“Apple professionals expect a speed bump with each successive Power Mac model that comes out, and the 2.5-GHz Power Mac G5 Quad delivers a doozy of one. With the first Intel-powered consumer Macs rumored to be right around the corner (they may be announced at the MacWorld Expo in early January), it is interesting that Apple would release the G5 Quad as the probable last hurrah for the PowerPC processor—but at least they’re going out on top,” Joel Santo Domingo writes for PC Magazine.
“Is it worth upgrading to the new G5 Quad? The answer is a resounding yes for those who need (and can justify) the power and expense. The dual G5 cores in each of the two CPUs push the G5 Quad to performance numbers we’ve never seen before. With four true cores working on the same task, the G5 Quad powered through our new Adobe Photoshop CS2 tests at a speedy 57 seconds. The previous Power Mac Dual (2.7 GHz) took 1 minute 14 seconds to do the same ten tasks (30 percent longer), and the Dell XPS 600 took 1:03 (a still-significant 11 percent difference). Though 11 percent doesn’t seem like much, it can really add up over the course of a day or week, especially on time-sensitive projects,” Santo Domingo writes.
“The Quad G5 got the highest score we’ve ever seen on the CPU-stressing CineBench rendering test: 1,104. The Pentium EE840 overclocked to 3.6 GHz recently got a 667, and an Athlon 64 4800+ overclocked to 2.7 GHz scored 775,” Santo Domingo writes. “We recommend that professional businesses such as design and engineering firms continue to buy PowerPC-based Power Macs. Intel-native and universal binary software (software that contains both PowerPC and Intel optimized code) are likely to lag behind the introduction of the Intel Macs by several months to a year. Since non-Intel-optimized programs are likely to remain current for several years after the introduction of Intel Macs in 2006 and 2007, it behooves current Mac houses to buy the current PowerPC Macs as their last pre-Intel upgrade.”
Full review (4.5 out of 5 stars) here.
Advertisement: Power Mac G5. Dual-core PowerPC processors with PCI Express. From $1999. Free shipping.
Related MacDailyNews articles:
Benchmarks show Power Mac G5 Quad 2.5GHz a magnificently powerful performance demon – December 19, 2005
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
Apple introduces Power Mac G5 Quad and Power Mac G5 Dual – October 19, 2005
Great news!
Don’t AMD Opterons smoke the Quad G5 on CineBench? Or were they not counting those because they are basically server chips?
MDN MW: Doubt, as in “I doubt the Quad G5 could touch a Quad Opteron”
Purchased mine earlier this week. Got the upgraded video card, 4GB of ECC RAM, etc. – to the tune of $5,800. My present computer is a Dual G4 1GHz. It’s been really good to me, but I can only imagine how much faster LightWave and After Effects will be.
Joe,
It’s PC Mag. Do you think they are BS’ing for Apple or what?
Nice nice, they all hoping on the bangwagon now, lol jking I hope apple will continue to amaze PC world next year
The only problem with the article… and I quote,
“Apple professionals expect a speed bump with each successive Power Mac model that comes out, and the 2.5-GHz Power Mac G5 Quad ($9,522 direct, $7,023 without monitor) delivers a doozy of one.”
That’s the first paragraph… it only coasts 3300. Further down they mention that “the basic configuration of the 2.5-GHz model comes in at a more reasonable $3,299 (without monitor);” ……. . .. .. .
Um… that’s the topoftheline model… not the basic… and it isn’t 7k… my company wouldn’t have bought 2 if that was the case.
Am I just reading something wrong?
Oh-my-God … I just have to read that article again:
“The Quad G5 got the highest score we’ve ever seen on the CPU-stressing CineBench rendering test: 1,104.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”big surprise” style=”border:0;” />
The Pentium EE840 overclocked to 3.6 GHz recently got a 667, and an Athlon 64 4800+ overclocked to 2.7 GHz scored 775. CineBench is a multithreaded app, so the more cores or threads your system can handle, the more efficiently your workload gets done.”
(shaking head in disbelief)
Note for clarity: Both the EE840 and the 4800+, besides being 200-1100Mhz faster, are dual core CPUs as well – the best that either Intel or AMD currently offer in a desktop that isn’t running server level stuff.
Look, I know I’m gonna get flamed, but after results like these just keep coming up I can’t help it … Is Intel and Viiv and DRM’d Boobtube 2.0 really, I mean REALLY, worth it?
