“There are several factors that make the G5 Quad a worthwhile purchase at this time. First, it’s magnificently powerful, as we’ll see in the benchmark results below. If you presently use something along the lines of a dual 2.0 GHz G5 (or slower), you will see performance improvements that could allow this machine to pay for itself in productivity enhancements over the next 18 months or so. That’s the best argument the G5 Quad has going for it. It’s so fast that it forces you to consider it seriously, even if you know for certain that it would be the last PowerPC-based computer you’d ever buy,” Dave Nagel writes for Creative Mac.
“Second, we don’t really know what Apple’s plans are for its Intel hardware rollout. We know that June 2006 is the expected launch date for the consumer-level Intel machines (whatever that means), and June 2007 is the expected launch date for the ‘pro’ machines,” Nagel writes. “But, as professionals, we have work to do now, and it may not be the best idea to wait six months for a hardware bump, especially if it’s only to discover that the Mactel machines have been delayed, that Apple’s changed its mind about the whole thing, that the first generation of Mactel hardware isn’t all that wonderful, etc. (Believe me: If the first Mactel machines are simple dual Xeon configurations without dual cores, you’re looking at a speed dip, not a speed bump.)”
“And, third, when the new Intel-based Macs are released, it doesn’t mean that your PowerPC-based hardware is automatically obsolete that very moment. The G5 Quad will continue to get the job done long after the Intel Macs ship, albeit with a dwindling supply of software and support from third-party developers,” Nagel writes. “But what it’s going to come down to is your need for more power now versus your knowledge that a completely new (and potentially even faster) architecture is looming just ahead of us.”
Full article with benchmarks here.
Advertisement: Power Mac G5. Dual-core PowerPC processors with PCI Express. From $1999. Free shipping.
Related MacDailyNews articles:
Computerworld’s advice on Apple’s new Power Mac Quad G5: Place your orders now! – November 16, 2005
Apple Quad 2.5GHz Power Mac G5 vs. previous generation dual 2.5GHz Power Mac G5 – November 14, 2005
InfoWorld: Nothing can compare to Apple’s new Power Mac G5 Quad – true workstation at desktop price – October 24, 2005
NVIDIA brings workstation graphics to Apple Power Mac G5 – October 24, 2005
Apple’s new Power Mac G5 Quad supercharges rendering – October 22, 2005
AnandTech: Apple new Power Mac G5’s biggest improvement is the move to PCI Express – October 21, 2005
Photos of new dual core Apple Power Mac G5 interior, ports, and more – October 19, 2005
First benchmark tests of Apple’s new Power Mac G5 dual-core machines – October 19, 2005
Apple introduces Power Mac G5 Quad and Power Mac G5 Dual – October 19, 2005
“We know that June 2006 is the expected launch date for the consumer-level Intel machines (whatever that means), and June 2007 is the expected launch date for the ‘pro’ machines,”
No we don’t. No one at Apple ever said that. I think it’s really irresponsible to state rumors (from any source) as a fact.
for the love of all that is good in the world stop calling them MACTELS!
Not to mention the fact that the first machines released will be more geared toward the general consumer not the PRO’s until later down the line.
Wow, that really clarified the issue.
NOT
“The G5 Quad will continue to get the job done long after the Intel Macs ship, albeit with a dwindling supply of software and support from third-party developers…”
Since Apple is pushing for universal binaries that are native for both PPC and Intel, I don’t know where the writer gets this idea. There is no incentive for third party developers to not comile their software for both Intel and PPC for years to come.
comPile. Damn ‘p’ thief.
Love my G5 Quad!
Expect to get at least 3 years before I want something newer.
1st post! quad arrived 2 days ago and its a beast then again to me its an upgrade from a powerbook G4 best christmas :->
drat
Benchmarks show Power Mac G5 Quad 2.5GHz a magnificently powerful performance demon
What the average Windows user sees:
“af;alksdjflkajhdflkajhflkajdhf Mac kajhslkjfha 2.5 Ghz lkajhsflkjahsflkajshf”
Why the opposition to the Mactel name? Apple has already applied for the copyright for the Mactel name. I don’t have a link for the story but I know that they did sometime in the summer. I personally prefer macintel myself but hey I don’t work in marketing.
Yah, it absolutely smoked the HP system in the article that cost less (and inlcuded a bit more in the RAM and graphics department)…
Not saying the Quad is a bad machine (I’d love one), but Apple still isn’t leading the charge in the workstation/desktop department.
“Not to mention the fact that the first machines released will be more geared toward the general consumer not the PRO’s until later down the line.”
Actually that was mentioned quite clearly in the article.
–
Note to the clueless: 1. If you don’t see comments at the bottom of the article, that doesn’t mean no one has posted any yet, especially if you just spent 5 minutes reading. 2. No one (NO ONE) is impressed with “first posts.”
there is an incentive (however small) for developers to not make universal binaries.
The file size of a universal binary is twice the size of an PPC or Intel specific binary. Now this may not be an issue for CD/DVD based retail software sales. But if you get your apps out there over the internet…..then bandwidth becomes a concern. Freeware/Shareware/Donateware could suffer from the size of the universal binaries.
Again this is a small blip against universal binaries, but a blip just the same.
there is an incentive (however small) for developers to not make universal binaries.
The file size of a universal binary is twice the size of an PPC or Intel specific binary. Now this may not be an issue for CD/DVD based retail software sales. But if you get your apps out there over the internet…..then bandwidth becomes a concern. Freeware/Shareware/Donateware could suffer from the size of the universal binaries.
Again this is a small blip against universal binaries, but a blip just the same.
there is an incentive (however small) for developers to not make universal binaries.
The file size of a universal binary is twice the size of an PPC or Intel specific binary. Now this may not be an issue for CD/DVD based retail software sales. But if you get your apps out there over the internet…..then bandwidth becomes a concern. Freeware/Shareware/Donateware could suffer from the size of the universal binaries.
Again this is a small blip against universal binaries, but a blip just the same.
there is an incentive (however small) for developers to not make universal binaries.
The file size of a universal binary is twice the size of an PPC or Intel specific binary. Now this may not be an issue for CD/DVD based retail software sales. But if you get your apps out there over the internet…..then bandwidth becomes a concern. Freeware/Shareware/Donateware could suffer from the size of the universal binaries.
Again this is a small blip against universal binaries, but a blip just the same.
I am going to check on this but i recall Steve Jobs himself coining the Mactel phrase
I am going to check on this but i recall Steve Jobs himself coining the Mactel phrase
I am going to check on this but i recall Steve Jobs himself coining the Mactel phrase
I am going to check on this but i recall Steve Jobs himself coining the Mactel phrase
the thing that is often forgot is that rosetta allows all ppc apps to just plain run on intel macs
the thing that is often forgot is that rosetta allows all ppc apps to just plain run on intel macs
the thing that is often forgot is that rosetta allows all ppc apps to just plain run on intel macs
the thing that is often forgot is that rosetta allows all ppc apps to just plain run on intel macs