Replacing Dual 2.3GHz PowerMac G5

[Tom M1]

The performance increase, using Photoshop and Aperture, is substantial.
Comparing my G5 to the Quad Core.

 

[Mike from Toronto]

It sounds to me that your finances are closer to being able to afford a new computer - even if it can be purchased in stages. The new computers are so much faster to the G5 series just looking at these comparisons:

http://www.primatelabs.ca/blog/2009/01/mac-performance-january-2009/#pro_desktop

I cannot believe how much faster these new machines are compared to my dual 2.0 G5. I understand your desire for what is current.

Your question of what new software you would have to purchase after buying a new Intel Mac Pro - if you had an older version of Photoshop (CS2), you'd want the new version to play native with the Intel chip. Then there are all the other utility type of programs you'd have to upgrade for money - maybe a few other major applications have to be upgraded because they don't play on the IBM ppc chip. You have 6GB of ram on your G5 now, but you'll have to buy additional ram for your new machine. Sales tax is always a factor in my mind when buying new. The list goes on.

Not to deter you because I too would covet the much faster machines. Right now for what I do a G5 is great. However, I can see at times on the upper edges of performance and power the G5 might not be enough - or at least it might make me wait a little longer than I want. I just started experimenting with 500 mg tiff files and found the G5 takes some time to save and composite in Photoshop CS4, but it still holds it's own. My G4 would have begged for mercy at this stage.

Anyways, if you did purchase the Mac Pro, I still think that diglloyd's site for improving Mac performance is an invaluable resource to make your new purchase that much faster still:

http://macperformanceguide.com/

Good luck with your decision. A win/win situation: you still have a great computer, but your alternative is to have a still greater computer.

Mike

 

[chamberlinphoto]

If/when I purchase a Mac Pro, is my G5 worth anything on the used market? If so, about how much money? Perhaps my G5 can help subsidize the purchase of a new computer.

Aside from the need for new RAM, I think most of my programs are new enough to function well on a Mac Pro. I have CS3; CS4 might be nice.
--
Michael
[email protected]

 

[chamberlinphoto]

The Mac performance guide is an awesome resource for Mac photographers. Thanks Mike!
--
Michael
[email protected]

 

[Mike from Toronto]

If/when I purchase a Mac Pro, is my G5 worth anything on the used
market? If so, about how much money? Perhaps my G5 can help subsidize
the purchase of a new computer.

I think your G5 still has decent value. You have the 2.3 which is the fastest G5 that is not liquid cooled. There are many looking for G5s for a decent price that are not the liquid cooled ones. Yours would probably max out at 16Gb of Ram so that is a great plus. I think here in Toronto a machine like yours could sell quickly for $800-1,000 Canadian. I know others are asking for more and you still might get more than that. If it was me last year, I would have wanted to buy your model - but at the time people were asking for way more than that - I settled on a great deal for the G5 2.0 and am happy as a clam, so I have to imagine there are still others out there that would love to own your G5. We don't have the money to buy the new machines, and we know that what you have is still a great machine. Just don't leave your decision too long. At some point if the buyer cannot buy the software they want that is still useful with your machine, its value will plummet. Sell before Snow Leopard. I know that as time goes on it gets harder and harder to buy things like replacement video cards for your G5. Sell now if you want to upgrade - like others have said, the 2.8 refurbished 2008 are still available and are excellent value for what they deliver in terms of performance.

Aside from the need for new RAM, I think most of my programs are new
enough to function well on a Mac Pro. I have CS3; CS4 might be nice.

For me, CS4 is a wonderful improvement over CS2. For a more complete rundown on what is new in CS4:

http://www.amazon.ca/Adobe-Photoshop-CS4-Up-Speed/dp/0321580052

Ben's book focuses on only the new features in CS4. It helped me tip the scales in favor of trying out the demo version. I read his book in the hopes of trying to figure it out - using the demo version sold me on having to get CS4. I know I am drawing a line in the sand and am going to stay with my G5, using CS4 for many many years to come. I think you will be pleased. The only thing I can see for my own needs that CS4 lacks is a large color mixing palette like Corel Painter.

