Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

What the Power Mac G4 SHOULD cost in 2006.

I DON'T CARE WHAT COMPUTER WE'RE TALKING ABOUT!!!!!!!!!!! As long as it is not a tower, it will be much slower than a tower. G4 Mini OR Intel Mini, it makes no difference. They are both millions of light years behind the G5 tower, and thousands of light years behind the G4 tower. Same will be for the MacBook.
 
Very wise choice. A Quicksilver G4 is a GREAT machine, perfectly compatible with all the applications that people use these days, and very fast too.
 
macgeek2005 said:
I DON'T CARE WHAT COMPUTER WE'RE TALKING ABOUT!!!!!!!!!!! As long as it is not a tower, it will be much slower than a tower. G4 Mini OR Intel Mini, it makes no difference. They are both millions of light years behind the G5 tower, and thousands of light years behind the G4 tower. Same will be for the MacBook.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. The FSB on the MacBook Pro and other Intel Macs makes a very, very big difference in performance. The slow FSB on the G4 towers is by far their biggest weak point. This has nothing to do with form factor, and everything to do with architecture.

At the moment I also diasgree with a previous poster's statement that AGP is a bottleneck - at the moment it isn't. In a couple years it will be, but by then they won't be releasing any more mid-high end AGP cards anyway. AGP was really killed before its time in a (rather cynical) effort to force consumers to buy new hardware.

G4 towers are still relevant in terms of storage options and a few other things, but lets not fool ourselves: the G4 CPU can't keep up with the Core Duo. It can be close in some circumstances, but as new Intel chips (Merom, Conroe) show up the G4 will eventually be totally outclassed, even the new 7448. You can only take a 133/167MHz FSB so far.
 
macgeek2005 said:
I DON'T CARE WHAT COMPUTER WE'RE TALKING ABOUT!!!!!!!!!!! As long as it is not a tower, it will be much slower than a tower. G4 Mini OR Intel Mini, it makes no difference. They are both millions of light years behind the G5 tower, and thousands of light years behind the G4 tower. Same will be for the MacBook.
Click to expand...

Wow, you're just going to believe whatever you want, aren't you? I've shown you benchmarks showing that the MBP is already as fast as a G5 tower (and thus an imac core duo is too). I'm not making this up. These are real world tests.

Look I don't know how to explain this, but because the MacMini is a small computer it is considerably slower than a Dual G4 Tower.
Click to expand...

Of course you don't know how to explain it - because its nonsense. As noted very well by Lord Blackadder, G4s are still useful because of the expandability. But to say that the intel minis are "thousands of light years" behind the G4 towers is just pure willful blindness. There's no such benchmark, nor could there be, because a core duo mini would crush an MDD G4 (except in 3d).

You just keep saying that towers are always faster because they're bigger, but you have absolutely no explanation for why that would be the case, and you have no benchmarks to prove it. I know that you love your MDD G4, and it's a great computer, but you're just being delusional here.

edit: took a look at your benchmarks. What they show is that a current pro computer that is much more expensive runs faster than an imac in 3d gaming when it has a high end graphics card. I don't see how that proves your point at all. Those are current powermacs with high-end cards, and even still they are hardly "light years" ahead of the consumer imac. Except for the quad with the 7800, which kills everything, the powermacs are moderately ahead. That's to be expected. But it's hardly night and day; the imac is quite competitive. You can be sure that it's not going to take 3 years for an imac to crush the scores of those powermacs.
 
You guys are so deep in the brainwash. You do know that apple wants you to think the way you're thinking. They hate it one someone actually thinks for themselves (me) and realises that the G4 towers are still very powerfull, fast, useable machines. I go back and forth between my tower and my dad's iMac alot, and it feels to me like i'm using one fast computer, and one faster computer, and that's about it. Okay so I can run Doom 3 on High Quality at 1650x1050 on the iMac at the same framerate as I get on the tower at low quality at 800x600.. but as long as i'm not gaming, I cannot tell a difference.

