PDA

View Full Version : Mac Mini vs PowerMac G5



hasanito
14th June 2009, 10:26 PM
What would be the comparison of the latest Mac Mini model to a PPC Mac G5, performance wise!
I was in an discussion with a friend over this, his take was that a latest model mac mini would perform better then G5 Dual Core. There was no reference point, like games, graphics etc... but in general!

andytlr
14th June 2009, 10:31 PM
We have a couple of old single core G5's at work and they are very, very slow now. I don't have any reference point either. But I'd say the mini would kill it.

marc
14th June 2009, 10:45 PM
Depends which G5 you're comparing, but my vote would be with the Mini, provided they both had the same amount of RAM.

pengu
14th June 2009, 10:56 PM
What would be the comparison of the latest Mac Mini model to a PPC Mac G5, performance wise!
I was in an discussion with a friend over this, his take was that a latest model mac mini would perform better then G5 Dual Core. There was no reference point, like games, graphics etc... but in general!

I can't give you in-depth tests, but when I sold my G5 (Dual CPU, 2GHz, 3GB RAM) and replaced it with a new Mac Mini (Dual Core 2GHz, 4GB RAM) I did a test-encode of the same video file (an AVI TV episode from memory) using ffmpegX (uses the Unix mencoder, ffmpeg and mplayer tools) with the same settings, and the Mac Mini encoded the file at more than twice the speed of the G5 (i.e. the mini finished before the G5 got to 50%).

Some of that is going to be because the software is better developed for Intel/SSE, and some will be because SSE/CPUs have become more efficient since the G5 was released.

chip
14th June 2009, 11:52 PM
What would be the comparison of the latest Mac Mini model to a PPC Mac G5, performance wise!

I was researching the same question a while ago, and found some benchmark results at Real World Speed Tests for Performance Minded Mac Users (http://www.barefeats.com/index.html) that suggested for nearly everything, a 2008 c2duo mini would be quicker than a dual G5 2GHz. Can't give an exact link, but hunt around and I'm sure you'll find it enlightening. and The only exception was in tasks that required more than the 4GB RAM possible in a current mini.

If you're looking at video encoding, then a mini with an nvidia gpu and encoding software that can use it will shit on the older generation hardware from a great height.

visional_studios
14th June 2009, 11:54 PM
The Mac Mini would kill it.

I had an old G5 dual, and when I even upgraded to a macbook (2 years ago), the macbook smoked it in every department.

The Mini for sure. Now it wouldn't even be a contest.

marc
15th June 2009, 12:11 AM
And at some point, a future iPhone will probably beat the G5 too ;)

~Coxy
15th June 2009, 11:03 AM
Games are going to be better on a late model G5 (depending on the video card), but for everything else the mini is probably going to be faster.
Even the Quad 2.5 GHz G5 is probably not going to win many benchmarks against a new mini.

ford.boy
15th June 2009, 01:23 PM
And at some point, a future iPhone will probably beat the G5 too ;)

God I hope they call it and iPhone G5 in the next couple of iterations.

nathant123
15th June 2009, 02:28 PM
Games are going to be better on a late model G5 (depending on the video card).
Like pacman and tetris? The G5's can't run windows so 99% of the games wont work full stop. Unless you mean those very obsolete apple games?

~Coxy
15th June 2009, 05:01 PM
Well, for OS X there's definitely more games for PPC than there are for Intel, although this will change over the years as more and more Mac games use Cider or just plain don't get compiled for PPC.

If you include Windows on the mini then of course it'll have more games. :P

krnageskillz
15th June 2009, 06:38 PM
Mac Mini will win hands down over a PPC based Mac.

Also don't forget Snow Leopard is for Intel based Macs only.

leon
15th June 2009, 06:42 PM
Not only will the Mac Mini kick the G5 to the curb in most tasks speed wise, it will do it using only 1/4 of the power (pulled that figure from thin air), but I know they are extremely power efficient compared to the PPC G5.

matthewk
15th June 2009, 09:51 PM
God I hope they call it and iPhone G5 in the next couple of iterations.

