The IBM Powermac G5 Quad

Shephard

Senior member
Nov 3, 2012
765
0
0
Here's an old CPU some may be familiar with and others not. Thought I would share.

This is my PowerPC 970MP. It's a 2.5ghz 'Quadcore' - 2 CPU PowerPC processor. This was in Apple's final Power Mac G5 and it was there top of the line computer before the introduction of the Mac Pro in 2006.

This thing got so hot Apple needed to liquid cool it with a unit made by Delphi. Even liquid cooled, it still ran hot and noisy with 6 additional fans.

I gutted most of the computer to clean out the dust and troubleshoot. Thankfully I did not have any leakage which was a well documented problem with the liquid cooled G5's. Now I am putting it all back together!

I remember there was an old Anandtech article comparing the G5 was the new Mac Pro in which the Mac Pro destroyed it. Ran quieter (air cooled), drew less power, more powerful, and better interior.

The G5 was a great computer for it's time. I will be doing some benchmarks if I can get it up and running again.

9339696844_194ee51b41_o.jpg



9336906081_c86722ccc8_o.jpg

9336969747_c1fd0248da_o.jpg
 

dragantoe

Senior member
Oct 22, 2012
689
0
76
this is really cool! thanks for sharing it. it goes to show apple would probably be better off if they continued to buy cpus from intel instead of trying to make their own.
 

Cerb

Elite Member
Aug 26, 2000
17,484
33
86
I'm rather curious on how it performs compared to modern ULV dual cores.
Per-clock, they tended to be a little bit better than a P4, but not by much, if Altivec couldn't be made use of. Like the p4, it was made to scale higher in clocks, but failed to, on account of thermals (supposedly Altivec was largely to blame).

Per-core-per-clock, they were pretty much demolished by the Core 2 CPUs, and we've come a fair way, since then.

So, compared to modern cores, who knows, exactly, at least without benchmarking, but I doubt it could compete with an IB or HSW dual-core at 2GHz (save for maybe crippled Celerons, or something like that). It might even only just barely hold its own against Jaguar :).
 

SPBHM

Diamond Member
Sep 12, 2012
5,059
413
126
So, compared to modern cores, who knows, exactly, at least without benchmarking,

using google I found at least 2 different sources, one with 2.00 and one with 1.99 for cinebench 11.5, that's why I said I think it's the same score as ULV SB (DC HT) at 1.8-2GHz
 

Cerb

Elite Member
Aug 26, 2000
17,484
33
86
using google I found at least 2 different sources, one with 2.00 and one with 1.99 for cinebench 11.5, that's why I said I think it's the same score as ULV SB (DC HT) at 1.8-2GHz
Cinebench also made Bulldozer look good. I trust it as a scalability test, but not much more, and mentally :rolleyes: whenever a supposed AMD engineering sample new high score is sighted.

For example, I did manage this, thinking about potential places to look:
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geek...r:"PowerPC G5 (970MP)" frequency:2500 bits:64

http://browser.primatelabs.com/processor-benchmarks

A 2.9GHz mobile SB i7, FI, gets ~2x the Geekbench score. I don't even trust Geekbench to be a decent benchmark, but it's at least a test suite. The duals don't quite get 2x, but seem to get 1.25-1.5x...for whatever that's worth with Geekbench. The quads seem to get about 2x/clock, again, for whatever that's worth with Geekbench.
 
Last edited: