Thread
G5 or Intel?
I am just inquiring right now, but I was wondering what this forum's thoughts are concerning the pros and cons of G5 versus Intel. I don't necessarily need the latest and the greatest hardware (not hardcore Mac Pro with quad cores or anything)
I see the following pros for G5: PPC which means *better compatibility with today's and immediately older software. Cheaper on the used market. Runs Leopard, and maybe Snow Leopard.
I see the following pros for Intel: newer, continued development from Apple, Definite Snow Leopard (and beyond-ish) compatibility. I can get my PPC kicks with VMWare or SheepShaver, etc.
I've been using my G4 Powerbook for awhile but I notice that when surfing and watching newer media (say Windows Media 9 and even Quicktime) she lags, even with maxed out RAM etc. So I've been pondering what my next system would be... I'm kind of leaning towards G5 because there are really good deals on CL and eBay, and these forums. What are your two cents? What considerations besides budget should I be concerned with?
I see the following pros for G5: PPC which means *better compatibility with today's and immediately older software. Cheaper on the used market. Runs Leopard, and maybe Snow Leopard.
I see the following pros for Intel: newer, continued development from Apple, Definite Snow Leopard (and beyond-ish) compatibility. I can get my PPC kicks with VMWare or SheepShaver, etc.
I've been using my G4 Powerbook for awhile but I notice that when surfing and watching newer media (say Windows Media 9 and even Quicktime) she lags, even with maxed out RAM etc. So I've been pondering what my next system would be... I'm kind of leaning towards G5 because there are really good deals on CL and eBay, and these forums. What are your two cents? What considerations besides budget should I be concerned with?
Depends on your needs.
Do you mind using software that isn't the latest? Do you mind, if you need software that comes out in later years that it may not be compatible?
And, what are you using the mac for? The G5 is the G4 of 2005, so you are still able to do daily things, just a little bit slower then the g5 of today.
If that makes sense. :-/
Do you mind using software that isn't the latest? Do you mind, if you need software that comes out in later years that it may not be compatible?
And, what are you using the mac for? The G5 is the G4 of 2005, so you are still able to do daily things, just a little bit slower then the g5 of today.
If that makes sense. :-/
G5's (towers) seem to be very pricey still. I think you are better off with an Intel if you plan on using it as your main machine for a few years.
The only thing stopping me from selling my MacBook Pro and getting a quad G5 is the risk of not being able to run 10.6 when it comes out. I would much rather have a tower than laptop, and the Mac Pro is way out of my price range, so I'd love a late G5. I still may do it, but the loss of future OS use seems like an awful big risk.
For me, I would say Intel all the way.
G5s seem to have a number of reliability issues - from faulty PSUs to liquid cooling systems leaking - if you Google around, you can see images of the aftermath. Not good. Further, the G5s are slow compared to Intel machines - don't know if that is because software wasn't really optimized for the G5 or because the Intel chips are really that much faster. If you're going to use current software that runs under leopard, there's really no reason not to get an Intel machine... but if you're going to run older software, you'd probably be able to get a nice G4 that would do just as well as a G5 for less money.
Just my personal opinion.
G5s seem to have a number of reliability issues - from faulty PSUs to liquid cooling systems leaking - if you Google around, you can see images of the aftermath. Not good. Further, the G5s are slow compared to Intel machines - don't know if that is because software wasn't really optimized for the G5 or because the Intel chips are really that much faster. If you're going to use current software that runs under leopard, there's really no reason not to get an Intel machine... but if you're going to run older software, you'd probably be able to get a nice G4 that would do just as well as a G5 for less money.
Just my personal opinion.
I saw go with the Intel Mac. As mentioned by others, the G5 Macs do have reliability problems. The iMac G5s were all affected by the capacitor plague, despite Apple's repair extension program claiming that it's only the 1st-gen and some 2nd-gen models. Mine was actually not in the list of serial numbers (Rev B model with the ambient light sensor) but it was still affected by the same exact issue. Thankfully, Apple did change it when the repair extension program was still in effect. As a matter of fact, it happened to me twice in the same year, with only a 4-month duration between the first and second failure. If it were to happen again (God willing it doesn't), I would be on my own right now since the repair program expired in December of last year.
There are also issues with the Power Mac G5s from water-cooling defects to a few other issues on the older Power Mac G5 models.
The only reason to really stick with a G5 Mac is to run apps that require the Classic environment. This is moot in Leopard. Taking that into consideration, you're much better off today going for an Intel-based Mac, even if it's only a Core 1 model.
There are also issues with the Power Mac G5s from water-cooling defects to a few other issues on the older Power Mac G5 models.
The only reason to really stick with a G5 Mac is to run apps that require the Classic environment. This is moot in Leopard. Taking that into consideration, you're much better off today going for an Intel-based Mac, even if it's only a Core 1 model.
