iMac G5 1.8 GHz vs Dual G4 867 MHz
I may be interested in the new iMac G5 1.8 GHz 20". I currently have a Dual G4 867 MHz tower (MDD), with the NVidia GeForce 4 MX video card. Can you make a comparison ? Is the iMac faster ? What can I expect ? Any idea ?
How fast is the NVidia GeForce FX 5200 Ultra, compared to the GeForce 4 MX ?
How fast is the NVidia GeForce FX 5200 Ultra, compared to the GeForce 4 MX ?
Comments
From Internet surfing, to game playing, picture manipulations, scientific works, etc...
Globally, which computer will be faster ? Is the G4 867 MHz dual faster in something ?
Bus : 600 mhz against 133 mhz
RaM : 133 mhz against dual channel 400 mhz
dual 867 mhz who give the max of performance with altivec optimised stuff for dual : equivalent of the 1,6 G5 in very rare and small part of applications.
In general for MP applications the dual 867 rughly equal a 1,25 ghz G4, for the non MP, it's only 867 mhz.
For video see the comparisons between an Imac g4 1,25 ghz and the new Imac : the Imac G5 is three times faster ...
The GeForce 4 MX doesn't have antialiasing enabled on the Dual 867 MHz G4.
The geforce 4 mx was a crippled architecture and did not belong to the fourth generation of the geforce. The geforce 5200 ultra really belong to the fifh generation of geforce card.
On classical graphic mode she is on par with geforce 3 card, and in antialiased mode she is on par with geforce 4 card. It's clarly above the geforce 4MX card.
Based upon PC articles tests. I don't know if this options can be activated with macs.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
the geforce 5200 has antialiasing. With antialiasing, this card is on par with a geforce 4TI 4600. Without antialiasing it's clearly behind (two time slower).
The geforce 4 mx was a crippled architecture and did not belong to the fourth generation of the geforce. The geforce 5200 ultra really belong to the fifh generation of geforce card.
On classical graphic mode she is on par with geforce 3 card, and in antialiased mode she is on par with geforce 4 card. It's clarly above the geforce 4MX card.
Based upon PC articles tests. I don't know if this options can be activated with macs.
You have a G5 dual ? What is your video card ? Can you enable antialiasing ? How is it ?
Originally posted by Kali
You have a G5 dual ? What is your video card ? Can you enable antialiasing ? How is it ?
I have a radeon 9600. I never played game with this computer : I use it at my office for my job.
Originally posted by Kali
So all in all, can I expect the new iMac G5 1.8 GHz 20" to be MUCH faster than the "old" Dual G4 867 MHz (MDD) ?
Yes, he will be faster in every task.
Explain me, what allow you to think that the dual 867 may be faster than the Imac G5 ?
An Imac G5 1,8 is on par with a dual G4 1,25 or even 1,42 : a dual 867 is far behind. This question is a no brainer. When you will boot for the first time your Imac G5 1,8, all your fears will vanish ...
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Yes, he will be faster in every task.
Explain me, what allow you to think that the dual 867 may be faster than the Imac G5 ?
An Imac G5 1,8 is on par with a dual G4 1,25 or even 1,42 : a dual 867 is far behind. This question is a no brainer. When you will boot for the first time your Imac G5 1,8, all your fears will vanish ...
I fear a little, because the iMac G5 is, well ..., just an iMac. Not a dual with a better bus and other better subsystems. To me, iMacs are crippled computers made for the general public. They could have been designed with much better spects. I understand that Apple lowered the specs on the iMac just to not shoot themselves in the foot. They don't want their iMacs to give troubles to their recent dual G5.
I already have a Dual G4 867 MHz that I don't like that much. It's just not fast enough in many tasks (especially the video card), it's a bit noisy and makes a lot of heat. It's taking some space under my desk, and I find it a bit annoying. There's a real cables mess under the desk, because of that machine !
So I'm really interested in the iMac. It's just sad Apple didn't used the best bus available, dual CPU, and a video card with 128 MB of memory. IMO, they could trash the towers concept.
About the video card, I'm using Celestia, an astronomy software, which is killing the video card. It's using so much huge textures and so much special effects that the card in my G4 isn't able to keep it up. I need something much better. It's not just about games (I only play Quake3, which is running okay on the G4). Actually, the main reason why I'm thinking about changing the machine is because of Celestia !
The Imac G5 has a sligthy slower bus for heat reason only : I am sure that the ASIC is able to perform at full speed.
Apple did not crippled the Imac G5, there was no way that the Imac could be dual (however it's typically only a 30 % perf increase).
If you want to know if celestia will run ok on a Imac G5, ask people owner of a single G5 tower if this soft run OK on their computer.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
If you want to know if celestia will run ok on a Imac G5, ask people owner of a single G5 tower if this soft run OK on their computer.
This is very difficult, because to test Celestia, the guy needs to download very large textures and other ressources from many places on the net. Just for example, my Celestia installation takes 4.5 GB on my HD !
The default installation, when you download Celestia for the first time, takes about 20 MB only. This one runs smoothly on any system. The added ressources are what is putting the machine on its knees with a gun on the head. Celestia, fully loaded, is the most heavy software I ever touched. Mathematica and Photoshop are just tiny puppies, in comparison.
Originally posted by Kali
This is very difficult, because to test Celestia, the guy needs to download very large textures and other ressources from many places on the net. Just for example, my Celestia installation takes 4.5 GB on my HD !
The default installation, when you download Celestia for the first time, takes about 20 MB only. This one runs smoothly on any system. The added ressources are what is putting the machine on its knees with a gun on the head. Celestia, fully loaded, is the most heavy software I ever touched. Mathematica and Photoshop are just tiny puppies, in comparison.
I suggest you to find some forums about celestia and to post this question here.
Of course it won't be that much better and it will cost almost as much as the iMac so it will be a matter of preference.
Originally posted by BeigeUser
The PowerMac could be upgraded to a 1.5GHz G4 and a Radeon 9800. When connected to a CRT or a LCD with a quick response-time, the result is a system that is arguably better then the iMac.
Of course it won't be that much better and it will cost almost as much as the iMac so it will be a matter of preference.
I have gone the upgrade route with previous macs and I think there's limits to this plan. Frequently, the new subsystems (memory & bus speeds, for example) are just as critical a part of the machine. Also, how long will the upgrades last for you? Soon enough you'll still want more power. The new mac would have a longer lifespan. Obviously, it boils down to cost.
Originally posted by Kali
So all in all, can I expect the new iMac G5 1.8 GHz 20" to be MUCH faster than the "old" Dual G4 867 MHz (MDD) ?
I was wondering how the 1.8ghz imacs might stand up against the older G4 powermacs and I found this article reviewing the single 1.8 G5 from macworld.co.uk to be interesting (article from Sept 2003). Jump to the 'performance test results subheading'. The intersting bit is this quote though: In Speedmark, our overall test of Mac system performance, the dual-2GHz G5 scored 258 (32 per cent faster than the previous fastest Mac: the 1.42GHz dual-processor G4, which scored 196), with the 1.8GHz G5 at 225 (15 per cent faster than the old top), and the 1.6GHz model at 207 (6 per cent).
So, even with the slightly slower bus of 600mhz it seems it'll still be damn fast. It's made me go for the 1.8 17" which should be quite a step up over the 800mhz G4 iMac I'm using at the mo. Not bad value either when the Powermac single 1.8 one year ago was £1849 inc tax and I'm paying £1050 inc tax for that and a 17" screen, speakers and the rest! Nice.