Compared to dual g5s

How does the MBP compare to the Powermac G5s? I wanna know if it can stand it's own ground...... (open for interpretation)

Not really. Most of the bench marks showing it lagging behind the dual G5 for most tasks right now.

Similar Messages

  • How fast, and aproblematic  is the Quad core compared to duals/DP's????

    hi
    should have one this saturday, with 4 GBS RAM
    yet
    many different reviews are not all on the same page as to how fast this baby is.
    1-is is worth the expense in terms of speed?
    2-are there major problems with it that you think need fixing?
    3-how does it compare to the DP 2.5 or 2.7 GHZ G5's
    any other commendations, hints or negative attributes greatly appreciated
    thanks

    One thing I can say is that if you already purchased one .. don't worry about it. Any worries you may have had .. I am sure you reasearched it deeply befor plunking 4 Grand+ on a machine.
    In summary, any single threaded app .. the 2.7Ghz will beat the Quad. Any multi-threaded app, the Quad will beat any dual G5.
    S.r.

  • Dual G5s won't wake up -- fans going full-bore

    Several times since upgrading to 10.4.4, I have had the following happen: The G5 appears to be asleep, except that the fans are running full-bore. It doesn't respond to keyboard, mouse, or brief power-key presses. It also doesn't respond to attempts to ssh or ping from another machine. Holding down the power key does shut it down; on restarting everything appears to be normal.
    This had never happened before upgrading to 10.4.4, but it's happened three times since then on two different machines.
    Twice, it happened as follows: I left the machine overnight at the login window (not asleep), with one user logged in. Upon returning the next morning, found the machine in the condition described.
    The other time, I was at the login window, with one user logged in, and clicked the Sleep button. The machine seemed to go to sleep with the display dark, but then the fans kicked in and the machine was completely unresponsive, as described above.
    Machine 1:
    PowerMac G5 Dual 2.0
    4.5 GB RAM
    No external FW devices
    2 internal hard drives
    Samsung display
    Never manually put to sleep, set to never go to sleep due to inactivity.
    Machine 2:
    PowerMac G5 Dual 2.0
    2.5 GB RAM
    External FW hard drive
    1 internal hard drive
    Apple display
    Routinely put to sleep manually
    Any suggestions?

    Some discussion of a similar problem
    http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=1536316&#1536316
    Anything unusual in the logs?

  • Dual core versus quad core?

    Is there a noticeable difference in speed when comparing a dual core versus a quad core iMac where the advertised speeds are essentially the same, say -- 2.7 ghz CPUs, both running the latest Mac OS 10.82, and iLife, iWork, or MS Office suite programs for MAC?

    Chances are for the type of work you're doing an i7 iMac would be a complete waste of money. Where  you may benefit is 5 years from now if your work flow changes a lot where you use apps that draw on the power of an i7. However  none of can look into a crystal ball and decide today what we will need years down the road so if you want to bet safe, buy as much as you can afford.

  • Compatible graphics cards for old G5s

    I have one of the original G5 Dual Core Macs, introduced durring the summer of 2003. Does anyone know what graphics cards are compatible with this machine that are 128mb and above? Preferrably still available somehow...

    I also have one of the original Dual G5s from october 2003 and my Radeon 9600 is dying a horrible death and I am utterly disappointed that I cannot find a replacement anywhere. Especially from Apple, of all companies.
    ATI's backlog on the 9600 and 9800 are 40+ days and of course the x800 is discontinued totally.
    I can't wait possibly 6 weeks for a video card rom anywhere? ROHS ***** but!!!!!!

  • Dual 2.0 ghz G5 vs. dual-core 2.0 ghz G5

    i was just wondering. processor wise which is better?

    Hello! Compare the dual 2.0 specs HERE to the dual core specs HERE. One of the biggest advantages is the dual core processors generates less heat.Tom
    G-4/Sawtooth/1.2ghz Sonnet/10.3.6/2gig ram-G-4 1.8ghz Sawtooth 9.2.2 & 10.3.9 Mac OS X (10.3.6)

  • Void between the iMacs and Mac Pro's.