Mike

 

[chamberlinphoto]

After reading about the NEC 2690 (2) and the 3090 monitors, I'm wondering if my money would be better spent on a new monitor first before I buy a new computer. I currently have a Dell 2000FP monitor. It's quite old, and while it seems to work fine with my photo work (calibrated with Monaco Optix Pro), I'm sure the NECs would have much better color management. Besides, especially with the 30", I'd have a lot of room to view images at 100% and have Photoshop pallet space. Having done a lot of Photoshop work lately, my speed bottleneck doesn't seem to be my G5 PowerMac. Sure, there are times when Aperture seems to get bogged down, and some filters take 15 seconds to process in Photoshop (12GB raw files), but mostly the speed of the computer is adequate and doesn't slow my photo adjustments.

Perhaps a new monitor would help me with photo processing more than a new computer? Granted, I won't be able to upgrade to Snow Leopard, and likely within a year I will need a new computer to take current with the latest software, but for priorities, perhaps I should get the monitor first and hold off on the computer until 2010. And if so, the next question is should I get the 30" instead of the 26" NEC?

Your thoughts?
--
Michael
[email protected]

 

[Mike from Toronto]

You are bringing up a few interesting points in your deliberations about monitors.

I find myself being constantly distracted and wasting time using my 21" montitor - constantly moving Photoshop pallets around and resizing images. Most certainly a larger monitor would allow me to work more productively and efficiently. So then the question of which one? I think you need to, as part of your research, to actually try at least one of the larger size monitors that you are considering first to get a feel for that size of space to work in. Maybe the 26" is perfect - and you will have saved a ton on money over the 30". How about the thought of keeping your 20" as a second monitor within a dual monitor set up? The 26" might make more sense financially within that context.

I haven't used Aperture myself - but others have mentioned that the program puts a heavy demand on the GPU and your computer's resources. If you go with a much larger monitor, more of your GPU resources will be taken away from Aperture and slow your computer further. Others feel free to jump in and comment if this is correct to help this discussion. I might be worth considering at that stage to take a different route and switch to CS4 Bridge as your organizer, or Lightroom?

As for the second part of you post about future software, and getting what will be the new programs in the future - consider that the potential of what can be achieved within CS4 is so extensive, that just mastering and understanding it would take many years of study. It might be a huge savings of money to stay where you are hardware-wise and learn the software that you currently have - unless Adobe comes out with some absolutely must have new features. Honestly - from this point forward - what is CS4 really lacking that you cannot accomplish the very highest degree of correction on your images? I only ask because we can get so caught up in chasing this upgrading mirage when the real answers lie in learning to use what you have with knowledge and taste.

Mike

 

[Brian OReilly]

...until Snow Leopard is actually out.

Then see what all the sites above say in terms of performance of existing machines (and even machines that may be released later in the year) on Snow Leopard.

I feel you may be making a jump in anticipation of what may happen.

There are too many variables.

I have a G5 Dual 2GHz and intend to follow my own advice

Brian

 

[chamberlinphoto]

Mike,

I like what you have to say about the two monitor route. However, while 26" is a nice jump from 20", and I can use my old 20 Dell for pallets, almost everyone who starts using a 30" loves it. I have a small-ish antique desk and sometimes wonder if a 30" monitor would be a little much, but the overwhelming number of people who begin using a 30" and find it big, soon adjust and love their large monitor.

While my G5 may suffer using a 30" monitor, I do plan to upgrade the computer within a year, probably no later than February.

