Leif Posted September 19, 2003 Share Posted September 19, 2003 for the price of a new 15inch, i could buy the new single g5. i don't really need a mobile solution, though in about a year i'll be moving. anyone want to give me some advice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RogueJawa Posted September 19, 2003 Share Posted September 19, 2003 PC users - did you happen to notice that this thread is in the Mac section!!! This was not placed in the windows section so that you could say how much you hate Macs or why the benchmarks aren't true or whatever else you want to waste your time posting. No one in this section cares about your computer, period. Give it up. If you are coming in here to try to convert us to PC users, it's not going to happen.Computers are computers. They have a use and every person likes something differet. If we were all stuck with the same thing, what a sad world it would be. If you like PC's then get one, if you like Mac's then get one. If you are interested in facts of the differences, then read about it, but why the hell do you feel like you have to come into the Mac section preaching about your PC. Give it up... just as many people are trying to convert people to macs or saying how much better macs are Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Veteran Posted September 19, 2003 Veteran Share Posted September 19, 2003 i just read this whole thread and i found it quite an interesting read. i'm glad there wasn't much flaming, because now i can type my response :D most of you in this forum probably don't know me very well... i've used PCs for my whole life. i've used macs before, but never really liked them too much. I had some experience with OS7 or OS8, not totally sure which it was... OS9 was better, and OSX now is very good for the mac platform IMO. i have to give it to apple this time, they got my respect from these benchmarks. i've been somewhat disappointed with intel's improvements over the past few years, and i was absolutely delighted when i heard about this small company who outclocked intel (AMD). i don't hate intel like some of you, and i don't hate IBM/apple like most of you. but i think the competition is good for the market. as long as it continues, we'll all just keep getting faster processors. BUT... i kinda hope intel wins this battle, because i like my PCs :blush: i'm also somewhat disappointed that the opterons weren't included in the tests, because i'd like to see how they fared. btw, shouldn't this be in the hardware forum? :unsure: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kairon Posted September 20, 2003 Share Posted September 20, 2003 And when Macs were (obviously) slower they were touting that "Mhz don't matter" and now that they are inching ahead (relatively speaking) they are all going crazy about how they'll reach 3 Ghz in such a short period of time.? Double standard or what?(Y)) The Mhz myth has nothing to do with getting to a certain speed at a certain time, like you insinuate. It is merely saying that a higher megahertz processor doesn't necessarily perform better than a lower megahertz processor. And in this case, that hasn't changed. It's fairly obvious that Intel will be well above 3gigahertz next year when the 3gig G5 comes out. And guess what. The G5 will STILL be faster. The mhz myth continues. So no, there is obviously no double standard. Well I just find the marketing strategy a little funny. Megahertz do not matter as much with the "G" processors. That's true. But then after a while Intel and everyone else pushed ahead when Motorola was taking there good old time making new processors. Now IBM is in and Motorola is out so hopefully that situation won't happen again. I think thats the point were trying to get across.:)) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miran Posted September 22, 2003 Share Posted September 22, 2003 sigh ignorant pc users make me laugh sometimes, I just got a G5, and I paid for it with my own money which I've been working hard to get, Macs are a little on the pricey side but the performance you get is worth it, and macs are upgradable, look at the G4's, there are tons of cpu upgrades for them, and now since IBM is making the G5 Apple will have faster cpu's coming out sooner than before, and if you want to argue about games, almost every game that is popular is out for mac, q1-3, doom 3 will come to mac, and even HL 2 will come to mac. So please don't flame when you don't even know about macs and what they can do.