Apple want's you to think the way you think, because they wan't you to buy new computers. They know how great the G4 towers are and they're afraid of it. We have 3 new iMac Core Duo's in our house right now (all 2.0Ghz/256vram/1GB Ram), and my computer can do everything they do the way they do it, basically. I mean, if my computer was all of a sudden turned into an imac (in looks) I might think "This iMac is running a little slow today".

You guys are just wrong. But fine... give apple you're money when you still have a great machine that you paid $2000 for. They'll be happy. My tower will last me at least until they have Dual Quad Core.
 
every benchmark show you're completely wrong, but we're the ones who are brainwashed? :rolleyes:

G4 towers are still perfectly capable. My gf has a MDD G4, and it still runs great! I'm not suggesting you throw out what you have. But to get back to the original point of this thread, buying a G4 now for comparable money to what a new mac costs is just crazy unless you want/need to heavily upgrade it, like Lord Blackadder has done.
 
That's simply not true. The benchmarks don't matter. It's how fast the machine actually runs and how well it actually does stuff, when you are using it. My machine runs great alongside 3 2.0Ghz iMacs. They're not that much faster. I'd say they're 2x as fast maybe. And that would make sense considering they're supposed to be 2x as fast as a G5 iMac. The G5 iMac was about the same speed as the G4 tower because the G4 was a tower.
 
Barefeats has lots of very good real-world benchmarks, and the numbers don't lie:

Rev. A G5s vs. G4 towers. The G5 is faster. Not by much, but overall clearly faster. Another real-world test gives the dual 2.0GHz a substantially bigger lead.


This test shows the iMac G5 outperforming the dual 1.42GHz MDD in 4 out of 6 tests...a closer race than the PowerMacs this time but the iMac G5's price was actually equal or lower than the MDD back then, and came with a nice LCD to boot.

The above tests are using Rev A PowerMacs, back in '03. So I'm painting the G5 in the worst possible light and it still beats the G4. If you look at benchmarks from the later rev. G5 towers running Tiger you'll see that they absolutely spank the MDD. And this is without mentioning game performance, where the gap is larger.

I don't see a need to defend the G4 irrationally - after all it's a 4th generation (G4) PowerMac being beaten by a 5th generation (G5) PowerMac. That is to be expected - in fact, Apple would have been in truly deep sh*t if the G4 was faster than the G5. It isn't though, and that's that. If you truly believe the G4 is faster for some emotional reason, that's fine, but hammering us over the head with your opinion in the face of facts will just seem like trolling. You can like the G4 and also admit it's slower than a G5 without selling out, LOL. :rolleyes:

The G4 still makes sense for many users, but the PowerMac G5 is King, for now. The next generation of PowerMac will probably show gains over the G5 that are bigger than the gap between G4 and G5 that we saw back in '03.
 
macgeek2005 said:
That's simply not true. The benchmarks don't matter. It's how fast the machine actually runs and how well it actually does stuff, when you are using it. My machine runs great alongside 3 2.0Ghz iMacs. They're not that much faster. I'd say they're 2x as fast maybe. And that would make sense considering they're supposed to be 2x as fast as a G5 iMac. The G5 iMac was about the same speed as the G4 tower because the G4 was a tower.
Click to expand...

Benchmarks don't matter but your totally subjective opinions with a clear bias do matter? :rolleyes:

The G4 towers are still great machines, especially in everyday tasks. But then again, even my ibook probably runs nearly as fast as a G5... if I'm not doing anything demanding. If you really want to see the difference between computers, you have to test them doing something that pushes them. That's what benchmarks show.

I'm glad you're happy with your G4, but if you seriously think it in any way compares to a core duo, you're just kidding yourself, and the resale prices of old G4 towers should reflect that gap.
 
macgeek2005 said:
I DON'T CARE WHAT COMPUTER WE'RE TALKING ABOUT!!!!!!!!!!! As long as it is not a tower, it will be much slower than a tower. G4 Mini OR Intel Mini, it makes no difference. They are both millions of light years behind the G5 tower, and thousands of light years behind the G4 tower. Same will be for the MacBook.
Click to expand...