As for software, I plan to stay with CS3 until CS5 is available. If I were using CS2, I would upgrade to CS4, but I'm content with CS3. As for Aperture, I'm used to it. When I upgrade computers Aperture will be much faster. I'm willing to stay with Aperture and wait it out.
--
Michael
[email protected]

 

[chamberlinphoto]

Brian,

I like your strategy. Perhaps the Mac Pros will be updated in September or October. Since I have a functioning computer right now I might as well wait a few months. Then, perhaps an NEC monitor will be my first purchase.

Now, is it the 26" or the 30"?
--
Michael
[email protected]

 

[Mike from Toronto]

Sounds like a good plan.

I too have been considering a 30" monitor after seeing my friend's one. The size of the real estate is breathtaking. I'm leaning towards that rather than a two monitor set up to use with Photoshop/Painter in creating digital art. It makes more sense to have a large image surrounded by the palette tools so that on a drawing tablet it is a matter of a slight movement outside the image to select the tools - thus not getting distracted by toggling back and forth between monitors.

Now it is a matter of saving up for one.

Mike

 

[scoobs]

Don't hold your breath on the Mac Pro updates this year. They were just updated this past spring, and recent history suggests they update about once every 12-16 months. If they do upgrade, it'll be an insignificant speed bump, nothing major, and certainly not worth waiting for.

Next year the 6-core Gulftown processors will likely find their way into the machines as 6-core and 12-core options. Considering most apps don't even utilize 4 cores, much less 8, a 6-core machine would be a sweet little "overkill" halfway point for the heavy multi-taskers.

And the more and more I read about Snow Leopard, the less and less I'm apt to believe it's going to be huge performance booster; beyond being 64-bit. The apps themselves still need to be written to take better advantage of multi-threaded tasks. The one thing it does is give the developers an easier target to shoot for...provided they're even shooting.

Photoshop CS5 will be a true 64-bit app, finally, and that'll natively open up the app for more RAM usage. It's also rumored to be pushing the GPU graphics usage a bit harder. So with that, being a heavy "app user", you'll want to upgrade your memory and the graphics card.

Considering the 2.66GHz machine can take in 16GB of ram, and a refurbed machine costs less than a new high-end iMac, it's a massive bargain right now.

And no, don't waste your money on a Mac mini. If you use one app at a time, and you're a light photoshop user, fine. Go for it. But you only have 4GB of memory available, and you can't upgrade the video card. Plus, all of your storage will continue to be the more expensive external (slow Fire Wire) drives, instead of the faster (much less expensive) internal SATA drives.

c

--
***************************
You can't depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus.

• Mark Twain

***************************

http://www.flickr.com/photos/scoobs/

********

 

[scoobs]

Those mac lab performance charts are redunk. They don't give you comprehensive reality numbers. Instead, take a look at these real world numbers; they'll make much more sense. If you don't want to read the whole article, scroll down until you get to the benchmark comparisons. They pit a 2.5GHz quad G5 against the new 2.66GHz Quad and the 2.26GHz 8-core machines, as well as the 3.06Ghz iMac.

http://www.macworld.com/article/139507/2009/03/macpro2009.html

And Photoshop CS3 and CS4 will run faster on an intel machine than it will on a G5.

--
***************************
You can't depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus.

• Mark Twain

***************************

http://www.flickr.com/photos/scoobs/

********

 

[chamberlinphoto]

I looked on the Apple website and don't see 2.66GHz machines. They're 4-core, correct? What kind of pricing is available, and where can they be found?

Michael

Considering the 2.66GHz machine can take in 16GB of ram, and a refurbed machine costs less than a new high-end iMac, it's a massive bargain right now.

 

[chamberlinphoto]

Boy, I truly must be on the fence on this one. On the one hand, a refurbished Quad would suit me well for a Mac upgrade. On the other hand, a 2690 or 3090 NEC monitor would be a nice upgrade from my 20 Dell 2000FP monitor. I hope to have both within a year, but I can't make both purchases right now.

