PDA

View Full Version : G5 now or wait for MacIntel & ware that runs on it?



Johnny
02-04-2007, 03:20 PM
I'm in a wierd spot right now..I do not have to be the fastest artist with the newest gear, but

I am in a spot where I could use more muscle. when you consider what I have now works with G4/G5 hardware, I'd like to grab a refurb or used G5, but those are all but dried up, or too pricey.

MacIntel are cheaper, but to get one now would be no real improvement. to wait 'til LW and FCP are re-written for them will involve more investment, more working out bugs, etc.

I shoulda jumped on a refurb G5 when I had the chance, but that's past.

Anyone else in a similar position, evaluating similar aspects of their studio when thinking about making this upgrade?

J

Captain Obvious
02-04-2007, 03:53 PM
FCP is already native for Intel.

Lightwave has a UB version in beta.

Go Intel.

rebohn
02-04-2007, 04:32 PM
While looking for something else I just noticed that DV Warehouse at
http://www.dvwarehouse.com/Apple-Power-Mac--G5-c-3986.html
has some G5's listed (or maybe these are the ones you mention as being too pricey)---just thought I'd pass it along

Captain Obvious
02-04-2007, 04:42 PM
Jesus Herbert Walker Christ on a pogo stick! :eek:

Who the heck pays almost two grand for a dual 2.5 GHz G5, when the QUAD Xeon can be had for not an awful lot more?

Chilton
02-04-2007, 06:03 PM
Buy the Intel Mac. Despite that the UB version of LightWave is not yet in the wild, it's so close right now that it would be irresponsible of me not to emphasize buying the Xeon.

Our internal benchmarks show a dramatic speed difference between the UB on Xeon vs. G5. And that's saying something, because our UB is faster on the G5 than the shipping version as well.

-Chilton

Johnny
02-04-2007, 06:33 PM
wow...lots of compelling arguments in favor of the intel mac...

the geek in me is jumpin' for joy, but the money counter is gnashing his teeth...

it's the rig PLUS the SW upgrade costs...guess there's no way around that one.

well, as long as a new HW purchase might be some weeks or months off for me, maybe I should wait to see what's on the horizon, and/or try to score a good Macintel refurb deal?

J

Chilton
02-04-2007, 07:58 PM
If you must wait, I'd wait until the 20th of Feb. That's the best guess right now for when Apple will bump their hardware line, which usually means the price of the current Mac line will drop.

***Note: This is pure speculation based on what I read on teh interwebz. Don't be disappointed if the 20th rolls around and there are no speed bumps.

Ryhnio
02-04-2007, 08:09 PM
Speakig of which I'm looking to sell my G5 Quad with 2 gigs of RAM, AppleCare till 09', 250 HD, 20" Apple Display, BT, Wireless, and a GeForce 6600... Anyone have a price range I should ask for? Also is ebay the best place to list?

Thanks!

-Ryhnio


(P.S GO INTEL!)

Johnny
02-04-2007, 08:57 PM
OK, now, I know the Xeon-based macs are the bee's knees, but my budget isn't there right now...I'd be more in the market for the 2GHz Intel iMac, or maybe even for an intel-based mini, since I have a monitor and KVM switch.

Are those macs going to be negligibly better than current G5 iMacs out there now, or still an improvement?

J

Tartiflette
02-05-2007, 03:43 AM
OK, now, I know the Xeon-based macs are the bee's knees, but my budget isn't there right now...I'd be more in the market for the 2GHz Intel iMac, or maybe even for an intel-based mini, since I have a monitor and KVM switch.

Are those macs going to be negligibly better than current G5 iMacs out there now, or still an improvement?

J
Just remember that Intel-based Mac Mini are using the awful Intel GMA 950 as graphic chip, and that is not good at all for 3D work.

However it can make a (very) good renderfarm node, 'cos it's fast and so small that you can stack a bunch of them in a croner and have a great deal of rendering power...

Anyway, if you look at the consumer line of Apple, i'd say go for the iMac ! Their graphic card are pretty good (even if there's better now...) and they are still powerful, yet affordable. I have the same graphic chip in my MacBookPro and can handle scenes and objects with large amount of polygons, even in the "Rosetta" version. That is to say that, when the UB ships, it'll be faster.

Just my 2 cents...


Regards,
Laurent aka Tartiflette :)

P.S. : To answer your second question, i'd say that Intel-based iMacs are going to be from 2,5x to 3,5x faster than G5 iMacs when rendering with LightWave...

gerry_g
02-05-2007, 03:55 AM
Company I do business with have gone all Intel iMac 23" and run a copy of Lightwave 8.5 on one, the machines are fantastic for the money and LW runs a lot better than you would think, even surprised me.

Johnny
02-05-2007, 04:40 AM
that is good to know, gerry g...

for me that iMac is just about perfect w/respect to cost, footprint, size, power...


J

Johnny
02-05-2007, 06:09 AM
I know that this bit I'm about to ask about isn't often discussed, but, does anyone know how much computing power per watt is delivered by MacIntel compared to that delivered by a G4 or G5 Mac?

In other words, for a given number of watts of electricity given to the computer, which one will complete more work?

I know, for example, that when the G5 was released, it was supposed to offer a huge amount of computational horsepower. Yet, it also slurped a lot of electricity to do it.

I've been reading a lot about Intel's low-power CPU technology...wondering if anyone here has any info relating to my question.

Chilton?

thanks!

J

John the Geek
02-05-2007, 06:54 AM
Some benchmarks... (http://creativemac.digitalmedianet.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=43717)

MacBook VS MacBook Pro VS Quad-core G5 tower

Johnny
02-05-2007, 06:59 AM
good gravy, that's impressive!

do you suppose the MacBook offers as much punch as the intel-based iMac of same chip speed?