Actually my 1.25 G4 mini was just a shade slower than my Dual 867. Not quite thousands of light years....Performance was slow close, in fact, I started a thread about it.
 
Well, I'm selfishly hoping that the value of the powermac g4 stays high for when I sell my trusty quicksilver. I agree that the value of the g4 isn't so much in the processor as it is the expandibility. I don't know if I'm a super power user, but I've pretty much managed to use up all the PCI & RAM slots as well as finding a way to put a 3rd HD in the machine. When you count up all the stuff that I have hooked up to my Quicksilver, it's pretty crazy - I'd be hard pressed to do the same with an imac (though with a few hubs and daisy chaining, it might work).

I totally agree that it's a gradual thing though - I didn't do all the upgrades on my system at once. I spent a little at a time when I needed to - which made the upgrades a lot less painful on my wallet. I think it's still a good machine for most common tasks - I even started editing RAW pictures on it with iPhoto and PSE3, but it did feel a bit slow for that. At the very least, it's servicable for iPhoto/iMovie/iDVD. Rending might take awhile, but i've made a couple of movies/DVDs with it and they turned out just fine.

Here are the specs:
Powermac G4 Quicksilver 867Mhz
* 1.25MB RAM
* Nvidia GeForce3 64MB (this was BTO upgrade)
* Airport (added this later so when I upgraded to a wireless router so I didn't have to run a long ethernet cable from one room to the other)
* 220GB HDD (60gb + 80gb + 80gb in the second optical drive bay)
Pioneer DVR-108 (came with a CD-RW drive, I upgraded it a year or so ago)
* 2-port USB 2.0 PCI card (good for my scanner & my usb 2.0 hub for my shuffle)
* 2-port Firewire PCI card (I had 3 external firewire drives attached + my ipod dock so I needed some extra firewire ports)
* 2-port USB 1.0 PCI card (needed extra ports for the printer & pda)
 
i gotta say im with the first post in this thread. ppl are absolutely ridiculous about the value of thier powermac G4. the truth is, a 1 ghz machine and anything under is too slow to use. and yet these ppl feel right charging like 700 bucks for this. the powermac g4 is yesterdays computer going for todays prices. give me a break, an 800 mhz machine blows. i use my mac for more than browsing the internet and i know an old G4 pm would chug on that.

as for what the pm G4 SHOULD cost in 2006? $350 and under folks. mac minis are far too powerful and cheap to pass up for a pm G4. now that you can boot windows on an intel mac, only a fool would buy a pm G4. as for those who own that pm and want to know what to do? sell it now b/c prices will drop significantly soon or just hang on to it.

pm G4s are overpriced and slower than the cheapest mac now, nuff said
 
macgeek2005 said:
I DON'T CARE WHAT COMPUTER WE'RE TALKING ABOUT!!!!!!!!!!! As long as it is not a tower, it will be much slower than a tower. G4 Mini OR Intel Mini, it makes no difference. They are both millions of light years behind the G5 tower, and thousands of light years behind the G4 tower. Same will be for the MacBook.
Click to expand...

You really are asking to get bashed...:p

I like the G4 towers, but I wouldn't go ahead and say it beats all other non-tower machines. Just because the iMac/Mac Mini isn't expandable, it doesn't mean it's slow. I may be willing to trade my iMac, but not because it's slow...I just want expandability.
 
jamesi said:
\
pm G4s are overpriced and slower than the cheapest mac now, nuff said
Click to expand...

BUT, not as expandable. Towers are expandable, that's one of the main reasons people want G4 towers. I agree, these Intels are speedy, but the expandability isn't there yet (mac mini's, iMacs, macbook pros aren't expandable).
 
