G5 or Mac Pro?

Brian Middleton · Post by **Brian Middleton** » Tue Apr 22, 2008 12:27 pm

I'm nearing the end of the line with my wonderful old MDD dual 1.25 G4--easily the most solid and reliable computer I've ever owned, but it's starting to gasp under the weight of VI's like EZdrummer and B4.

My starting assumption is that I should just bite the bullet and spring for a Mac Pro, but I'm seeing some remarkable deals on refurbished G5's, such as a dual 2.0 for $899.

Would I get enough of a performance boost running DP5 on a G5 to warrant the expense? If the MDD G4's performance is X, then what would I get from the dual 2.0 G5 (i.e., 1.5X, 2X, 3X, etc.) vs., say, a quad-core 2.8 Mac Pro?

One advantage of a G5 from my POV is that it would allow me to use my UAD-1 plugs a little longer without investing in the PCIe UAD cards (or replacing them with other, native plugs). But if the performance hike isn't significant, this wouldn't make sense.

Frodo · Post by **Frodo** » Tue Apr 22, 2008 1:47 pm

Hi Brian:

The upgrade paths can be strange. I went from a Performa to a G4, but was hit with a massive expense with peripherals going USB and FW. Old printers wouldn't work with a USB adapter, etc...

I would say that the upgrade path now is trickier. Something things can't be avoided as so much has changed. Sure, the advantage of getting a G5 with a PCIx will allow for a bit of continuity and will save a bit of money.

But things are changing rapidly and the shelf life of the G5 will come to an eventual end. If that doesn't bother you, then the G5 will be great.

Again-- things are changing, and where old technology is being replaced by newer technology, I would recommend going for a MacPro. It need not be a shiny new one. A 2.66 would be fine and would keep you fairly current for a much longer period of time than a G5.

You *will* have to consider the PCIe issue, but the question is whether you will do that now or in the near future-- in which case it will cost you more over the long run. As a Mac user, it's likely that a MacPro is in your future. The question is whether there's a G5 and a MacPro in your future.

But money is money, and there are trade offs no matter which way you go. I would vote for the more currently supported technology. A 2.66 will run Tiger, so you can avoid compatibility issues with Leopard until those are all settled. The one thing to look out for is Intel compatibility in general, but I think we may be on the back end of that long wait where tons of software and plugins are now Intel-compatible.

I would consider a G5 as an affordable "slave" host for virtual instruments, but if you're only running one machine at a time then I'd still recommend a MacPro of some sort.

Brian Middleton · Post by **Brian Middleton** » Tue Apr 22, 2008 3:58 pm

Frodo wrote:A 2.66 will run Tiger, so you can avoid compatibility issues with Leopard until those are all settled. The one thing to look out for is Intel compatibility in general, but I think we may be on the back end of that long wait where tons of software and plugins are now Intel-compatible.

Hmmm....and there's a pretty decent deal on 2.66 refurbs at the Store right now. I think we may have our answer. I hadn't realized that the Tiger-compatible Pros were still being sold. Thanks!

HCMarkus · Post by **HCMarkus** » Tue Apr 22, 2008 10:45 pm

I'd shoot for the best and newest you can afford. If you're gonna' go G5, may I suggest the Quad... been very strong for me, the last, greatest G5. Plus it is PCIe, so your eventual migration to Intel is eased somewhat. If you can go Intel, I think you have avoided most of the bloodbath. Almost everything is universal binary, and most stuff even works in Leopard. You will be so amazed at how quickly you can work!

Frodo · Post by **Frodo** » Wed Apr 23, 2008 12:13 am

Be vewy kwiet-- Bwian is hunting for upgwades.

heh-heh-heh-heh-heh.

Brian Middleton · Post by **Brian Middleton** » Wed Apr 23, 2008 9:09 am

Frodo wrote:Be vewy kwiet-- Bwian is hunting for upgwades.

heh-heh-heh-heh-heh.

Wascawwy wehpuhd.....

Actually a PCIe G5 would be worst of both worlds from my point of view. The only reason to even think about a G5 would be to be able to keep using my PCI cards.

What about the 2.0 quad Mac Pro? Is that even worth considering? They're selling them at the Apple store for $200 less than the 2.66...which probably makes the 2.66 a better deal, but since I'm trying to spend as little as possible, if the 2.0 would be a major leap from the dual 1.25 G4, it might make sense.