I can just imagine Steve Jobs getting up on stage now; "we couldn't fit a G5 in a laptop, but here is the iPhone G5". Put the right blend of iPhone/Powerbook G4 image in the background and the crowd would just eat it up.

Darwiniandude
21st June 2009, 06:40 PM
My 1st gen Macbook Air absolutely smoked my 1.6 G5, same ram. Obviously not in hard disk throughput though.

the G5 is a dog, I bought it because I couldn't afford a second hand mac mini and the G5's are far cheaper.

Sorry to those who love/care about the PPC, but the G5 was good when it launched, but not in 2009.

The G5 can't even play most youtube videos under leopard, admittedly Adobe is the culprit here.

ClockWork
21st June 2009, 06:53 PM
Have no problems doing such tasks on my G5 - yet everyone's experience is different.

My Mac Mini truly does smoke my G5, yet... once again, I purchased the G5 because I couldn't afford a Mac Pro, thus to keep astride with Intel Processors, I purchased the Mac Mini.

However, when I purchased the G5, I was in desperate need to run the then "new" Adobe CS 2 Suite... but I'll be damned if I'm gonna purchase the Adobe CS 4 Suite just for Leopard / Intel.

Outside of the Mac Pro / MBPs - the hardware isn't the real expense.
It's what one plans to use these tools for.

It's turning everyone into a consumer, and that's the bit that bites my arse. The space between 2005 and 2009. Four years - just 4 years and everything is completely different.

Imagine if the same principles were applied to cars, or toasters, or fridges, or washing machines. It would be a complete nightmare...

ParisHilton
22nd June 2009, 11:20 AM
My old dual G5 used to hammer along, never had any problems, hell my 1.9Ghz iSight G5 with 1GB of ram seems fairly on-par with my 4GB RAM 2.4Ghz C2D BlackBook when it comes to using the machines day-to-day.

pengu
22nd June 2009, 11:29 AM
My old dual G5 used to hammer along, never had any problems, hell my 1.9Ghz iSight G5 with 1GB of ram seems fairly on-par with my 4GB RAM 2.4Ghz C2D BlackBook when it comes to using the machines day-to-day.

Day-to-Day you won't notice much. The big difference is when you start doing stuff like video encoding/transcoding, or other highly CPU intensive tasks, and especially things where the software is better developed to take advantage of x86 instructions and SSE enhancements.

bartron
22nd June 2009, 11:36 AM
Imagine if the same principles were applied to cars, or toasters, or fridges, or washing machines. It would be a complete nightmare...

You must not own a car.....it's like that already.

ParisHilton
22nd June 2009, 11:39 AM
PowerMac G5 = top of the line Mac from 2005

Mac Mini = Bottom of the line Mac from 2009

Are you saying a 2009 Hyundai Getz is faster than a 2005 Lamborghini Murcielago?

:tongue:

Ok bad example.

marc
22nd June 2009, 11:41 AM
Four years - just 4 years and everything is completely different.
What made you think the computer industry was anything different? It's always been like that.

(If anything, I think it'll slow down... speed isn't as important today as it was a few years ago.)

bartron
22nd June 2009, 11:54 AM
PowerMac G5 = top of the line Mac from 2005

Mac Mini = Bottom of the line Mac from 2009

Are you saying a 2009 Hyundai Getz is faster than a 2005 Lamborghini Murcielago?

:tongue:

Ok bad example.

Computers evolve a bit faster than cars do...but in essence yes.

Comparing bottom end apples with top end apples (and still not a perfect analogy):
A 2008 BMW 125i will outperform a 628CSi from the early 80's despite the former being "entry level". The latter is still a good car.....but evolution of technology allows more performance in a smaller package for less cost.

lucid.motion
22nd June 2009, 07:26 PM
I bought a Quad G5 weeks after It came out, main reason was I needed something that could Run Motion as fast as possible. At the time there was no way of knowing intel was on it's way, it would have been nice to know... but hey, I had 6 video editing jobs ahead of me and my powerbook was just not cutting it fast enough.

Even the latest mac mini obviously can't run Motion, and you end up paying a decent premium if you try upgrading an iMac to a decent enough graphics card too... so without buying a new Mac Pro, I can't get the same functionality + intel-ness really..

It still runs Final Cut Studio 2 perfectly, and multitasks very well, I personally don't care how fast a mini can encode a video compared to my G5, I don't sit there watching things encode anyway, and if I needed to speed that stuff up I could always buy a turbo h264 or similar device...

I plan to let my G5 retire gracefully as a dedicated FCS2 machine, possibly look into using it for some Shake compositing (don't need intel to do that)
Will be teaching related stuff this semester and might be worth buying Shake for $700 to work with even if it is outdated unsupported software...

I have spent the last 7 months working as a Motion Graphics Designer for a digital signage based Advertising Company, and without being able to use my G5 + Motion I would have really not enjoyed my job as much.

ok, end ramble now.

I am saving for an ultimate macbook pro with SSD which will obviously make everything else seem like a complete waste of time. especially some bloody mini

pengu
22nd June 2009, 08:29 PM
It still runs Final Cut Studio 2 perfectly, and multitasks very well, I personally don't care how fast a mini can encode a video compared to my G5, I don't sit there watching things encode anyway, and if I needed to speed that stuff up I could always buy a turbo h264 or similar device...

Compared to yours, a mini may not be faster. I had a dual cpu 2GHz G5 (the one DogKnight has now). So with the same number of same speed cores the mini is faster. You have a quad, and it's presumably more than 2GHz, so it probably is quicker than the mini.

Also - I said the mini was faster at video encoding, but I also said for most things it's not noticeable. The only reason I swapped was because for ME, the mini is a better option. The G5 was too big and too noisy for what I want.

RustySpanner
23rd June 2009, 01:42 AM
Can I just add, consider disk throughput. Mac Mini has 5400 RPM drive, G5 has 7200 RPM. The biggest bottleneck in modern computers is the disk; CPUs sit idle waiting for them all the time. If considering a Mac Mini to replace a G5, install a 7200 RPM drive or SSD to gain full performance benefits, otherwise you could in fact be reducing performance in some areas.

pengu
23rd June 2009, 10:41 AM
Can I just add, consider disk throughput. Mac Mini has 5400 RPM drive, G5 has 7200 RPM. The biggest bottleneck in modern computers is the disk; CPUs sit idle waiting for them all the time. If considering a Mac Mini to replace a G5, install a 7200 RPM drive or SSD to gain full performance benefits, otherwise you could in fact be reducing performance in some areas.

If you have a lot of disk intensive apps, (e.g large video projects, etc) then the mini probably isn't great for you anyway as it only has a single firewire800 port. If you need lots of really fast storage, you're going to want a MacPro/G5 so you can add extra drives either internally or via FW800/eSATA/FC/MultiLane Infiniband/etc

dopus
23rd June 2009, 11:15 AM
I have both and this is what I have found.

My Mini is awesome, flys along quite well, but if you really load it up (ie, playing songs in iTunes, encoding a video to MP4 for AppleTV, and surfing the web) it does have a marked difference to it's performance.

The PowerMac dual G5 though, isn't as fast to start with, but if I really load it up, it just keeps going as if it was only the one app running.

Both a similar specced in HDD space and ram. If anything the PowerMac has more (it is, obviously, older).

Not sure if this helps.

ParisHilton
23rd June 2009, 07:14 PM
The G5 is alot sexier than a Mini.

For some people, that counts. Especially Apple people it seems.

pengu
23rd June 2009, 07:17 PM
The G5 is alot sexier than a Mini.

For some people, that counts. Especially Apple people it seems.

Sexy is relative. Yes the G5/MacPro case is great industrial design. But it can't beat the Mini for sleekness and fitting in anywhere, and making basically no noise. I have mine on the top shelf of my desk next to an airport extreme and you wouldn't know it's a computer if you hadn't seen one before. it just sits there quietly doing its job. The G5 meanwhile, I could hear (from the same place @ the desk) when it was upstairs in a room with the door closed.