Michael

Those mac lab performance charts are redunk. They don't give you comprehensive reality numbers. Instead, take a look at these real world numbers; they'll make much more sense. If you don't want to read the whole article, scroll down until you get to the benchmark comparisons. They pit a 2.5GHz quad G5 against the new 2.66GHz Quad and the 2.26GHz 8-core machines, as well as the 3.06Ghz iMac.

http://www.macworld.com/article/139507/2009/03/macpro2009.html

And Photoshop CS3 and CS4 will run faster on an intel machine than it will on a G5.

--
***************************
You can't depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus.

• Mark Twain

***************************

http://www.flickr.com/photos/scoobs/

********

--
Michael
[email protected]

 

[chamberlinphoto]

The web link doesn't work.

Michael

Those mac lab performance charts are redunk. They don't give you comprehensive reality numbers. Instead, take a look at these real world numbers; they'll make much more sense. If you don't want to read the whole article, scroll down until you get to the benchmark comparisons. They pit a 2.5GHz quad G5 against the new 2.66GHz Quad and the 2.26GHz 8-core machines, as well as the 3.06Ghz iMac.

http://www.macworld.com/article/139507/2009/03/macpro2009.html

And Photoshop CS3 and CS4 will run faster on an intel machine than it will on a G5.

--
***************************
You can't depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus.

• Mark Twain

***************************

http://www.flickr.com/photos/scoobs/

********

--
Michael
[email protected]

 

[Scott Weierich86292]

It works for me.

Also, from what I have gathered, the 8-core machine (Nehalim) will more heavily benefit from Snow Leopard than the quad-core version. Plus the 8-core can hold twice as much memory. I opted for 3rd party memory from macsales.com. I swapped out the factory ram for 12 GB of OWC ram for the very affordable price of $248. If you get the quad-core model, in order to go to 12GB of memory you have to opt for the more expensive 4GB modules making 12GB cost $470. This makes the 8-core even more attractive!

Michael

Those mac lab performance charts are redunk. They don't give you comprehensive reality numbers. Instead, take a look at these real world numbers; they'll make much more sense. If you don't want to read the whole article, scroll down until you get to the benchmark comparisons. They pit a 2.5GHz quad G5 against the new 2.66GHz Quad and the 2.26GHz 8-core machines, as well as the 3.06Ghz iMac.

http://www.macworld.com/article/139507/2009/03/macpro2009.html

And Photoshop CS3 and CS4 will run faster on an intel machine than it will on a G5.

--
***************************
You can't depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus.

• Mark Twain

***************************

http://www.flickr.com/photos/scoobs/

********

--
Michael
[email protected]

--
Scott

 

[Scott Weierich86292]

You must be overlooking them. Go to the online store and click on the photo of a Mac Pro and it will take you to the page with a quad-core on the left and an 8-core on the right.

http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_mac/family/mac_pro?mco=MTE3MDU

I looked on the Apple website and don't see 2.66GHz machines. They're 4-core, correct? What kind of pricing is available, and where can they be found?

Michael

Considering the 2.66GHz machine can take in 16GB of ram, and a refurbed machine costs less than a new high-end iMac, it's a massive bargain right now.

--
Scott

 

[chamberlinphoto]

It works for me.

Also, from what I have gathered, the 8-core machine (Nehalim) will more heavily benefit from Snow Leopard than the quad-core version. Plus the 8-core can hold twice as much memory. I opted for 3rd party memory from macsales.com. I swapped out the factory ram for 12 GB of OWC ram for the very affordable price of $248. If you get the quad-core model, in order to go to 12GB of memory you have to opt for the more expensive 4GB modules making 12GB cost $470. This makes the 8-core even more attractive!

Scott,

Thanks for reminding me that the 4-core memory is more expensive than the 8-core memory. Yes. That does help defray costs for the 8-core.

Michael

 

[chamberlinphoto]

I'll probably get the 8-core.

The next decision is whether to get the computer or monitor first?
--
Michael
[email protected]