MacWorld Lab: First G5 results

imacfp · September 12, 2003 6:42AM

I thought people would like to see this information from MacWorld. I think it's what most expected, the 2.0 G5 does a great job and the other two mostly better than the old G4s.

Macworld G5 Lab Tests

msantti · September 12, 2003 7:25AM

I am pretty happy with the 1.8 results.

It beats or is pretty close to a dual 1.42 G4. Only Cinema XL is where the G4 really wins out.

And its early in the G5's life also.

Can only get better.

othello · September 12, 2003 10:44AM

all that needs to be said is...

panther

videian · September 12, 2003 1:22PM

whose to say that panther won't give the same speed boosts to my dual 1.4 that it will give to that 1.8?

ti fighter · September 12, 2003 1:34PM

hey I didn't know about this:

Quote:

In an interesting quirk, we found some dramatic speed differences in these systems depending on how we set the new Processor Performance preference, found in the Energy Saver pane of System Preferences. By default, Processor Performance is set to Automatic. Changing the setting to Highest improved our results quite a bit.

Why would you not have it on Highest all the time? It's a desktop, it's pugged in all the time, no need to sacrifice speed for power requirements.

\

rampancy · September 12, 2003 1:45PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ti Fighter

Why would you not have it on Highest all the time? It's a desktop, it's pugged in all the time, no need to sacrifice speed for power requirements.\

If the G5's use less power, then they'll generate less heat as well. If you put the setting to "Maximum", I would guess this would have an effect on the noise of the machine as well (since the cooling system would presumably be more taxed)

ti fighter · September 12, 2003 1:53PM

yea, makes sence, its kinda cool though, but... they should have put a big red button on the face of the computer that says turbo power!!! instead of making a control panel. I wonder if thats what happened to the guy in the commercial, he put it on Maximum.

The G5, It goes to 11

powerdoc · September 12, 2003 2:06PM

These results show that the G5 are good performers even without panther. It's good to see that Apple has got again good performance computers.

rampancy · September 12, 2003 2:26PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ti Fighter

they should have put a big red button on the face of the computer that says turbo power!!!

You mean, just like the hilarious "Turbo" button that they had on the front of those old 486 PC's?

fuzz_ball · September 12, 2003 2:34PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rampancy

You mean, just like the hilarious "Turbo" button that they had on the front of those old 486 PC's?

I had a turbo button on my first 8088 (that's XT generation), and sometimes I had to turn it "off" because certain programs couldn't handle the speed (sub-8 MHz)--LOL!

oldcodger73 · September 12, 2003 2:36PM

It does point out, though, that the G5 line up would really benefit if the 1.8 was a dual. Perhaps we'll see one when the initial demand for the dual 2.0 start to fall off.

ti fighter · September 12, 2003 2:48PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rampancy

You mean, just like the hilarious "Turbo" button that they had on the front of those old 486 PC's?

exactly.... but done with the Apple Touch?

snoopy · September 12, 2003 2:50PM

Quote:

Originally posted by OldCodger73

It does point out, though, that the G5 line up would really benefit if the 1.8 was a dual. Perhaps we'll see one when the initial demand for the dual 2.0 start to fall off.

There would be almost no difference between a dual 1.8 GHz and a dual 2.0 GHz. There needs to be differentiation between models. The 1.6 GHz and 1.8 GHz are both singles, but have motherboard differences too. The 1.6 has only 4 RAM slots, and uses 333 MHz RAM, not 400 MHz. So, if you add things like a larger hard drive to the 1.6, you still cannot get the other capabilities of a 1.8 G5. The clock rates are too close to make a very big difference.

powerdoc · September 12, 2003 3:01PM

Quote:

Originally posted by snoopy

There would be almost no difference between a dual 1.8 GHz and a dual 2.0 GHz. There needs to be differentiation between models. The 1.6 GHz and 1.8 GHz are both singles, but have motherboard differences too. The 1.6 has only 4 RAM slots, and uses 333 MHz RAM, not 400 MHz. So, if you add things like a larger hard drive to the 1.6, you still cannot get the other capabilities of a 1.8 G5. The clock rates are too close to make a very big difference.

I think that you have the correct answer.

nedrick · September 12, 2003 4:40PM

Quote:

Originally posted by imacFP

I thought people would like to see this information from MacWorld. I think it's what most expected, the 2.0 G5 does a great job and the other two mostly better than the old G4s.

Macworld G5 Lab Tests

I noticed that the DP 1.42 was as good if not better than the 1.6 in most of the tests. Would that justify buying a 1.42 over a new 1.6 (unless the 1.6 is ALOT cheaper)?

Thoughts?

klinux · September 12, 2003 4:46PM

Quote:

Originally posted by videian

whose to say that panther won't give the same speed boosts to my dual 1.4 that it will give to that 1.8?

Because otherwise they cannot sell more of the more profitable G5 machines?

the cool gut · September 12, 2003 4:56PM

Those results are fantastic ... especially considering the P4 was a step back in performance compared to similar clocked P3's.

snoopy · September 12, 2003 5:43PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nedrick

I noticed that the DP 1.42 was as good if not better than the 1.6 in most of the tests. Would that justify buying a 1.42 over a new 1.6 (unless the 1.6 is ALOT cheaper)?

Thoughts?

The dual 1.25 GHz G4 is $1,999.00 U.S. with 256 MB of RAM and a single 80 GB hard drive, same as the 1.6 GHz G5. The dual 1.42 GHz is no longer available from Apple. Considering that the G5 will perform better as applications are optimized and better compilers become available, the G5 is a better choice in my opinion. Also, the G5 has a serial ATA drive, and an 8X AGP port. I don't know how the graphics cards compare. Of course I have to prefer the 1.6 GHz G5, since I bought one last week with the combo drive.

EDIT: I missed the difference in drives when I first posted so I corrected the comparison. There are also other features in the G5 like USB 2.0 and digital audio.

placebo · September 12, 2003 6:24PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rampancy

You mean, just like the hilarious "Turbo" button that they had on the front of those old 486 PC's?

I loved those things. Imagine having to run apps that required the CPU to be slowed down. (That's what the Turbo button was for: not all apps would be able to run at "TurboSpeed", so by default, the computers ran slow.)

nedrick · September 12, 2003 6:31PM

Quote:

Originally posted by snoopy

The dual 1.25 GHz G4 is $1,999.00 U.S. with 256 MB of RAM and a single 80 GB hard drive, same as the 1.6 GHz G5. The dual 1.42 GHz is no longer available from Apple. Considering that the G5 will perform better as applications are optimized and better compilers become available, the G5 is a better choice in my opinion. Also, the G5 has a serial ATA drive, and an 8X AGP port. I don't know how the graphics cards compare. Of course I have to prefer the 1.6 GHz G5, since I bought one last week with the combo drive.

EDIT: I missed the difference in drives when I first posted so I corrected the comparison. There are also other features in the G5 like USB 2.0 and digital audio.

Good points. I guess if I'd thought it through and realized all the extras the G5 has, I'd have seen the light. Speed tests aren't always everything, I guess...

tidris · September 13, 2003 11:30PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nedrick

I noticed that the DP 1.42 was as good if not better than the 1.6 in most of the tests. Would that justify buying a 1.42 over a new 1.6 (unless the 1.6 is ALOT cheaper)?

Thoughts?

I would say yes if you can find a used one for a good price and you really can't afford a dual 2 gig G5.

MacWorld Lab: First G5 results

Comments