…and the next generation Power Macs with quad Intel chips will again smoke the competition. Apple is quite right moving to Intel. No way would SJ have gone for the move if he was going to go backwards…
Quoting The Mac God
[“Apple professionals expect a speed bump with each successive Power Mac model that comes out, and the 2.5-GHz Power Mac G5 Quad ($9,522 direct, $7,023 without monitor) delivers a doozy of one.”
That’s the first paragraph… it only coasts 3300. Further down they mention that “the basic configuration of the 2.5-GHz model comes in at a more reasonable $3,299 (without monitor);]
The figures they are using are for a setup with 4 gigs of ram, 1 terabyte of harddrive storage and the NVIDIA 512MB video card. Obviously not everyone will order their setup this way but it’s the one they tested.
Also it should be noted that they chose the 8x512mb ECC RAM. If they did what most smart mac buyers do they would have boosted their ram from crucial, who could get them the extra ram for a total cost of 6442, or nearly $600 less than Apple’s price. That is using 8×512 chips, which is possible but personally i would use 4x1gig chips for upgradability later expecially since right now it would only bring the price to 6445, 3 dollars more.
Buying memory is a tricky thing, and the trickery can change everytime crucial updates it’s page. I think price comparisons should never include ram prices. Instead they should, as should performance comparisons, note the amount of choice the buyer has ECC, speed, module sizes, and price, making it impossible to say exactly what the cost will be. One thing they should say is that buying RAM direct will save them a lot of money if they are buying large amounts.
>I mean REALLY, worth it?
The problem is with the portables — a significant market; and intel’s roadmap offered Apple a better opportunity. Sad to say, but my dual 2.5 will have to do until all the kinks are ironed out of Leopard and the new architecture. Till then, I’ve got nothing to complain about. Now as for the media center and drm … won’t be long before we know.
Signing off for a holiday with Angus and Lazio.
>>Look, I know I’m gonna get flamed, but after results like these just keep coming up I can’t help it … Is Intel and Viiv and DRM’d Boobtube 2.0 really, I mean REALLY, worth it?
Clearly yes. The Quad G5 (four cores) was marginally faster than a dual-core Intel (two cores). Do the math for a four-core Intel.
Secondly, the benchmarks were again graphics dominated, and the Quad G5 contained the top-of-the-line nVidia Quadro graphics card. Did the other two machines? (I doubt it). So how much of this was a test of the processors and how much of the nVidia Quadro 4500? I note that they could only get 23 fps out of Doom 3, which is way behind current state-of-the-art gaming PC’s. Gamings not everything – but they do represent some of the most stressing all-round applications for a computer.
Yeah, it might be fast… but will it eliminate pop-ups and pop-unders on MDN?
Better frame that article. We’ll never see it again when we move into the same ‘hood with Dell & Gateway.
Meanwhile, AMD will continue to spank Intel in benchmarks, while we’re served up some fresh “performance per watt” kool-aid.
Pfft.
Yeah, it might be fast… but will it eliminate pop-ups and pop-unders on MDN?
Haven’t seen a popup or popunder in a loong time … nor ads that annoyed me once too often. It’s a cinch. Control click on the ad and filter anything from the source site using a wildcard after the basic url.
Want to retrive an image, javascript, flash movie from a site? Boom — it’s downloading.
Want to see that image you saw yesterday but dunno where? Just browse what’s in your cache.
Don’t want to try another browser because you’re happy with what you’ve got? Fine … live with the poppers. Your choice.
“Look, I know I’m gonna get flamed, but after results like these just keep coming up I can’t help it … Is Intel and Viiv and DRM’d Boobtube 2.0 really, I mean REALLY, worth it”
I won’t flame you because well what does that do? I’m quite in awe of the specs myself. But the thing is, you are missing the real point of the Intel switch. I’ve posted my theory on this board before so I’ll give you the cliffs version:
The biggest objection that switchers have to moving to Macs is software availability. There is a real fear there. Switching to Intel removes that fear as it becomes easier for vendors to make mac versions, makes it a better platform to run VPC on, and potentially will either dual-boot, or allow for windows software to run within a window without installing windows (chuckles)
Therein lies your answer. It has less to do with the DRM argument although I’m sure that will be part of future releases.
Thank goodness Apple is finally dropping the PowerPC chip and going to Intel- to hell with the quadPowerPC!
Troll: Ick. People still use iCab? Everyone I know gave it up for a lost cause over a year ago. Let them take it out of beta, then I’ll care.