-ps I've been a pc user for around 7-8 years and now I'm experiencing the mac world Didn't you start another thread where you are trying to sell your G5 to buy a better G5? Can't be too upgradeable can they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miran Posted September 22, 2003 Share Posted September 22, 2003 Firstly, a heat dissipation of 97 watts is paltry compared to the 100+ watts a Prescott is going to consume, which I *think* is 110 watts or so. And thats not bad considering the G5 is a lot faster then the P4 and still keep a nice heat dissipation compared to the P4's successor.Also,who said G5 is going to have Hyperthreading?It may have something similiar, but certainly not HT. HT is an Intel branded feature. I wouldn't say 97 watts is paltry compared to 100+ watts. Also, for the dual G5's does this mean they are dissipating almost 200 watts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the evn show Posted September 22, 2003 Share Posted September 22, 2003 Dual G5 puts out a total of 97w (IIRC it's 46.7 each under full load - it's much less if you let them scale). Why so many fans in a G5 then? To keep it quiet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frod Posted September 22, 2003 Share Posted September 22, 2003 Didn't you start another thread where you are trying to sell your G5 to buy a better G5? Can't be too upgradeable can they? the difference between the 1.6 and the rest of the g5 line is a bit much. upgrading it would require the purchase of a new motherboard and a new processor etc.. etc.. why do all that when he can just sell it and buy another better one? it's cheaper this way as well. a 1.6 g5 cannot be put into any other computer but the 1.6 g5 or up so what kind of fool would he have to be to try and sell the processor or whatever by itself. you should think a little before you make irrelevant posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djsaad1 Posted September 22, 2003 Share Posted September 22, 2003 the difference between the 1.6 and the rest of the g5 line is a bit much. upgrading it would require the purchase of a new motherboard and a new processor etc.. etc..why do all that when he can just sell it and buy another better one? it's cheaper this way as well. a 1.6 g5 cannot be put into any other computer but the 1.6 g5 or up so what kind of fool would he have to be to try and sell the processor or whatever by itself. you should think a little before you make irrelevant posts. I dont see why the post was irrelevant. He was talking about how macs are so upgradable, well obviously the 1.6 g5 isnt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uniacid Posted September 22, 2003 Share Posted September 22, 2003 the difference between the 1.6 and the rest of the g5 line is a bit much. upgrading it would require the purchase of a new motherboard and a new processor etc.. etc..why do all that when he can just sell it and buy another better one? it's cheaper this way as well. a 1.6 g5 cannot be put into any other computer but the 1.6 g5 or up so what kind of fool would he have to be to try and sell the processor or whatever by itself. you should think a little before you make irrelevant posts. I dont see why the post was irrelevant. He was talking about how macs are so upgradable, well obviously the 1.6 g5 isnt. because the 1.6 and 1.8 models have different motherboards, so you won't be able to put a 1.8 in a 1.6 since it runs at a different fsb speed and the 1.8+ have pci-x while the 1.6 doesn't, so it would be easier to buy a faster one, the 1.6 you can upgrade video card, hard drive's, ram, sound card, add in cards, so how is it not upgradable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eth3l Posted September 22, 2003 Share Posted September 22, 2003 so it takes 2 mac processors to beat 1 PC Processor. hmm' good job apple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macster