If you're really on a budget I think a G5 can be a good buy still. From the sounds of your post though, 10.5/10.6 compatibility seems like a big deal and PCI/hard disk expandability not important to you so I think you would be much better served with a new iMac or Mini.
Thanks for the replies. I am interested in keeping up with Apple technologies but want to resort to the used market. I thought the G5's were a robust machine at a steal these days, but it seems that C2D and above are just smoking by your reviews.
The only caveat is my older legacy software...but I can definitely keep my G4 and below systems!
PS: Can G5's boot into OS9? Not run classic in OSX, but reboot with OS9 system folder?
The only caveat is my older legacy software...but I can definitely keep my G4 and below systems!
PS: Can G5's boot into OS9? Not run classic in OSX, but reboot with OS9 system folder?
No they can't.
Yeah, what Christopher said, No. That's because G5 is a 64-bit processor, and OS 9 likes the 32-bit mode, which goes up to the G4 and stops there. Intel is 64-bit as well, of course.
Not even all the G4's could boot into OS9 directly, you just had classic support under OSX.
I think the last gen MDD were the non OS 9.
Kinda. Actually, the PowerPC 970 can run fully in either 32 or 64-bit mode, so that wasn't the issue. The G5s, and late-model G4s (AlBooks, iBook G4s, G4 towers w/FW800, eMacs w/USB 2.0), won't run OS 9 because nobody wrote drivers for the newer hardware, in addition to the fact that OS 9 wasn't recognized as a valid OS in firmware (for obvious reasons).
Anyway, according to Apple's own internal tests between the early Mac Pros and the last G5s, the G5 still outperformed the Intel chips at various tasks, such as certain PhotoShop filters and the like. This may be simply because certain apps weren't fully Intel-compatible, or it may be because the G5 was a fairly decent setup.
Google may still be able to turn up the comparisons, if you're inclined to look for them.
Wow, the G5 really kicks ass in the Image Resize test. Almost seems like an anomaly, unless they have that heavily optimized for AltiVec, 4 cores, etc.
It might have been the fact that The Quad-G5 had 4GB RAM instead of the Mac Pro 1GB. That was a bit sneaky...
Quad G5 sounds so cool...just to say you have it. Nonetheless, an Intel Mac Pro will be on my radar in the next few months. No immediate plans as they are pricey but just gorgeous. Thanks for the replies and I like where the discussion is going, keep it up. I've been out of the loop so long on newer macs I don't know what I ought to be considering when purchasing my next great machine. I can use all the help I can get! 
Didn't the Quad G5's have the max RAM of 16GB?
You're right. All the older ones topped out at 4 or 8Gb.
Intel. I'm not even sure why a G5 is still a consideration at this point. Unless you just really like the PPC platform, 2 internal HD limit, purchased obsolescence, and knifing yourself in the face, an Intel machines is the way to go.
Me thinks someone missed out on the subtlety seminar...
that may very well be, but G5's are still not cheap and considering how much more powerful even the first-gen 32bit Intels are (unless you plan on getting a last-generation G5, which are even more expensive), a used Intel Mac is just a more practical purchase at this point.
Now, if Classic support is a must and you don't mind being stuck with Tiger (which is a perfectly fine OS in its own right), then a G5 is obviously your best option.
But realistically what do you just have to run under classic that you cannot find a free or open source alternative which is OS X compatible for? The Apple software market is flooded with thousands of excellent free or shareware utilities which in many cases are better for some things than their counterparts from corporations (insert Linux fans).
Now, if Classic support is a must and you don't mind being stuck with Tiger (which is a perfectly fine OS in its own right), then a G5 is obviously your best option.
But realistically what do you just have to run under classic that you cannot find a free or open source alternative which is OS X compatible for? The Apple software market is flooded with thousands of excellent free or shareware utilities which in many cases are better for some things than their counterparts from corporations (insert Linux fans).
I do agree with you. I was just making a funny at the time.
Still, even the first-gen Intel Mac Pros and iMacs tend to be quite pricey compared to the G5 Macs. But yes, if Classic is a must then a G5 would probably be best. Then again, a late-model G4 Power Mac would serve you just as well for a lot less, or just find yourself a classic Mac that can run Mac OS 9 and move to an Intel Mac. The cost of a G4 or earlier to run OS 9 shouldn't make a dent on the prospect of purchasing an Intel Mac.
Alternatively, you could install a CPU upgrade in an early model G4 like my Sawtooth (such as the MAXPower G4/7448), and get all the compatibility of the pure classic Mac OS at much faster speeds.I do agree with you. I was just making a funny at the time.
Still, even the first-gen Intel Mac Pros and iMacs tend to be quite pricey compared to the G5 Macs. But yes, if Classic is a must then a G5 would probably be best. Then again, a late-model G4 Power Mac would serve you just as well for a lot less, or just find yourself a classic Mac that can run Mac OS 9 and move to an Intel Mac. The cost of a G4 or earlier to run OS 9 shouldn't make a dent on the prospect of purchasing an Intel Mac.