ParisHilton
23rd June 2009, 07:20 PM
Can you run a dual link 30" ADC off a Mini? I don't really take notice of Intel Macs.

pengu
23rd June 2009, 07:54 PM
Can you run a dual link 30" ADC off a Mini? I don't really take notice of Intel Macs.

Yes, the latest models with Mini DisplayPort will run a 30" ADC.

hangdog
23rd June 2009, 07:58 PM
I ran some quick and dirty Xbench 1.3 tests on my current Mac Mini 2.0GHz with 2GB RAM and 320GB 5400rpm HD, running 10.5.7.

Xbench's baseline results are set at 100.00 for a standard(?) Power Mac G5 2.0GHz dual on 10.4.7.

Mini scored as follows. Predictably it lags far, far behind the G5 in disk tests, but surpasses the G5 in most other areas:

Results 113.67 overall
System Info
Xbench Version 1.3
System Version 10.5.7 (9J61)
Physical RAM 2048 MB
Model Macmini3,1
Drive Type Hitachi HTS543232L9SA02
CPU Test 133.44
GCD Loop 232.93 12.28 Mops/sec
Floating Point Basic 112.70 2.68 Gflop/sec
vecLib FFT 93.34 3.08 Gflop/sec
Floating Point Library 164.03 28.56 Mops/sec
Thread Test 225.58
Computation 392.14 7.94 Mops/sec, 4 threads
Lock Contention 158.33 6.81 Mlocks/sec, 4 threads
Memory Test 172.29
System 189.74
Allocate 210.19 771.87 Kalloc/sec
Fill 164.30 7988.55 MB/sec
Copy 201.33 4158.41 MB/sec
Stream 157.79
Copy 151.46 3128.40 MB/sec
Scale 149.28 3084.05 MB/sec
Add 166.38 3544.23 MB/sec
Triad 165.58 3542.17 MB/sec
Quartz Graphics Test 174.43
Line 144.10 9.59 Klines/sec [50% alpha]
Rectangle 184.70 55.14 Krects/sec [50% alpha]
Circle 151.20 12.33 Kcircles/sec [50% alpha]
Bezier 148.99 3.76 Kbeziers/sec [50% alpha]
Text 334.92 20.95 Kchars/sec
OpenGL Graphics Test 122.57
Spinning Squares 122.57 155.48 frames/sec
User Interface Test 247.67
Elements 247.67 1.14 Krefresh/sec
Disk Test 38.58
Sequential 87.32
Uncached Write 98.54 60.50 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 97.72 55.29 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 59.97 17.55 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 114.25 57.42 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Random 24.76
Uncached Write 8.25 0.87 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 67.40 21.58 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 60.97 0.43 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 110.61 20.52 MB/sec [256K blocks]

Incidentally, I tested the Mini Core Solo 1.5 that I just bought from tibook (1.25GB RAM, 60GB HD, 10.4.5) at 73.87 overall.

With the processor swapped out to a Core 2 Duo 2.16 T7400, 2GB RAM and a Seagate 5400rpm 320GB HD (which actually tested faster than the new Mini's Hitachi), the hotted-up ex-Core Solo machine, now with 10.5.7, jumped to an Xbench score of 133.35 overall, comfortably shading the current-model Mini. The upgraded 2.16GHz machine is being pressed into duty (gradually) as a HTPC.

Were it not for my dual-monitor requirement, I'd be quite happy with an old upgraded Mini. Sure, there are ways to use 2 monitors with an older Mini, but that would just add to the cost and muck-around factor. I'm quite pleased with both of these Minis, really!

RustySpanner
24th June 2009, 03:13 AM
The G5 is alot sexier than a Mini.

For some people, that counts. Especially Apple people it seems.

http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/5517/cheeseorly.jpg

EMKarelia
25th June 2009, 04:44 AM
Mac mini I would say has not the right options of a professional workers job. I would pick the G5 over the mini IF it had the same specs.

I would pick the new Mini just because of performance reasons.

pengu
25th June 2009, 10:44 AM
Mac mini I would say has not the right options of a professional workers job. I would pick the G5 over the mini IF it had the same specs.

I would pick the new Mini just because of performance reasons.

Professional Workers job? Im not sure what you mean...?