Posted September 22, 2003 Share Posted September 22, 2003 so it takes 2 mac processors to beat 1 PC Processor.hmm' good job apple. I really think you should look closer at the benchmarks esp the Dual Xeons ones Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xxdesmus Posted September 22, 2003 Share Posted September 22, 2003 awesome. mac users get their day in the sun. (Y) sooner or later they'll be surpassed though and the scene will be like all mac's prior to the G5.. beaten down dinosaurs so true...;) they will be back in their place soon enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
disgaean Posted September 23, 2003 Share Posted September 23, 2003 :no: It's truly disheartening to me how many people in this thread apparently have zero understanding of benchmarking and its significance. The normalized PS7Bench results do not tell us that the G5s are faster overall than Intel's offerings... they simply tell us that the 3K$+ dual 2.0GHz scores better than Intel's current chips at the normalized results for a specific benchmark, run under a single application (and that application is one that PPC/Altivec platforms traditionally do really well at). If you look at the total time to complete the benchmark instead of the normalized score the Xeons actually finish faster. I personally feel the normalized results are more meaningful though and based on other PS7 benchmark results, I feel comfortable saying that Apple has, on the highest end, the current fastest Photoshop machine. So if you're willing to buy a 3K$+ workstation for running Photoshop, the Dual G5 2.0GHz looks good. If your price range is below there however, the single processor G5 models score worse than cheaper single processor P4-based systems (at PS7Bench Advanced). Here's the complete normalized PS7Bench results list for anyone who's interested (compiled over the last couple of years): 2x 2000 G5 OSX 10.2.7 555 (energy settings highest perf) 2x 2000 G5 OSX 10.2.7 497 (energy settings auto bus slewing) 2x 3060 Xeon (no L3) HT enabled 490 2x 3060 Xeon (OC'd 2400) 488 2x 2930 Xeon (OC'd 2400) 471 3200 P4 (800MHz) 427 3000 P4 (800MHz) 405 3495 P4 (OC'd 3.06) 386 3060 P4 XP Pro (533 FSB) 358 HT 2x 2200 Xeon PC 800 RDRAM CPQ Evo 357 HT 2x 3000+Athlon (2166) 355 (provisional Utwig) 2x 1500 G4 (OC'd 1420) 348 2x 1333 G4 DDR OS9.2 (oc'd 1.25) 346 1800 G5 OSX 10.2.7w/G5plugin 344 (energy settings highest perf) 2x 1420 G4 OSX 10.2.4 338 2x 2400+Athlon MP 338 2x 1250 G4 OS 9.2.2j 337 3200+Athlon XP 332 1800 Opteron(dual-chnlDDR 333) 332 2x 1333 G4 DDR OSX10.2.2(oc 1.25) 326 1800 OPteron(singl-chnlDDR333) 320 3000+Athlon XP 318 2x 1250 G4 OSX 10.2.5 318 2x 1250 G4 DDR OSX 10.2.1 316 2x 1800 Athlon MP 312 2800+Athlon XP Barton 298 2x 2000 P4 Xeon 286 2x 1200 G4Powerlogix(867MHzG4/QS) 285 upgraded 2x 1533 Athlon MP 285 2x 1533 Athlon MP 283 2530 P4 mobile (OC'd 1400) 282 2700 P4B (OC 2400, 600 MHz FSB)280 2x 1466 Athlon XP 279 1600 G5 OSX 10.2.7w/G5 Plugin 276 *MacNNscores (energy settings on auto) 2666 P4 (DDR 333) 269 2x 1000 G4 DDR 10.2 267 2400+Athlon XP 262 2x 1000 G4 OS9 260 2x 1000 G4 OSX 10.1.5 254 2400+Athlon 252 2400 P4B (800MHz) 251 2400b (sis 648 DDR400) 251 1600 Centrino IBM T40 250 2400 P4 (533MHz bus) 249 2400 P4 B 241 2340 P4 (overclock) 239 1600 Centrino Dell D800 236 2400 P4 234 1800+Athlon XP (1533 MHz) 226 1577 oc'd Athlon XP (Lestat) 221 2x 1000 G4 OSX 10.2.2 (upgraded) 218 ?!(dual 533 logic board) 1548 Athlon XP 214 1670 Athlon XP (2000+) 213 1667 Athlon XP 211 1400 Athlon XP 1600+ xp pro 200 1x 1533 Athlon MP 197 1300 Centrino Sony VAIO Z1A 196 1000 G4 17" Powrbk OSX 10.2.6 196 2000 P4 Xeon 194 1400 Athlon XP 1600+'98SE 191 1000 G4 OSX TiPbk 10.2.2 185 2x 533 G4 OSX 10.1.5 175 2x 533 G4 OS 9.2.2 174 1800 P4 173 1200 AthlonMP 168 1508 Celeron (overclock) 167 1400 PIII Tualatin 160 **? 2x 550 G4 OSX 10.2.3 (OC Cube) 160 **? 