Odyssey: Clearly the G5 still has some kick it, which is why it will be the last chip to be replaced. Meanwhile, the Yonah looks to completely validate Jobs’ decision when it’s introduced into iBooks very soon.
Hammer:
Here’s your first flame.
“The biggest objection that switchers have to moving to Macs is software availability.”
Blow it out your arse. Every single app my company uses is available on all almost all 3 platforms. Windows, MacOs and Linux (still lagging). If it isn’t it’s not a true “productivity app.” And if you can’t find a similar replacement it’s most likely an app that has seen its day. That argument is sooo lame and soooooo 90’s.
“Look, I know I’m gonna get flamed, but after results like these just keep coming up I can’t help it … Is Intel and Viiv and DRM’d Boobtube 2.0 really, I mean REALLY, worth it?”
Definitely not worth switching to Intel! One thing is for sure the switch ISN’T about performance if that were the case Apple would be sticking with PowerPC.
X86 cpu’s also use more watts + heat by design… http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=3997&page=4
max: “Every single app my company uses is available on all almost all 3 platforms.”
Cool your company uses Internet Explorer, Microsoft Word and Firefox, too!
“Clearly the G5 still has some kick it, which is why it will be the last chip to be replaced. Meanwhile, the Yonah looks to completely validate Jobs’ decision when it’s introduced into iBooks very soon.”
Not really Yonah is being compared to 90nm chips. Compare them to future 65nm chips and Intel will lag as usual.
From: Rammer
Dec 23, 05 – 09:20 am
max: “Every single app my company uses is available on all almost all 3 platforms.”
Cool your company uses Internet Explorer, Microsoft Word and Firefox, too!”
The whole software issue is totally valid. Now, let’s think about the average consumer who is totally clueless about computers. My sister, for example, won’t switch to a mac because of two main reasons.
1. Her kids use windows in school and she wants to use what they use there (it’s totally bogus but she believes this regardless of any arguement I make.)
2. When she goes to Target or Wal-mart she can pick up any software title and take it home. She rarely would pick up any software at these places but it makes her feel secure that all of those options are there.
I have found that those two excuses are the biggest hurdles for macs to overcome. The “We already use windows and all software is made for windows.” attitude is going to be tough to overcome.
Now, if we can get past the feelings of “software security choice” issue then the mac will most likely get somewhere with a lot of people. Most people like to be able to go to a store, see a software title, and not have to worry if it is going to work on their system or not.
You can try and sell that mentality on everything else but it won’t work. She has so much adware and spyware on her computer that it is almost unable to be used but she will buy windows again because she can pick up “Hello Kitty does Math” at Target.
>>Secondly, the benchmarks were again graphics dominated, and the Quad G5 contained the top-of-the-line nVidia Quadro graphics card. Did the other two machines? (I doubt it). So how much of this was a test of the processors and how much of the nVidia Quadro 4500? I note that they could only get 23 fps out of Doom 3, which is way behind current state-of-the-art gaming PC’s. Gamings not everything – but they do represent some of the most stressing all-round applications for a computer.
Sounds like a contradiction.
Doom 3 is not a valid test for Mac performance. For you psyche majors, the mac version just ain’t the same.
Odyssey67, Macintel, Reality Check and others:
The move to Intel is Entirely aimed at portables (I’ve posted this before). You want to know what is really impressive?
Look at these specs for NEC’s next Yonah-based notebook:
“…with 512MB of main memory and a 100GB hard disk drive. It will have a 14.1-inch LCD, DVD Super Multi drive (DVD-R/+R, DVD-RAM, DVD-RW/+RW), 802.11a/b/g Wi-Fi, and Bluetooth. The machine will weigh about 4.4 pounds and the battery will provide enough power to last about four hours.”
Compare that to the current 12″ powerbook, weighing in at 4.6 pounds < iBook 12″ 4.9 pounds < 15″ powerbook 5.6 pounds < 14″ iBook 5.9 pounds < 17″ powerbook 6.9 pounds. (All figures with default specs).
Now if Apple was able to produce the slickest, lightest notebooks before, can you imagine how light the new generation is going to be? Can you imagine having an Apple notebook run on battery power for 5 hours?
Although the PowerMacs are really powerful, I think I belong to the growing majority of computer consumers that are waiting for the next generation of Apple notebooks.
Have a great holiday everyone, and a happy New Year!
Peace…