How good is the iMac G5 compared to the Powermac?

Jump to First Reply
dferigmudferigmu
Posted:
in Current Mac Hardware edited January 2014
I have two problems with the iMac G5: the NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra with 64MB SDRAM graphics card and 4X Superdrive.



Does it make sense to pay hundreds more for a Powermac to be able to have an 8X Superdrive and Radeon 9600 or 9800?



Will the 5200 play games like Call of Duty and UT2004 well?

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 8
    cubedcompaniescubedcompanies Posts: 61member
    Yeah I second that concern... though i don't plan to play as many games when i switch from my PC to a new 20" iMac, i sure would like to play my favorite: UT2k4.



    For sure needs more ram, concerned about the 64 meg card though.



    -colin
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 2 of 8
    chris vchris v Posts: 460member
    there are other things to consider--



    Pro-iMac-- it comes with a display attached, while you'll either have to make do with your old one, or shell out bucks for another display with the Powermac.



    Pro-Powermac-- 2nd processor, (<--nothing to sneeze at here) faster bus speed, 4x the RAM slots, 3 PCI slots, 2nd hard drive bay.



    i'm a Photoshop and Audio type person though, so the 2nd processor & PCI slots were a must for me.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 3 of 8
    robin hoodrobin hood Posts: 513member
    I will be able to test UT 2004 on the iMac I have on order as soon as it gets here. I do expect it to run fine though, especially since Apple highlight UT 2004 and Halo on their iMac G5 sub-site.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 4 of 8
    auroraaurora Posts: 1,142member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Robin Hood

    I will be able to test UT 2004 on the iMac I have on order as soon as it gets here. I do expect it to run fine though, especially since Apple highlight UT 2004 and Halo on their iMac G5 sub-site.



    I wouldnt be so sure, the fx5200 is cheap/slow and a 1.6 or 1.8 single G5 isnt all that speedy when compared to the market.If you dont mind playing at low resolutions with eye candy turned down then it may be ok. its a shame Apple dont offer a good gaming configuration for any of its models.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 5 of 8
    pbg4 dudepbg4 dude Posts: 1,611member
    I know it isn't UTK2004, but I installed Q3A last night and ran it on some resolution above 1024x768 (can't remember what though) and even with the stock 256MB RAM the iMac had no problems keeping up. I don't know how much more graphically intense UTK2004 is over Q3A, especially since Q3A is pretty old now, but I had no problems.



    Of course, I got the iMac not for games, but for audio, video and OS X programming so it's everything I needed. It just so happens that since I can play Q3A & DiabloII on my iMac, I now have no need for my old PC.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 6 of 8
    cubedcompaniescubedcompanies Posts: 61member
    UT2k4 is much more demanding. Q3 is an old engine although CoD is a heavily modified Q3 engine so in some sense, that provides good insight.



    I don't mind playing with details turned down, hell on my beast PC i still nerfed the settings b/c i played 'competition' unreal.



    I'm not taht concerned with GAMEs but it woudl be nice to see a benchmark comparison that DUAL chips have over single.



    3D rendering yes.



    High-res art files, probably not that signficant IMO.. atleast not for the extra 2k$ (including a cinema display).,



    :c
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 7 of 8
    pbg4 dudepbg4 dude Posts: 1,611member
    The MacWorld benchmark testing showed the dual 1.8GHz PowerMac rendering in Cinema 4D in 1/2 the time of the new iMac. That being said, I'm quite impressed considering the iMac has a slower buss and whatnot.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 8 of 8
    cubedcompaniescubedcompanies Posts: 61member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by PBG4 Dude

    The MacWorld benchmark testing showed the dual 1.8GHz PowerMac rendering in Cinema 4D in 1/2 the time of the new iMac. That being said, I'm quite impressed considering the iMac has a slower buss and whatnot.



    yeah me too; when i was at the apple store i made an 8.5x11" 300 dpi CMYK file and it applied filters faster than my 3000+XP, 1 gig DDR333 PC beast. That all i need it for -- i'll play with Motion and such but it won't be professional level. Just to tinker.



    i can only imagine it would have been even faster with more ram.



    :c
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.