Intel vs PPC: The great debate

[dukebound85]

I don't know about you, but I buy a computer based on what software is available for it, not what will be in the future. Why buy the machine if the software you want for it doesn't exist yet?

ok?

what software isnt available for intel now?

why limit your choices in the future by going with ppc?

there is no logical argument to choose a ppc mac over intel. No advantages but there are definitly some disadvantages

 

[Theclamshell]

ok?

what software isnt available for intel now?

why limit your choices in the future by going with ppc?

there is no logical argument to choose a ppc mac over intel. No advantages but there are definitly some disadvantages

i disagree. The G5 can holdup to a 512 video card and 16Gb of ram. What if you need that and cant afford something nice. That would destroy a mini for rendering

 

[dukebound85]

i disagree. The G5 can holdup to a 512 video card and 16Gb of ram. What if you need that and cant afford something nice. That would destroy a mini for rendering

3 points

1) A powermac will cost more than a mini most likely
2) The most upgradeable video card for a powermac is hardly something to be impressed by (a 6800GT with 256mb NOT 512)
3) The ram, while more is also slower. If one is really serious about work that needs that amount of ram, they wouldnt be buying ppc to begin with

 

[Theclamshell]

3 points

1) A powermac will cost more than a mini most likely
2) The most upgradeable video card for a powermac is hardly something to be impressed by (a 6800GT with 256mb NOT 512)
3) The ram, while more is also slower. If one is really serious about work that needs that amount of ram, they wouldnt be buying ppc to begin with

1. Cant disagree with that
2. actually, its a quadro fx4500 with 512mb
3. What if they are not able to afford a mac pro or an imac

 

[dukebound85]

1. Cant disagree with that
2. actually, its a quadro fx4500 with 512mb
3. What if they are not able to afford a mac pro or an imac

2) have you looked at prices for those cards on ebay? They near 200-500 bucks used. I would argue that its not substantially better, if at all, over the 9400m. I mean its a 3+ year old card
3) to incorporate that card and buying the machine itself, you are spending a ton that could have been put to current tech thats better off the bat

 

[Theclamshell]

2) have you looked at prices for those cards on ebay? They near 200-500 bucks used. I would argue that its not substantially better, if at all, over the 9400m. I mean its a 3+ year old card
3) to incorporate that card and buying the machine itself, you are spending a ton that could have been put to current tech thats better off the bat

2 ok

3 say you buy a dual core powermac g5 for like 350 and then the card for like 300 thats 650. if the machine has some ram which it most likely would. if someone needs a machine now for rendering or graphics work i think that would actually be a good choice for them.

 

[TSE]

You can give me the best PowerMac G5 in the world and I would still accept a Mac Mini or iMac over it. You know why? Because PPC is obsolete.

 

[alent1234]

A friend gave me his g4 mini and it's slower than my homebuilt and athlon 64 3200 that I've had for years

 

[Little Endian]

In terms of cpu performance, the initial intels were already on par with the g5's


expandability only in the sense you can add hdds

the graphics options for "expandibility" are non existent

and what do you mean by versatility? ppc were less verstile the moment intels ht the scene

You obviously have never owned or used a Dual or Quad core G5. I have a Quad Core G5 and own a MBP 2.66Ghz C2D 9600M GT and a imac 2.4Ghz C2D and the G5 still holds its own or beats these machines. How the hell can an ORIGINAL Core Duo running at about 2Ghz or less beat a G5?? Expandability in the G5 is there you can add up to 16GB of Ram (cost effectively as there are 8 slots). THere is 3-4 PCI-X or PCI-E expansion slots and with third party solutions you can add up to SIX INTERNAL HDs in a G5 machine. As far as GPU expandability goes the G5 machines can take up to a Radeon X1900XT or Geforce 7800GTX, while these are far from the fastest GPUs on the market only the newest imacs and Mac Pros have options that are faster than the aforementioned GPUs.

 

[chaosbunny]

Another advantage of a new mini vs. an old G5 tower that hasn't been mentioned here is that the mini will come with a warranty. If I'm spending a couple 100 bucks on something I want it to be repaired for free for some time.

 

[iMacmatician]

I have a G5 Power Mac and only now are the Macbooks and Minis catching up with its performance; they still can't touch its versatility and expandability.

The most powerful PPC Macs vs. the lowest-end Intel Macs?

 

[combatcolin]

Don't waste your money

PPC is as good as dead.

 

[Theclamshell]

I know its against the rules and i apologize but i want to bump this thread. I thought it was a good discussion and now, almost a year later i want to see what people think.

In the past 9 months, i have acquired quite a bit of PPC macs and i still use my 12" power book G4 for browsing sometimes and it is still fine. Heck, i even break out the clamshells once in a while

So, once again, i apologize for bumping this thread but i want to see what people think about the usability of the PPC's now.

 

[smurfjammer]

PPC is no longer viable for todays computing, trust me - my MacBook smokes my G5 iMac.

 

[Heilage]

So here's the deal, I have a PowerMac G5 tower at work. Currently it only does data recovery work and working with disc images and the like. It's good at that type of jobs.

A few months ago, I tried using it as my main computer, I connected it to the 30" and the 23" ACD and tried for a few days to get the hang of it. I work with FileMaker, Mail, web surfing and general chat/music listening. That is actually the extent of my needs from a computer.

With the G5 I got constant spinning beachballs. It made me crazy, having to wait for that long to do simple app-switching and minor file operations in Terminal. So I went back to my Early 2007 MacBook Pro 15", and I'm happy as a camper again.