    The iMac is a powerful system but lack of PCI slots, single display does not work for everyone.
    I want to upgrade and sell my G5 Dual 2.3 and move on to intel macs. A core 2 Duo Intel mac with PCI slots and multi display support will suit my purposes just fine.
    I could go Macbook with external display but if its a machines i will carry around, i dont feel comfortable carrying my main studio machine around.
    Or maybe i just haven't gotten out of the mindset and accepted an iMac as a super professional machine.
    Do i make any sense at all ?
    ps: Who's running an iMac as their main studio machine in atleast a semi-pro environment where clients come in regularly. And how do a FW interface and Harddrive behave together........ ?
    <Edited by Moderator>

    Faisal Baig wrote:
    Does anyone else feel that Apple should have kept atleast 2 lower end options for those who want to be on a Mac Pro, but cant afford them.
    They had moved to a "4 core" base model some time ago and you can still configure it with 4 cores you just get 1 Quad instead of 2 Duals. The cost is the cost of the system my friend but it is a pro workstation that you will have no need to upgrade from for a long time. These Intel's have a good lifespan compared to the G5s.
    Faisal Baig wrote:
    A core 2 Duo Intel mac with PCI slots and multi display support will suit my purposes just fine.
    No such Mac.
    Faisal Baig wrote:
    Or maybe i just haven't gotten out of the mindset and accepted an iMac as a super professional machine.
    For audio its not.
    Faisal Baig wrote:
    Do i make any sense at all ?
    Sure you do!
    Faisal Baig wrote:
    And how do a FW interface and Harddrive behave together........ ?
    Main problem with the iMacs is the lack of expansion as you have pointed out. You will always have devices competing for bandwidth on the internal FireWire bus. Also the FireWire bus is only as fast as the slowest device on the tree so you can lose performance quickly that way. With expansion ports you can record in one bus and write out another and get much better performance that way. But with 4 drive bays on the MacPro you won't need to write out a bus except for backup or if you were to get an external RAID.
    Cheers!

  • Render Beast

    Hi, we are looking for a way to increase our render speeds from Compressor and final cut. We currently have 3 8core intel MacPros running FCS2. We also have a few 1.8 dual G5s sitting around and was wondering if there is a way to utilize these as a render farm or to hijack their processing power using either firewire or ethernet.
    I realise that Qmaster can be used for this purpose but our MacPros are located on a larger network and we would like to isolate this so that other network activity does not slow the process down.
    Is it also possible to not use Qmaster and create a "Render Beast" by simply networking these G5's to a single Mac Pro?
    Thank You.
    Barry

    One aspect, is you mentioned you are still based on the FC Studio 2 suite. This means you can readily install the 'AppleQmasterNode' package onto PowerPC Macs, and use those as additional service nodes in a cluster, and/or as a cluster controller.
    This can also be done with the FC Studio 3 suite. However the installer for the AppleQmasterNode package refuses to install onto PowerPC machines. This is very easy to remedy, as mentioned elsewhere in my posts, should you need it.
    Another aspect, is your network connections. If you truly believe that your primary LAN is busy enough that it can adversely affect something like a Qmaster farm, (which is quite feasible), then here are a couple of suggestions:
    Your Mac Pros have two Ethernet ports. Use one to connect to the primary LAN, and use the other to connect to a [newly created] isolated LAN. Setup your Qmaster nodes to only publish themselves onto the isolated LAN. Those aging PowerPC Macs can be set up the same, if they have two Eth ports. Otherwise, they can be used only on the isolated LAN.
    You can dedicate one or more of the aging PowerPC Macs directly to individual Intel Mac Pros, via Firewire connection. (Use the 800 ports if available!!!) The Qmaster setup in this case, would only allow the processing node services of the dedicated PPC Mac to be used by the attached Intel Mac Pro --- you don't want its service to be seen on the LAN, as then the service traffic would be get onto the LAN, which is what you are trying to avoid!
    Note that if the PPC Macs have only one Eth port, and still need to be used for some other purpose, and need access to the primary LAN, and possibly the Internet, this will affect how feasible it is to use these suggestions.
    Also note that in any Qmaster configuration, you need to run some A-to-B comparison tests, to figure out when/if you get any benefit [as compared to just processing on the local machine]. Size of the job, type of the job, etc., all come into play as to when benefits are to be seen. This knowledge then becomes part of your "toolset", such that you make decisions to send certain jobs to the cluster, and others local.
    Cheers,
    -Rick

  • Open letter to Verizon regarding Tab 7.7 ICS Update

    Note: This is a copy of an e-mail I submitted to Verizon Wireless regarding my Galaxy Tab 7.7 LTE tablet, in order to ensure that Verizon receives the communication and to share the concern with the community which has substantially discussed the issue.  If this violates the content regulations of Verizon's forums, accept my apologies -- I have never been clear on the guidelines. 
    Dear Verizon Wireless,
    The primary purpose of writing is to notify you that I will be withholding 75% of my payment on the data plan for my Samsung Galaxy Tab 7.7, in light of Verizon's degradation of service on this device.  Upon purchasing the device in June, I was told that it would be receiving the Android 4.0 "Ice Cream Sandwich" (ICS) system update.  By that point, ICS had been released from Google for nearly eight months.  In August, Verizon began updating its branded LTE tablets in earnest, but it was not until early October that the ICS update for the Galaxy Tab 7.7 LTE was formally announced.  After a failed update push, Verizon has been silent on any plans for the past two months.  Its response to a discussion on this topic in the Verizon Online Community was to simply remove comments and shut down the discussion without answering any of the community questions.
    Most apps in the Android Market now require ICS or later.  The Google Nexus 7 tablet, a comparable tablet to the 7.7, is now shipping with Android 4.2, a full two major revisions past the version Verizon has yet to deploy to the Tab 7.7.  Additionally, I personally have experienced increasing instability with the tablet, with the network failing and requiring a manual restart multiple times a week.
    At whatever time Verizon successfully updates my device to ICS, I will happily return to paying my bill in full.  Additionally, I am more than willing to discuss this with a Verizon agent to come to a better resolution.  However, given Verizon's current response of ignoring the problem and providing no explanation, and continuing to offer a degraded service below that which was promised upon purchase, I must take this step in an attempt to protect my interests.
    Again, I would much prefer an amicable solution to this situation.  Please feel free to call me on my Verizon phone number to discuss this.

    In regards to this, I'm going to post excerpts of a post I placed in another thread with additional research about update timelines, Verizon's extremely loose interpretation of the word "soon", and the despicable service provided to owners of this tablet, as it relates to the specifics of this thread's topic. I am also including significant additional information relating my attempts to acquire additional information.
    I purchased the Galaxy 7.7 in April this year. Like most (if not all) others, I bought it with the promise of an update to ICS soon. At this time, eight months later, I, like the vast majority of owners, am still on 3.2 (Honeycomb). Honeycomb does not support many of the apps I use, and more developers drop support for it every day, as its device presence percentage drops close to that of Cupcake and Donut (Android 1.5 and 1.6) and has already sunk below Eclair (Android 2.1), according tohttp://developer.android.com/about/dashboards/index.html (This is a direct link to Google's own site, where they publish such information; last sample conducted over 14 days ending Nov 1, 2012).
    ...My local Verizon corporate store is selling the tablet with ICS pre-loaded. This means the software not only exists, but has been successfully deployed to retail units.
    ...The original Droid only took four months to get the 2.1 update, and the 2.2 update followed five months later in August of 2009. Keep in mind, these updates were being developed between these pushes, with 2.2 only being announced by Google in May of '09. That is 3 months from announcement to deployment. ...
    Our Galaxy Tab 7.7's have now waited 13 months since the release of 4.0 by Google and still are not up to date. I'll permit Verizon the few months that they did not have the tablet, but this reduces the delay to "only" 9 months, two to three times longer than it took for other devices to be upgraded. Oh, and we're still waiting on the update. It might be suggested I'm being unfair at this point by comparing a dual-core highly advanced tablet with a much older, single-core phone that came out while Verizon had far fewer smartphones to maintain, so I'm also going to compare it to the Motorola XOOM, a contemporary device with similar hardware and software at release.
    The Motorola XOOM was released February of 2011 as an incomplete project, again with the word "Soon" attached to those missing features. It took 6 months (August) to receive the SD card update. Similar to the original Droid, though, the update was only made available from Google in June, meaning it only took two months for Verizon to deploy the upgrade once it was released by Google. The LTE upgrade came out just a month later in September, seven months after the launch of the tablet. This delay could, theoretically, be pinned on Motorola, but my suspicion is that it originates with Verizon. Android 4.0 took seven months from the date it was published by Google (November 2011) to be released to Verizon XOOM owners (June 2012).
    Galaxy Tab 7.7 early adopters have now waited an extraordinary nine months since their tablet was launched for their "Soon" to be fulfilled, and there's no end to the wait in sight as Verizon actively avoids communicating with their customers on the matter.
    Explanations can do quite a bit to quell customer anger, as can simply finishing the update and publishing it.  We've received neither, and the existence of the updated software on new units being sold adds rather grievous insult to dysfunctional software that has become an injury to those who rely on this equipment to function.  I feel this is paramount to telling us that we, as existing customers, simply do not matter.
    I have two further pieces of information to add that were not in my original post.  Today I contacted both Samsung and Verizon Wireless about this matter, directly.  The Samsung rep was, unfortunately, either incompetent or completely uninformed.  Nice, polite, but unable to provide any relevant information due to either Samsung's rules or training, or lack of personal knowledge.  The Verizon rep was far, far worse.  I'm a very polite person when speaking (I'm in sales, I have to be, even to people who are being rude), and I didn't even get a third of the way into describing the issue before I was being interrupted by this defensive, crass individual.  When I finally managed to get her to listen to my problem, her response after a minute of typing on her computer was that it was "currently available" and "[she] has no way to push it to my device" and "[I] have to wait for the network to push it".  I very calmly explained to her that the documentation she was looking at was from October (she acknowledged spotting this on the documentation once I pointed it out), that the update never came through and was pulled due to issues, and that I knew both methods of forcing the tablet to check for updates.  She then claimed that a coworker had handed her a Tab 7.7 running 3.2 and that it was the "current version" and that Verizon had never offered an upgrade to 4.0, in direct opposition to her earlier statements and my own eyes.  This...farce went on for nearly twenty minutes before I ended the call.
    It was the most insulting, rude customer service I have received in years.  I felt like I was being talked to like one would address an errant child, not a paying customer.  The last time I was treated this way by a cellular carrier, I left them, switching from Sprint to Verizon.  Unfortunately, I am stuck on Verizon at this point due to unlimited data and hotspot on my personal line, and extraordinarily heavy personal usage, but I have no such motivation to have a 3G/4G tablet through them.  I prefer it due to battery concerns, but an extended battery and larger phone are worth the cost of never having to deal with Verizon's spectacularly awful treatment of their tablet customers ever again.
    Even though they're keeping my account, it's shrinking by two tablet lines.

  • Constant mds activity in AFP log

    Every user pops out the following errors every two minutes in the AFP log:
    IP 192.168.1.xxx - - [18/Apr/2008:15:26:21 -0800] "Delete mds-lock-dir" -5007 0 0
    IP 192.168.1.xxx - - [18/Apr/2008:15:26:21 -0800] "Delete master-status" 0 0 0
    IP 192.168.1.xxx - - [18/Apr/2008:15:26:21 -0800] "Delete mds-lock-dir-<computername>.local-2c6da58" 0 0 0
    AppleFileServer is running a constant 20-35%, which I assume is related to this problem since a similar server in another location is not exhibiting this mds issue in the log, and is running at a nice 0-2% of cpu (both of these are dual-G5s).
    Setup is 10.5.2 server, OD replica. I thought this had something to do with Spotlight (mds?), so disabled Spotlight on the share but no difference. I thought it might have to do with the OD replica (master-status?), so rebuilt it by changing it to connected to ds, then back to replica; no change.
    Many thanks for any thoughts you might have...
    z

    Standard indexing behavior I guess

  • Would working from a locked project file cause problems?

    Hi all.
    working in FCP 4.5 on numerous Dual G5s (2.0 & 1.8 GHz) with sufficient RAM (4 GB+).
    I'm working on a large project with a number of editors and I've created projects that each editor can use as references to the material. I lock the reference projects so that if they inadvertantly make changes to them, they will be reminded that the changes will be lost when they close out of the project. A theory has arisen that we are seeing performance degredation due to conflicts with Autosave. By performance degredation, I mean that responsiveness decreases, and an occasional crash occurs. I'm just wondering if the concern is valid. I'm just wondering if the concern is valid. My feeling is that it's too intermittent to be autosave's fault. Has anyone come across this?
    thanks,
    jack

    nothing is written to the project file between saves, so it seems unlikely that your issues are related to their lock status. autosave only requires that a project has a pre-existing project file in order to work, so again, the issue would sem to be unrelated
    ... ok, so much for logic. the real resolution is likely only to come with be some controlled trial and error. see how you get on with unlocked project files and see if the performance issues disappear.

  • Avid to FCP DV export

    A question for my learned colleagues... I have a chance to create a tapeless workflow based on exporting a finished PAL DV25 420 sequence from Avid Xpress Pro and using that somehow in FCP, but the absolute proviso is not to take a quality hit on the way. The typical Avid plethora of confusing choices for QT export surely means they can't all export the media content in a native state...
    I know Avid DV codecs reverse the field order of DV to match standard 601 (is that how they mix res's in timelines?) so some wrapper translation is inevitable. But I'd like to find a way to export the "essence" (to borrow a term from MXF) without modification. Most people suggest DVStream as the best "rewrap", but DVStream, though native to iMovie, has never been the best choice for FCP...
    If it all gets too hard I'll go via tape but a faster-than-real-time picture export is tempting, especially as we need one for ProTools. Can anyone shed any light on this?
    Thanks!
    Quad G5, 3 x Dual G5s, G4 AGP @ 1 GHz   Mac OS X (10.4.6)   FCP 5.0.4, Final Touch HD

    might be worth installing Avid's DV codec onto your FCP Mac, and then take a look at Shane's tip for Editing non-standard FCP codecs
    hope it helps

  • CS3 Paste in Front - Busted?

    Hello,
    A number of people in our offices are getting some very odd behaviour with AICS3, big site license running on dual G5s mounted with 10.4.10.
    When you cut or copy a group of objects composed of vector and raster components and then paste in front the bitmaps jump around, move, change scale, jump outside their masks or even swap or duplicate totally at random. The same thing happens if you drag the target objects from one file to another.
    The IT and software support folks have looked the jobs over and say that from now on we just have to live with this OR group all objects on one layer before trying to paste in front.
    Is this really a bug in CS3? Are other users running into this issue and if so how are people coping? Any information would be gladly received.
    Thanks in advance,
    Scott Wicks

    Hello Hans,
    Thank you for your response.
    Wow -you have been finding a lot more problems than we have.
    We have also noticed that Appearances are problematic. Appearances often won't "let go" or let you sample another appearance or go away with anything other than a "Clear Appearance" or "Object has Basic Appearance" menu command from the fly off in the Appearance Pallet. It's like the old cursed object problem come back except harder to fix.
    We also find that elements like type strings that have been painted with an Appearance that includes multiple strokes, drop shadows etc "loses" the information in the pallet so you cannot tell what the style is unless you expand a duplicate and check it manually. When type treated in this fashion is sampled and applied to another type element the target object often does not receive all of the attributes and looks and acts different.
    Go figure.
    We have no choice in what version of AI to use. We are mandated to use CS3 even though our major image carrier and pre-press vendors have even worse problems coping with the files. We keep v10, CS1, CS2 and CS3 on most of the workstations so that we can deal with legacy files. Legacy files cause so many problems that it is not practical to comment here.
    Do you think the above issues are related to OS? Are you sticking with CS2 to avoid this kind of silliness? In your experience do things get any better if you use the latest and greatest OS? We have all of the patches for CS3 installed by the IT guys and still find things really buggy in 10.4.10 Build 8R218. There has been some discussion leading us to speculate tht CS3 Mac is just a dog version of AI and that we just have to grin and bear it until the next creative suite release.
    Any information or tips would be gratefully received.
    Thanks,
    sw

  • Quartz Extreme Support

    Can anyone explain this error code to me? "This software requires certain hardware or software which is missing." I got that after installing FCP 5.1 and doing a software update.
    Help

    On one of my Dual G5s, after I did an upgrade with my crossgrade Final Cut Studio Disks and a Software update, I finished editing a project I was working on. I then Shut the system down for about two hours. When I tried to launch FCP, I got the error "This software requires certain hardware or software which is missing." Under that phrase were the words "Quartz Extreme Support" and the quit button.

  • Stop GB from opening most recent song

    Hello,
    I teach electronic music in a lab (dual G5s with OSX 10.4.10) using Logic and GarageBand, and GB has been annoying me and my students because it always opens the most recent song when started up.
    I realize that if you close the song before quitting GarageBand, it will open with the dialog, but that's not a reliable, consistent, or automatic solution. Is there any way to force GB to simply open with its dialog box, instead of automatically open the most recent file (that probably belongs to somebody else)?
    Thanks,
    Matt

    ... but you can create an "empty" template, with your favorite tracks pre-configured, and open that instead of clicking the GB icon (you can even replace GB's dock icon with the template). Just make sure you immediately save it under a new name.

Maybe you are looking for