hurt me too much, as the whole thing will be just for the record anyway.

 

[TheShortTimer]

Hmm, in my experience in particular TFF has been incredibly slow and buggy for a waste lot of sites. Even with the Quad. Yes, WebKit doesn't get updates anymore. And as far as i know the developer behind it has given up on it. And, as metioned above, TFF never worked for me (yes, i had installed the right version for G5/Leo). But in the end even Aurora worked better.

So as i do not use Linux at all, webbrowsing had been a real pain in the ass the later days with the Quad.

There are tweaks that drastically alter TFF's performance for the better. It now runs great on my G3: a machine with barely a fraction of a Quad G5's hardware resources.

 

[flyproductions]

There are tweaks that drastically alter TFF's performance for the better.

Thanks! But all of that now comes a bit too late for me.

Anyway, as far as i remember, one of TFFs main problems once was dropping flash completely without fully and correctly supporting HTML5.

 

[dpny]

I can agree there is no point in BUYING a G5 quad (unless you're an apple collector like myself).

I had to talk myself out of buying a NeXT Cube a few years ago. . .

 

[Amethyst1]

Interesting news! So i will buy some 4K-capable DVI / HDMI cable or adapter and give this a try. As i have many dual-link G4s starting with a GeForce 6600GT equipped Quicksilver i won't even have to move the poor old Quad again.

But isn't 30Hz quite close to noticeable flickering? Or don't the LCDs flicker at all?

The problem is that there are no Dual-Link DVI to HDMI adapters, so you're limited to single-link when going the DVI to HDMI route which gives you 18 Hz at 3840×2160. In my experience, OS X will offer 30 Hz in this configuration but it won't work, producing a corrupted image with horribly grainy text. As @LightBulbFun pointed out, you'd need the Atlona DP-400 to go from Dual-Link DVI to DisplayPort and an active DisplayPort to HDMI converter to get 30 Hz on a monitor that only has HDMI.

And 30 Hz is a revelation when you have experienced 13 Hz. No flickering on an LCD of course but man, movement is jerky.