Thing is, for pure number-crunching, I think the G5 can still win. But the Intel runs circles around the G5 when it comes to general multi-tasking and the kind of work most people do, running 10 different apps at once and quickly switching between them to perform different tasks in an efficient manner.

 

[Theclamshell]

PPC is no longer viable for todays computing, trust me - my MacBook smokes my G5 iMac.

How so? What really is today's computing anyways. I will agree before anyone posts it that PPC is not professional equipment anymore and will not run applications like CS5 and Finalcut.

However i would still be willing to bet that at least 50% of computer users would not harness even the full power of a G5.

Hell, look at the iPad. I am no CPU expert but i think it is slower or on par with some of the G series and still many people use it for browsing and basic tasks.

I think of PPC in the same way, but i guess its just how you look at things and what sort of user you are.

Edit: Heliage, what speed was it. I can see the single or dual processor models doing that but i think the dual-cores would fare a bit better.

And yes, i dare say it. My power mac runs Runescape at full screen good resolution settings.

 

[Abstract]

Hell, look at the iPad. I am no CPU expert but i think it is slower or on par with some of the G series and still many people use it for browsing and basic tasks.

I think of PPC in the same way, but i guess its just how you look at things and what sort of user you are.

So you want the power of an iPad in a computer the size of a PowerMac? I don't.

 

[Angelo95210]

If you don't put the latest and bulky software on an old computer, it keeps working same as the first day and fits perfectly for the same tasks.

I still use an old G3 for my scanning purposes for example. It's slow but I can wait 20 sec to get the result...

 

[smurfjammer]

However i would still be willing to bet that at least 50% of computer users would not harness even the full power of a G5.

Hell, look at the iPad. I am no CPU expert but i think it is slower or on par with some of the G series and still many people use it for browsing and basic tasks.

Try encoding a video file with handbrake on a G5 iMac and you see the massive difference between PPC & Intel and the iPad doesn't have an Intel chip and is a complete different beast to a desktop computer.

 

[0098386]

I gave my Powerbook to my dad and occasionally I have to sort out problems with it. I honestly don't see what others are seeing here. It's a nightmare, they're slow, they're unsupported, the tech is old (cripples our n-band network) and in the case of laptops... the displays are horrendous!

Sure they had their time but software is now more powerful and demanding.

I wouldn't mind a G Mac for fun but I could never use one as a main machine now.

 

[Giuly]

It's discussed in the PowerPC-forum as well.

Point is: The PowerPC-CPU that was expected for 2005 will be available in Q1 2011. Until then, Apple went from the G5 to Pentium 4 on the Developer Kit, to Core, Core-2, Core-i and will be at SandyBridge soon. The 3.6GHz Pentium 4 already smoked the 2.5GHz G5, as IBM/Freescale couldn't deliver the 3GHz G5 until the end of 2004, like Jobs said at the WWDC keynote where the PowerMac G5 was introduced - they can't even deliver it today.

The PowerPC e5500 will likely blow away any Intel, and Snow Leopard would probably still run on it (as Mac OS X was available from the start for Intel, I guess they still secretly maintain PPC compatibility, but want us to buy Intel Macs), but you won't see that, your chances are bigger to see AMD processors in the Macs, but even this is highly unlikely.

 

[DoFoT9]

it was a dead end

Support for G5 machines is dropping fairly quickly, no point in investing in a dead-end.

in the sense of getting an update RIGHT NOW, yes, it was a dead end. apple would be kicking themselves now though

It's discussed in the PowerPC-forum as well.

Point is: The PowerPC-CPU that was expected for 2005 will be available in Q1 2011.

have you seen the specifications of the POWER7 CPUs from IBM? they ABSOLUTELY smoke any current intel chip - clock for clock.

 

[Theclamshell]

It's discussed in the PowerPC-forum as well.

Point is: The PowerPC-CPU that was expected for 2005 will be available in Q1 2011. Until then, Apple went from the G5 to Pentium 4 on the Developer Kit, to Core, Core-2, Core-i and will be at SandyBridge soon. The 3.6GHz Pentium 4 already smoked the 2.5GHz G5, as IBM/Freescale couldn't deliver the 3GHz G5 until the end of 2004, like Jobs said at the WWDC keynote where the PowerMac G5 was introduced - they can't even deliver it today.

The PowerPC e5500 will likely blow away any Intel, and Snow Leopard would probably still run on it (as Mac OS X was available from the start for Intel, I guess they still secretly maintain PPC compatibility, but want us to buy Intel Macs), but you won't see that, your chances are bigger to see AMD processors in the Macs, but even this is highly unlikely.

Thanks for the input. I would love to see PPC return in Apples but i dont know if they would do it.

have you seen the specifications of the POWER7 CPUs from IBM? they ABSOLUTELY smoke any current intel chip - clock for clock.

Those are insane!!! I just looked them up and their clock speeds are excellent.

 

[DoFoT9]

Those are insane!!! I just looked them up and their clock speeds are excellent.

expensive, and aimed for the enterprise market, but if IBM made a desktop/mobile chipset it would be VERY impressive against the Intels.

those POWER7 computers could be modified to run leopard - but you need a spare $10k at least

 

[sammich]

in the sense of getting an update RIGHT NOW, yes, it was a dead end. apple would be kicking themselves now though


have you seen the specifications of the POWER7 CPUs from IBM? they ABSOLUTELY smoke any current intel chip - clock for clock.

It's too bad the actual chips themselves are the size of a standard envelope. That's the reason they smoke them clock for clock, there are magnitudes more transistors that do work per clock.