Originally Posted by macgeek2005
I DON'T CARE WHAT COMPUTER WE'RE TALKING ABOUT!!!!!!!!!!! As long as it is not a tower, it will be much slower than a tower. G4 Mini OR Intel Mini, it makes no difference. They are both millions of light years behind the G5 tower, and thousands of light years behind the G4 tower. Same will be for the MacBook.


ok macgeek, that was complete rubbish. the G4 is not such a stellar processor anymore and certainly not lightyears ahead. you have the G5 on this pedestal that it doesnt belong on. yes the G5 is amazing, but its not as fast as apple says. the megahertz myth was bullock and gave the powerpc chips more recognition than they deserve
 
the expandability is certainly a big plus, if you're really going to use it, and a dual G4 @ 1-1.42 Ghz is not a slow machine. There are definitely G4s worth a lot more than $350. Buuuuuut the core duo mini and the G5/intel imacs really make the G4s begin to show their age. I think the market for G4s is going to disappear pretty rapidly now that intel is here. People are going to want dual-boot and the speed of the intel chips, and older powermac G5s will become the cheap-but-upgradable choice for those who don't want to buy new.
 
What expansion are you looking for? The Intel mini's processors are quite upgradeable currently, the Ram maximum is the same as the best Power Mac G4s, and extra hard drives can be added via firewire/usb. You absolutely must be referring to internal storage, graphics cards and pci/pci-x. And really, the internal storage of the Intel mini is not only fast, but most likely large enough for most anything you need a primary hard drive to store. Dual displays? No, the mac mini doesn't support that...but someone who buys the inexpensive mac mini probably isn't looking to spend extra money on two lcds.

For all but PCI & Graphics, the Intel mini is, in fact, upgradeable. And it's fast.
 
When you cannot find logical data to back your claims, sensible reasons to believe one way or another, or you have insufficient experience to know for sure...then you shouldn't make a judgement. Look up the statistics, raw data, etc. When everything goes against your opinion, including the facts that are separate from the human element (which said element I have the least confidence in), perhaps it's time to pause and reflect.

What makes the Power Mac G4 light years ahead of the Intel macs? Most or all of the circuitry within the G4, be it processor, motherboard, etc., is of older design than in an Intel mac. This isn't really opinion, it's incontestable fact. the ram is older and slower, the expansion bays are older and slower, the ATA controller is older and slower, the processor is older and slower, the motherboard design is older, the system bus - the bus supported by the G4 processors - is older and slower...what more is there? Ah the ethernet...is about the same. And you can replace the optical drive in the G4 to make it of equal speed. And you can add pci cards to support faster Serial ATA drives in the G4, for a price.

There must be something that "just makes the Power Mac G4 faster than the Intel mac!" Right? So...what is it? Does OS X run more smoothly on a Power Mac G4? Do 3D games have higher framerates on a Power Mac G4? Do 3d programs render, windows open, files read and write, movies encode, faster on a Power Mac G4? I just don't believe that they do, and the personal experience of thousands of people who have used the computers in question for those tasks, I think, would agree with me; not based just on benchmarks, but also on reading numbers, looking at stopwatches, using mental timers, and getting gut feelings. So where is the foundation of a claim that the Power Mac G4 is faster than the Intel mac?
 
Fellas and Ladies...arent we deviating a little bit from the question of the post? While I am all for the debate of how G4 still deserve a place in our computing lives whether its day-to-day task or pimped out G4 for HD editing :cool: , I think most have forgotten about the question on the intent of the original post. I am by no means saying that no meaningful commentary was given, but just like my writing professor said, all the reasoning in world cant save you if you dont answer the question. :D

Anyways back to the question, I personally think that all G4 Towers will be in the range of 250-750 depending on the G4 model that you are interested in and given that no significant change to the mini (intel). If the mini design can bring back a Video card like maybe a X300 or some Core Image compatible. Or other improvements such as HD size (I would say >200 GB to make an impact on G4 prices)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back