Frodo · Post by **Frodo** » Wed Apr 23, 2008 2:27 pm

Brian Middleton wrote:
Frodo wrote:Be vewy kwiet-- Bwian is hunting for upgwades.

heh-heh-heh-heh-heh.
Wascawwy wehpuhd.....

"wehpud"

Brian Middleton wrote: Actually a PCIe G5 would be worst of both worlds from my point of view. The only reason to even think about a G5 would be to be able to keep using my PCI cards.

Yep-- that's sort of what I was driving at. If keeping your PCI cards is more important than saving yourself money over a wonger span of time by getting a better machine, then the G5 would "work".

Brian Middleton wrote: What about the 2.0 quad Mac Pro? Is that even worth considering? They're selling them at the Apple store for $200 less than the 2.66...which probably makes the 2.66 a better deal, but since I'm trying to spend as little as possible, if the 2.0 would be a major leap from the dual 1.25 G4, it might make sense.

Even a G5 would feel "better" than the G4, but don't wet that short change you when upgwading. Since you won't be going for the shiny new machines, at weast get the best machine you can afford. The reports all awound on the 2.66 were stell-war, fwiw. I've heard fewer reports on 2.0, pwo or con.

But where WAM speed internal architectures appear to be identical, the 2.0 just might be wight up your alley.

Be sure to check maxfixit, macworld.com, and barefeats.com for performance comparisons on both machines. The reviewers concwusions are also vewy weveawing.

Good wuck!

newrigel · Post by **newrigel** » Wed Apr 23, 2008 6:19 pm

I haven't been able yet to bring down my 2.66 MP so there you go!
I have 2 UAD 1's and a Duende PCIe and I run HUGE sessions A 24/48k and am running maximum 45 to 50% on the most demanding projects!

Brian Middleton · Post by **Brian Middleton** » Thu Apr 24, 2008 6:24 pm

So, what about the 2008 models? I've noticed that with my education discount, the quad 2.8 is only $150 more than the 2.66 refurbs, and comes with 2 GB of RAM as opposed to 1GB in the 2.66's, which seems to make them roughly equivalent in value.

Are there any documented issues with the newer models? Any particular reason to prefer the older 2.66 to the newer 2.8?

Frodo · Post by **Frodo** » Thu Apr 24, 2008 6:40 pm

Brian Middleton wrote:... with my education discount...

Man-- go for the 2.8. The very mention of the word "discount" warrants it big time.

Brian Middleton wrote: Are there any documented issues with the newer models? Any particular reason to prefer the older 2.66 to the newer 2.8?

There are more issues with Leopard than there are with the hardware, I think. But such issues are getting sorted out fairly quickly. I should also say that said issues are few and par for the course.

Some users have talked about the UAD-1 card acting strange or not working at all in the 8-Cores with DP. I read at least one report that it wasn't working at all with Logic.

LINK

Using data management software (including Apple's own) to port over apps and projects is not advised. Do clean installations of apps and copy over projects and docs via CD/DVD ROM, fw drive, or some other flexible storage media.

WSVP · Post by **WSVP** » Fri Apr 25, 2008 3:50 pm

Hi Brian

Two years ago I went from a G4 Dual 867 (wind-tunnel) to a G5 2.5 GHZ Dual Quad. The increase in performance was earth shattering. While the G4 was a very stable (but noisy) computer, the G5 has been rock solid and whisper quiet. I have no regrets at all about getting the G5 Quad.

Unfortunately with any of the multi-core G5's your PCI based UAD card will not work, as they use the PCI-Express protocol. On the G5 side, my personal opinion is that the PPC platform is still a bit more "stable" than the Intel platform, and there are used G5's showing up at greatly reduced prices...

However if I had to buy a CPU now, I would probably lean towards a refurb Mac Pro 2.8 GHZ (8 core) with the latest design... 800MHz DDR2 RAM architecture. At present Apple has a refurb for $2400. Here is a link while it lasts...

http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/W ... =FA970LL/A

There are a few advantages the Mac Pro has over the G5 besides performance...
~ Support for 4 internal hard drives vs 2 in the G5
~ Support for 2 optical drives vs 1 in the G5
~ Can run Windows platform at native speeds via Boot Camp.
~ More high performance graphics cards available
~ Some applications are starting to surface that are "Intel" Mac only

I would "NOT" invest in one of the earlier 2.66 GHZ Quad core Mac Pro's, as the performance is not much different than a 2.5 GHZ G5 Quad (accept for games due to the graphics card) and the prices are not much lower than the newer Mac Pro's.