I spoze lots depends on the speed of the hard drive...I'm guessing the MacBook comes with a pokier drive...

of course, I got around that with my Mini by employing a 7200RPM FW drive as the boot disc and ended up with a little flamethrower...

wouldn't work at the coffee shop so well, but, at home...


J

Tartiflette
02-05-2007, 07:00 AM
I know that this bit I'm about to ask about isn't often discussed, but, does anyone know how much computing power per watt is delivered by MacIntel compared to that delivered by a G4 or G5 Mac?

In other words, for a given number of watts of electricity given to the computer, which one will complete more work?

I know, for example, that when the G5 was released, it was supposed to offer a huge amount of computational horsepower. Yet, it also slurped a lot of electricity to do it.

I've been reading a lot about Intel's low-power CPU technology...wondering if anyone here has any info relating to my question.

Chilton?

thanks!

J
I don't have any number right now at my disposal for you to see, but Intel's recent chips, i.e. CoreDuo/Core2Duo/Xeon Woodcrest, are probably the best you can have in this ratio Performance Per Watt.

That's without any doubt the best you can have actually.


Regards,
Laurent aka Tartiflette :)

Tartiflette
02-05-2007, 07:02 AM
good gravy, that's impressive!

do you suppose the MacBook offers as much punch as the intel-based iMac of same chip speed?

I spoze lots depends on the speed of the hard drive...I'm guessing the MacBook comes with a pokier drive...


J
iMacs will perform better overall speaking, due to better HDs, better Graphic chip, etc, etc...


Regards,
Laurent aka Tartiflette :)

John the Geek
02-05-2007, 07:17 AM
Remember, none of those tests were 3D renders. I'd bank on the MacBook Pro and iMac running circles around the MacBook and the Mac mini due to having a dedicated GPU.

Lightwolf
02-05-2007, 07:25 AM
Remember, none of those tests were 3D renders. I'd bank on the MacBook Pro and iMac running circles around the MacBook and the Mac mini due to having a dedicated GPU.
The GPU doesn't make a difference when rendering final images, but quite a difference once you work interactively.

Cheers,
Mike

John the Geek
02-05-2007, 07:37 AM
Oh, well forget what I said them.

Octo-core Mac mini with 4GB RAM anyone? ;)

Lightwolf
02-05-2007, 07:49 AM
Oh, well forget what I said them.

Did you say something? :question: 8/

cheers,
Mike

avkills
02-05-2007, 04:01 PM
I'd get the MacPro unless you have a ton of invested software that only runs on PowerPC; and no money to upgrade. Adobe?? *Hello!* ;)

-mark

Captain Obvious
02-05-2007, 04:05 PM
The GPU doesn't make a difference when rendering final images, but quite a difference once you work interactively.

Cheers,
Mike
Well, technically, the OpenGL viewports are also "3D rendering." :)

Lightwolf
02-05-2007, 04:19 PM
Well, technically, the OpenGL viewports are also "3D rendering." :)
Hehe, well, that is precisely why I wrote "final" images, I knew some smart a*** like you would show up and mention OpenGL previews ;) :twak: :beerchug:

Cheers,
Mike

Captain Obvious
02-05-2007, 04:53 PM
I should really get business cards that say "professional smart-***" or something like that.

Lightwolf
02-06-2007, 02:05 AM
I should really get business cards that say "professional smart-***" or something like that.
:agree: - then again, I probably should as well ;)

Cheers,
Mike

Captain Obvious
02-06-2007, 01:47 PM
We should start our own business!

Something simple, like "Smart-arses, Inc."

We can have a web site and business cards and pay less tax! :)

Johnny
02-07-2007, 07:13 AM
The GPU doesn't make a difference when rendering final images, but quite a difference once you work interactively.

Cheers,
Mike

Can you describe what this is like? is it sort of like walking with rocks tied around your ankles, or just not quite as fast as you'd like it to be?

trying to go for biggest bang for the buck, and bang for the watt, here.

I work with G4 Minis right now, after having owned 2 DP G5s. the mini's aren't *as* fast, obviously, but, I can get work done and I'm not getting a big knot in the back of my neck.

J

Lightwolf
02-07-2007, 07:18 AM
Can you describe what this is like? is it sort of like walking with rocks tied around your ankles, or just not quite as fast as you'd like it to be?

trying to go for biggest bang for the buck, and bang for the watt, here.

Hm, even that depends, especially since the OpenGL pipeline is in flux.

However, I'd say anything beyond 100k polygons in a scene gets very painful without decent openGL, anything beyond 1 million just hurts.

Then again, I run on a lowly nVidia 5900FX....

Cheers,
Mike

Captain Obvious
02-07-2007, 07:21 AM
I haven't run LW9 on a Mac yet, but with LW8, the GPU doesn't make a difference. It seems to be done on the CPU anyway. I upgraded my* Radeon 9600 in my* old Power Mac G5 to a 9800 Pro with four times as much VRAM, and didn't even notice a difference in Lightwave. In everything else, on the other hand... Woah.

*Technically, it was my brother's machine, but I borrowed it while he was in Japan.

Lightwolf
02-07-2007, 07:29 AM
I haven't run LW9 on a Mac yet, but with LW8, the GPU doesn't make a difference.
This is changing though, GLSL as well as VBOs used to speed up the openGL viewports make much betters use of GPUs (as can be seen in some cases in 9.0). And I'm sure those areas will be worked on over time.

Cheers,
Mike