Except that only works if you already have a G4 Tower, and RedJack states he has a G4 Powerbook. The upgrades are also pretty pricey, so you're still looking at around $100-500 for the machine then another $100-400 for the ugprade, depending on which chip you get, and thats not including a larger HD, more RAM, better VGA...
Really its not as cost efficient as you might think unless you already own all of these things.
Really its not as cost efficient as you might think unless you already own all of these things.
I have a few old and reliable G3 and my G4 powerbook to help me with my Classic *fix* but honestly I've played around with Apple's new gear at their Store and it's so zippy compared to anything I have PC or Mac.
I just thought that I can get a cheaper system (on the used circuit) that is somewhat reliable for a few more years but it sounds like the G5's have a leaky cooling system problem that you can't predict. Plus Intels allow dual boot, and with today's newer systems, using Virtualization software is pretty reliable (even for games, but I'm not a big gamer). My only issue is mostly software compatibility with windows-only software (from work, certain statistics documents and such).
I've been drooling over the quad Core G5 towers that can be got relatively cheaply (compared to Xeon Mac Pro towers) but the benchmarks I've seen just goes to show that Intel+Leopard are a good pairing. Too bad they are way out of my price range, but I'm keeping my radars out for good deals. Thanks for the advice!
I just thought that I can get a cheaper system (on the used circuit) that is somewhat reliable for a few more years but it sounds like the G5's have a leaky cooling system problem that you can't predict. Plus Intels allow dual boot, and with today's newer systems, using Virtualization software is pretty reliable (even for games, but I'm not a big gamer). My only issue is mostly software compatibility with windows-only software (from work, certain statistics documents and such).
I've been drooling over the quad Core G5 towers that can be got relatively cheaply (compared to Xeon Mac Pro towers) but the benchmarks I've seen just goes to show that Intel+Leopard are a good pairing. Too bad they are way out of my price range, but I'm keeping my radars out for good deals. Thanks for the advice!
Well not all G5s are liquid cooled, basically if its clock speed is 1.6, 1.8 or 2.0, regardless of processor count, its air-cooled and thus has no chance of spontaneous combustion. All of the air-cooled G5's at my old place of business are still alive and kicking and performing their duties just fine.
Its just that you can get a used Intel mac for around the same price as a decent G5 and even the oldest Intels are still much faster than everything but the very fastest G5's. Case in point, according to the Geekbench 2 scores in MacTracker, the first-generation 1.83GHz MacBook Pro (thats the Yonah based model), is only slower than the Quad-G5, a machine that still goes for quite a bit on eBay. It even out-paces the dual 2.7 behemoth. And as I mentioned earlier, there is no guarantee that Apple will continue to support G5's, or the PPC platform at all, for very much longer. Steve is not a fan of looking backwards. It is definitely a shaft to people who have invested alot into their PPC machines, but as a potential buyer of a "new" machine it would be beneficial to just get the newer technology and avoid that mess.
There were also two different types of cooling units, one by Panasonic and one by...somebody else, i forget who, the one by Panasonic actually works brilliantly and has a much lower failure rate than the other. Everytime you hear about a G5 catching fire or leaking, its one of the earlier, crappier designs with the O-rings i mentioned earlier.
Its just that you can get a used Intel mac for around the same price as a decent G5 and even the oldest Intels are still much faster than everything but the very fastest G5's. Case in point, according to the Geekbench 2 scores in MacTracker, the first-generation 1.83GHz MacBook Pro (thats the Yonah based model), is only slower than the Quad-G5, a machine that still goes for quite a bit on eBay. It even out-paces the dual 2.7 behemoth. And as I mentioned earlier, there is no guarantee that Apple will continue to support G5's, or the PPC platform at all, for very much longer. Steve is not a fan of looking backwards. It is definitely a shaft to people who have invested alot into their PPC machines, but as a potential buyer of a "new" machine it would be beneficial to just get the newer technology and avoid that mess.
There were also two different types of cooling units, one by Panasonic and one by...somebody else, i forget who, the one by Panasonic actually works brilliantly and has a much lower failure rate than the other. Everytime you hear about a G5 catching fire or leaking, its one of the earlier, crappier designs with the O-rings i mentioned earlier.
The Mirror Door Drive G4s spanned the boots-OS9/Doesn't-boot-OS9 transition.
If a MDD machine has a 800 Mbps Firewire port, then it will not boot OS9.
If a MDD machine lacks the 800 Mbps Firewire port then it will boot OS9.
However, getting the machines to run OS9 properly can be a challenge. There's a ROM file which needs to be in the system folder and if you don't have an original set of system disks it can be a pain getting things configured properly. If you do have an original set of disks, apparently it can still be a pain.
I have an MDD running Tiger 4.11 which will boot into OS9 but which won't run QuickTime for some reason. I can't remember if it crashes on boot if QT tries to load or if it just complains. I need to revisit it and fix things up.
I believe the other one is Delphi.
yeah that sounds about right.