In truth... I am not sure how much faster the latest Mac Pro's are than the G5 Quad PPC. I have heard many people that went from a "dual processor" G5 to a "quad core" Intel say that there was significant improvement. I would love to hear from someone who has compared a G5 "QUAD CORE" to a Mac Pro 8 core, particularly with audio apps.

Just my 2 cents worth

Frodo · Post by **Frodo** » Fri Apr 25, 2008 5:08 pm

WSVP-- your input is worth a whole lot more than 2•!

Certainly, if there is a newer refurb model for about the same price as a slightly older refurb, I'd go with the newer refurb.

For me, much depends on the discount threshold, in this case: $300. With new machines starting at $2800, I would more likely go for the new machine. That $300 is less than an Apple Care warranty which could be purchased later-- within 10-12 months of ownership.

If saving money has greater weight, then certainly other things get compromised-- like features and performance. A discount approaching the 50% mark could be influential in different ways other than those related to technical functionality.

Without exception (!) I really appreciate your stressing the point that ANY newer computer replacing a G4 is going to feel comparatively fast-- whether G5 or Intel.

But whatever the case, I would definitely choose an Intel and not a G5 just for the sake of keeping pace during this awkward software transition.

WSVP wrote: I have heard many people that went from a "dual processor" G5 to a "quad core" Intel say that there was significant improvement.

I'm among those with both a 2.5 dual G5 and an Intel Quad side-by-side (although not at the present moment)-- and the Intel was quite a step up. I'm still growing into it after a full year.

Brian Middleton · Post by **Brian Middleton** » Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:06 am

Frodo wrote:...ANY newer computer replacing a G4 is going to feel comparatively fast-- whether G5 or Intel.

But whatever the case, I would definitely choose an Intel and not a G5 just for the sake of keeping pace during this awkward software transition.

I agree strongly with both these points, and I think they kind of reinforce each other. Since whatever I buy is going to be a big power boost for me, I should be focusing not on power per $ so much as longevity per $. My MDD G4 was a year or two behind the leading edge when I bought it, yet it has lasted for almost 5 years, only just now beginning to become practically obsolete. If I want my next computer to last that long, I think it has to be an Intel.

So, the question is, which Intel? The two choices that make $ sense for me are the 2.66 quad refurb at $1999 and the discounted new 2.8 quad at $2149. The price difference is $150, but this is a bit misleading as the 2.66 has just 1 GB of RAM while the 2.8 has 2 GB. The 2.8 also has a bigger system drive (320 to 250 GB) and a faster memory bus (800 vs. 667 MHz). In favor of the 2.66, it's been around longer and is well battle-tested; I've heard nothing but raves about this particular model. On the other other hand, it's not like I've heard anything bad about the 2.8 quad. It's just less of a known quantity.

Decisions, decisions......

Brian Middleton · Post by **Brian Middleton** » Sat Apr 26, 2008 12:56 pm

Decision made. Quad 2.8 Mac Pro ordered.

The tipping point was when I read that the Harpertown processors used significantly less power than their predecessors. It's not only new, slick, and gorgeous, it's

!

Thanks for your help, everybody.

Frodo · Post by **Frodo** » Sat Apr 26, 2008 1:31 pm

That is a tough decision when things are so incremental. Buying Macs has always been a lot easier where the price differences between models, new or used, were much greater than $150-300.

Comparing prices, the new 2.8 sounds like the better deal at $2300. Otherwise, I'd skip the used 2.8 and consider the used 2.66 if that amount of money is really the greater concern. For me, it's small enough a price difference in computer world that I'd go for the new model.

Looking at all the new models side by side tells a very different story with price differences between $400-800. When the difference is closer to 30% of the price of new machine it's a no-brainer. If the differences are 10% or less it shapes up to be a wiser investment over the long haul.

But the thing to do at this point is to make a budget and decide just how much you are going to spend overall on tax (if applicable), shipping, memory upgrades, and hard drives. Apple Care on the new machine is good for a year before having to buy the warranty, so there is time to plan an affordable strategy.

Just my 2dB.