2x 500 G4 OSX 152 2x 450 G4 OS9 151 1333 Athlon TBird 147 2x 450 G4 OSX 10.1.5 143 800 G4 Pbook OSX 1MB L3 135 733 G4 (miro7) 134 667 G4 PBk OS9 noL3 127 667 G4 PBk OSX 10.2.3 no L3 125 466 G4 OS9 123 667 G4 OSX TiPBk 10.1.5 noL3 121 866 PIII 114 466 G4 OSX 133 MHz bus 112 550 G4 Powrbk OS9* 104 500 G4 Pbook (OC'd 400) 103 1x 450 G4 OSX 100 MHz bus 101 1000 Athlon TBird (PS6.01) 100 550 G4 Powrbk OSX* 95 933 Transmeta Crusoe Sony 78 700 G3 iBook 74 600 G3 iBook OS 9.2.2j 70 233 PII 30 Now, to get an idea of overall performance let's compare some more benchmark results between the platforms. First let's start with the benchmarks C't magazine ran in their latest issue (if I remember correctly all the systems are using a radeon 9600). They used the G5 optimized version of Cinebench which isn?t publicly available yet.: Cinebench 2003 Rendering (more = better) 2x 2 GHz G5: 504 1x 1 GHz G4: 92 2x Xeon 3.06 GHz: 655 1x Athlon 64FX 2.2 GHz: 310 1x P4 3.2 GHz: 380 Photoshop 7 (less = faster) 2x 2 GHz G5: 278 s 1x 1 GHz G4: 796 s 2x Xeon 3.06 GHz: 287 s 1x Athlon 64FX 2.2 GHz: 337 s 1x P4 3.2 GHz: 362 s Mathematica 5 (less = faster) 2x 2 GHz G5: 1021 s 1x 1 GHz G4: 2023 s 2x Xeon 3.06 GHz: 725 s 1x Athlon 64FX 2.2 GHz: 553 s 1x P4 3.2 GHz: 678 s FileMaker 5.5 (less = faster) 2x 2 GHz G5: 82 s 1x 1 GHz G4: 147 s 2x Xeon 3.06 GHz: 70 s 1x Athlon 64FX 2.2 GHz: 46 s 1x P4 3.2 GHz: 62 s MP3 encoding (less = faster) 2x 2 GHz G5: 98 s 1x 1 GHz G4: 284 s 2x Xeon 3.06 GHz: 68 s 1x Athlon 64FX 2.2 GHz: 89 s 1x P4 3.2 GHz: 91 s MPEG-4 transcoding (less = faster) 2x 2 GHz G5: 42 s 1x 1 GHz G4: 85 s 2x Xeon 3.06 GHz: 35 s 1x Athlon 64FX 2.2 GHz: 41 s 1x P4 3.2 GHz: 39 s UT 2003 Asbestos flyby 1024x768 2x 2 GHz G5: 67 fps 1x 1 GHz G4: 33 fps 2x Xeon 3.06 GHz: 197 fps 1x Athlon 64FX 2.2 GHz: 203 fps 1x P4 3.2 GHz: 203 fps http://www.heise.de/ct/03/20/098/ Another UT2K3 comparison can be found here, this time using Radeon 9800 Pros and scores from xlr8 & AcesHardware: P4 3.4 GHz EE (?) RAM, Radeon 9800 Pro, Asbestos Botmatch 1280x1024x32: 104.4 P4 3.2 GHz EE (?) RAM, Radeon 9800 Pro, Asbestos Botmatch 1280x1024x32: 99.7 P4 3.2 GHz (?) RAM, Radeon 9800 Pro, Asbestos Botmatch 1280x1024x32: 90.4 G5 2.0 (x2) 1.5GB RAM, Radeon 9800 Pro, Asbestos Botmatch 1024x768x32: 58.8 G4 1.25 (x2) 1.5GB RAM, Radeon 9800 Pro, Asbestos Botmatch 1024x768x32: 34.51 Finally here are some Cinebench 2003 scores using the current version: CINEBENCH 2003 v1 **************************************************** Tester : Processor : G5 MHz : 1.8GHz Number of CPUs : 1 Operating System : OS X 10.2.7 Graphics Card : gF FX Resolution : <fill this out> Color Depth : <fill this out> **************************************************** Rendering (Single CPU): 188 CB-CPU Rendering (Multiple CPU): --- CB-CPU Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 227 CB-GFX Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 605 CB-GFX Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 936 CB-GFX OpenGL Speedup: 4.12 **************************************************** CINEBENCH 2003 v1 **************************************************** Tester : Highest Performance 2 Processor : Dual G5 MHz : 2GHz Number of CPUs : 2 Operating System : 10.2.7 Graphics Card : ATI Radeon 9600 Pro Resolution : 1024 x 768 Color Depth : 24 bit **************************************************** Rendering (Single CPU): 220 CB-CPU Rendering (Multiple CPU): 398 CB-CPU Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.81 Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 265 CB-GFX Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 701 CB-GFX Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1404 CB-GFX OpenGL Speedup: 5.29 **************************************************** Processor : 3GHz P4/HT MHz : 3260 Number of CPUs : 2 (actually 1 with hyper threading) Operating System : XP Graphics Card : 9700Pro Rendering (Single CPU): 319 CB-CPU Rendering (Multiple CPU): 383 CB-CPU Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.20 Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 327 CB-GFX Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1491 CB-GFX Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 2544 CB-GFX OpenGL Speedup: 7.78 Hyperthreading ON: CINEBENCH 2003 v1 **************************************************** Tester : sw Processor : Xeon MHz : 3.06 GHz Number of CPUs : 4 Operating System : Windows XP Pro SP1 Graphics Card : ATI FireGL X1 Resolution : 1600 x 1200 Color Depth : 32 bit **************************************************** Rendering (Single CPU): 306 CB-CPU Rendering (Multiple CPU): 650 CB-CPU Multiprocessor Speedup: 2.12 Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 301 CB-GFX Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1267 CB-GFX Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 2084 CB-GFX OpenGL Speedup: 6.92 **************************************************** http://arstechnica.infopop.net/OpenTopic/p...0920455&p=1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
disgaean Posted September 23, 2003 Share Posted September 23, 2003 Now that the Athlon 64 and Athlon FX are officially out today many of these benchmark results are have become slightly outdated. For now here's an updated version of the UT2K3 Asbestos Botmatch scores from AcesHardware: Athlon 64 FX-53 2.4 GHz 119.8 ? Athlon 64 FX-51 2.2 GHz 109.6 ? Athlon 64 2.2 GHz Single Channel 106.3 ? Athlon 64 3200+ 104.4 ? P4 3.4 GHz EE 104.4 ? P4 3.2 GHz EE 99.4 ? P4 3.2 GHz "C" 90.4 ? P4 2.8 GHz "C" 83.3 ? P4 2.4 GHz "C" 76.2 ? Athlon XP 3200+ 85.5 ? Athlon 2700+ 72.7 ? Athlon 2500+ 71.6 G5 2.0 (x2) (1024x768x32): 58.8 G4 1.25 (x2) (1024x768x32): 34.51 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the evn show Posted September 23, 2003 Share Posted September 23, 2003 Does it really matter how fast a g5 runs games? If gaming were even a small issue for someone purchasing a computer then a new macintosh would be excluded in seconds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eth3l Posted September 23, 2003 Share Posted September 23, 2003 No, it does nto matter. Its just thats the "benchmark" to determine how powerful a PROC is. Its like 0-60 in a car. Really that does not mean much, but it is simply a good indication of the power of a car (no flaming on this issue please,it was jsut an analogy) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravager Posted September 23, 2003 Share Posted September 23, 2003 Alright, I'll throw in what I know and what I believe here. If it's wrong, then I take it back. My understanding to the reason why a 700Mhz (somewhere around there) XBOX runs games better than many PCs is because the makers of the games do not have to worry about a large variance in computer configurations (software, hardware). On a console, you have ONE xbox. All the xboxes have the same specs. So for the XBOX there is less worrying about supporting the tons of software and hardware configs out there. Having the said, I feel that the Mac is sort of like a console compared to the PC. You have a very small market for the Macs. You have one company that designs these computers. In the PC world, you have makers like Dell, Gateway, or you can even get your own custom PC built. Since all Macs are very similar, game makers can more easily design a game that supports a fairly limited hardware and software configuration. Thus, at the moment, even though Macs don't seem as fast as PCs, it's the way they handle the games and apps. Hell, you can start up an arguement saying today's consoles are faster than the Mac G4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the evn show Posted September 23, 2003 Share Posted September 23, 2003 Having the said, I feel that the Mac is sort of like a console compared to the PC. You have a very small market for the Macs Does it really matter how fast a g5 runs games? If gaming were even a small issue for someone purchasing a computer then a new macintosh would be excluded in seconds. Anyhow: EDIT: I'm having no luck with quotes today. Think about the x86 market for a minute: how many processors are there? Two - how larger are the functional differences? Some have SSE2, Some have 3DNow! otherwise the instructions are the same. Compiler flags should handle the different optimizations (for p4 vs athlon) though most are just targeted for i686 for compatibility. How is the sound handled? The majority of x86 systems run Creative soundcards so EAX is the major 'wierd' extention. For most you can just write for DirectSound. What video cards are available? most gamers are using Nvidia or ATI offerings (the same used in macs). How do you write for them? OpenGL or Direct3D. One reason x86 PCs took off as a gaming platform is because the environment became so standaradized. You have one company that designs these computers. In the PC world, you have makers like Dell, Gateway, or you can even get your own custom PC built.You still write games using the same APIs: WinAPI/COM/whatever, Direct3D/OpenGL, and Direct Sound. Developers don't have to think about what soundcard, videocard, hard drive, etc are in the computer. Since all Macs are very similar, game makers can more easily design a game that supports a fairly limited hardware and software configuration. Thus, at the moment, even though Macs don't seem as fast as PCsThe seam plenty fast in video editing, encryption, compilation, sound editing, photoshop, etc. Games seam to be the only really problematic areas., it's the way they handle the games and apps Exactly. It's not so much that the hardware is terrible for gaming (it may be - we don't know) but that the API available are either not suitable (possibly) or that developers don't care to spend the same amount of time optimizing for the differences in the 'port'. To find out for sure we could compare games running on similar APIs, on a simlar OS and see how performance compares: unfortunatly tux racer isn't the most demanding benchmark out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
disgaean Posted September 23, 2003 Share Posted September 23, 2003 Why is everyone focusing on the gaming benchmarks? The CT magazine scores are almost entirely application benchmarks. Here's some Lightwave 7.5 scores from AnandTech and PCMagazine that show some Single Processor PCs versus a Dual G5: Rad. Ref. Scene P4 EE 3.2GHz ? ? ? ? ? 42.5 sec P4 3.2C ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?46.0 sec P4 3.0C ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?48.4 sec Athlon 64 FX 51 2.2GHz 49.3 sec Athlon 64 2.2GHz ? ? ? 50.6 sec Dual G5 2GHz ? ? ? ? ? 51.1 sec Athlon 64 3200+ ? ? ? ?54.5 sec Raytrace Scene Athlon 64 FX 51 2.2GHz 87.9 sec Athlon 64 2.2GHz ? ? ? 88.3 sec P4 EE 3.2GHz ? ? ? ? ? 89.3 sec P4 3.2C ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?93.1 sec Athlon 64 2.2GHz ? ? ? 96.4 sec P4 3.0C ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?99.1 sec Dual G5 2GHz ? ? ? ? ?112.0 sec Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Southern Patriot Posted September 26, 2003 Share Posted September 26, 2003 unfortunatly tux racer isn't the most demanding benchmark out there. Yeah, but it is one of the most fun! :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zombie9920 Posted September 28, 2003 Share Posted September 28, 2003 I see that all of the x86 flaming came to a dead stop. <sarcasm mode on>No, Apple doesn't lie about benchmarks<sarcasm mode off>. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dashel Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 Wow, a G5 is good at Photoshop. Who whoula thunk it? Still waiting on some real benchmarks... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Dorr Veteran Posted September 30, 2003 Author Veteran Share Posted September 30, 2003 Wow, a G5 is good at Photoshop. Who whoula thunk it?Still waiting on some real benchmarks... What? A benchmark using one the PRIMARY peices of software people use the computer for isn't "real" enough for you? Sorry to inform you, but number crunching ability actually has little to do with how fast the computer can get your job done... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miran Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 the difference between the 1.6 and the rest of the g5 line is a bit much. upgrading it would require the purchase of a new motherboard and a new processor etc.. etc..why do all that when he can just sell it and buy another better one? it's cheaper this way as well. a 1.6 g5 cannot be put into any other computer but the 1.6 g5 or up so what kind of fool would he have to be to try and sell the processor or whatever by itself. you should think a little before you make irrelevant posts. I really appreciate the insult at the end there. Really a sign of maturity. I was asking a question, not stating a fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts