or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › G5 Rumors
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

G5 Rumors - Page 2

post #41 of 484
Whistler said:
[quote]Heh - get tired of the ArsTechnica boards JFW?<hr></blockquote>

Funny as it sounds, most of the people I get tired of are probably here as well &lt;jest&gt;

Actually, my account on AI goes back to December 99, before I registered with Ars.
rm -rf /bin/laden
Reply
rm -rf /bin/laden
Reply
post #42 of 484
[quote]Originally posted by Cipher13:
<strong>I say January; they COULD be out by then. It really depends on whether Apple wants the power out there, or whether they wanna milk the G4 for all the cash they can. I don't think they'll sell many more with the advent of the G5 possibly so close.</strong><hr></blockquote>

[quote]Originally posted by Jonathan:
<strong>agree with Cipher.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Agree with Jonathan!

I also believe that the iMac (or the iMac 2) will move to the G4 at the same time. Apple will refresh the entire desktop line at once, when this happens.

[ 11-13-2001: Message edited by: FormerLurker ]</p>
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #43 of 484
My guess is that if they do G5s, they'll stop with the duals. They'll be too expensive, and they just don't help most people very much.

BTW, I have a PowerMac with a single G4 800Mhz, with a vestigial appendange of another G4 800Mhz. It doesn't run my software any faster, but it lets me keep the thermostat down in my office.
*ducks and runs*
post #44 of 484
Overclocked 733mhz?
ICQ: 41746288
Apple Computer: The company you love to hate, and hate to love...
Reply
ICQ: 41746288
Apple Computer: The company you love to hate, and hate to love...
Reply
post #45 of 484
what do you think one of those puppys would run you? G5 that is, with all the options. desktop and laptop. $3,000 and $4,000?
post #46 of 484
There is no way the G5 will appear in a laptop any time soon, if the rumored specs are anywhere near accurate. If MOSR is right (and that's a big if) then the earliest we'll see one is late fall 2002/MWSF 2003, when a lower power version of the G5 rolls off the lines. If the desktop G5 appears this next MWSF, I'd say that's optimistic, but not impossible.

As for how much the desktops cost, that depends on how much Mot charges for the chip, and the rumors are all over the map on that. I'm guessing that the 7450 bows in at $1599 and $2099, and the G5 starts at $2599 and goes up.

[ 11-13-2001: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
post #47 of 484
[quote]Originally posted by Cipher13:
<strong>I say January; they COULD be out by then. It really depends on whether Apple wants the power out there, or whether they wanna milk the G4 for all the cash they can. I don't think they'll sell many more with the advent of the G5 possibly so close.</strong><hr></blockquote>

woah! ::rubs eyes::

cipher? a junior member?

post #48 of 484
[quote]Originally posted by Amorph:
<strong>There is no way the G5 will appear in a laptop any time soon, if the rumored specs are anywhere near accurate. If MOSR is right (and that's a big if) then the earliest we'll see one is late fall 2002/MWSF 2003, when a lower power version of the G5 rolls off the lines. If the desktop G5 appears this next MWSF, I'd say that's optimistic, but not impossible.

As for how much the desktops cost, that depends on how much Mot charges for the chip, and the rumors are all over the map on that. I'm guessing that the 7450 bows in at $1599 and $2099, and the G5 starts at $2599 and goes up.

[ 11-13-2001: Message edited by: Amorph ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

well damn it, my birthday is in February and I wanted to get a fresh new PB, not a G5 but the fastest one
post #49 of 484
[quote]Originally posted by JW Pepper:
<strong>There is a strange assumption in this thread.

"Apple wants to milk the G4 for a bit longer"

Two problems with this:-

1. blah

2. blah blah

If they can manufcature a range of faster processors at similar yeilds they will do so without uping the price.

One caveat, if the roomers at MOSR were true, a 2.4GHZ G5. Apple would want to milk a premium price for the fastest desktop for a while. But volume is what is needed and without volume sales Apple will die. It is as important to Apple to provide the fastest processors as it is to us.

Apple will sell the fastest kit it can make.</strong><hr></blockquote>

One problem with this: -

You're assuming a perfect world where decisions are made based on engineering and technical data like chip yield alone.

That's not the case. Sometimes, the marketing department determines the release schedule.

I see it happening this way - G4 desktops get bumped in Jan. and break the GHz barrier before they are phased out of the PowerMac line. Meanwhile, the MHz bump in the G4 allows them to bump the iMac up to 9xx MHz at the top of the line.

Then in the summer, they can bump the PowerMac to G5 and the iMac to G4 (and LCD of course - ten thousand rumors can't be wrong)


[quote]Originally posted by Godzappa:
<strong>I want to see a Macworld where the Mhz Myth ISN'T explained, because the evidence that the new Macs are faster will be so crystal clear that Michael Dell will be dropping bunny turds for months on end.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

LOL
Well said! This is exactly what I expect/hope if the rumors of the G5 raw processing power are even halfway true.


[quote]Originally posted by Mac The Fork:
<strong>My sources report that it is more likely that the G5 will be delayed until Apple is done creating their Raycer graphics processor.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Now CUT that out, Knife... uhhh, I mean "Fork"

You're probably kidding, but you're making me drool on my keyboard anyway!

Mmmmmmmmmm... Raaaaaacer Graaaaaaphics Chiiiiiiiip.. &lt;/homersimpson&gt;

[quote]Originally posted by DigitalMonkeyBoy:
<strong>Godzappa, the Mhz myth is very well explained.

</strong><hr></blockquote>

I think you are missing this forest for the trees.

The MHz Myth is very well explained... to 90% of the non-trollers on this board. It's very well explained... to people like us.

It's explained to and/or understood by no more than 5% of the people buying computers at Circuit City, CompUSA, and/or based on whose commercial they just saw on TV and what their friend/neighbor/relative the "PC expert" is telling them. Apple said it best themselves at the launch of the retail stores... 95% of the people who bought a Windows computer instead of a Mac, never even considered a Mac as a prospective choice.

[quote]<strong>
If the public does not want to believe that processor efficiency is the generally important factor then thats life unless Apple is going to release a string of advertisements going through that.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

We would all cheer and high-five each other if Apple/Chiat made a commercial to "to through" that. But unless they produce a 30-sec. masterpiece, they will just be preaching to the choir yet again.

Try to keep in mind - commercials don't educate, they create brand awareness.... they (subliminally) make you ("you" being an average consumer, as opposed to someone posting to AI on the first night of AI's return) want go check out ("check out" meaning not buying something today, but maybe bringing the spouse by to see what a Mac can do on your next mall trip) the Apple Store when you are wandering through your city's newest mall this holiday season.

[quote]<strong>
Apple's G4 line currently stands up to the Pentium 4 as well as it needs to.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

NO it does NOT (except for Altivec-enhanced apps), and never will from a markeing standpoint because the majority of the public is not educated in regards to the Myth. It doesn't stand up to retail competitiveness and marketshare growth any more than the iMac's 15" monitor on a $1499 computer does in a 17" PC system for $899 marketplace.

Apple has paid (and is paying) big bucks to Marketsource to supply Apple Reps to Circuit City and CompUSA to keep display models in running orders and educate the sales staff. They have done a decent (and in many stores outstanding) job of educating the StuporStore sales reps on the Myth. I've even seen a few of these reps sell their PC to buy a Mac!

But, if you are a commissioned sales rep, are you going to bother telling the story of the Myth and the Mac Advantages to someone who wants to buy a 900 MHz or 1.1 GHz PC, or are you just going to shut up and make the sale of a Windoze machine?

95% of the people who buy a Mac from Circuit City or chumpUSA, do so ONLY because they came into the store intending to buy a Mac, and the sales rep managed to serve them well enough (thanks to the work of marketsource) to keep them from running home screaming to their MacWarehouse catalog.

All too seldom (but it does happen), the customer mentions an interest in digital video, and the well-trained sales rep shows them a quick demo of iMovie, and someone not intending to buy a Mac ends up with one anyway.

These "superstores" are not, and never will, grow marketshare.... hence the Apple Stores.

Unlike the last Grand Experiment to grow marketshare (see Power Computing and the Clone Fiasco), this one has not been rushed out, will grow rather than slash sales, etc. We are in it for the long term, and we have the cash reserves in place to support a year or so of little/no retail store profit (as long as overall we are profitable), especially in the current climate where the majority of PC box maakers are "beleagured".

If anyone is wondering, I know the retail arena very well, having been paid by Marketsource to be an Apple rep for over 3 years now (and sold for a mom-pop Apple Specialist for 5 years before that). If anyone from Apple Legal happens to be paying attention, I am quite sure that the above statements do NOT violate my NDA, as it is not Apple Confidential Information, but purely my own opinion and NOT the opinion of Marketsource and/or Apple Computer.....

[quote]<strong>
The G4 is more efficient by a large margin being that the P4's behemoth pipeline depth squanders every single piece of special gadgtery they shoved in it.

The P4 is a makerting tool, and not as efficient as the P3! As long as Intel can lap up the masses with the MHZ myth.....

How does one stupify the messgae of efficiency enough so that the public would buy it?
</strong><hr></blockquote>

You are exactly right. I said it before and I will say it again because it bears repeating.....

The MHz Myth, and the associated concepts of pipelines, etc, is explained to and/or understood by no more than 5% of the people buying computers at Circuit City, CompUSA, and based on whose commercial they just saw on TV, and what their friend/neighbor/relative the "PC expert" is telling them.

Ignoring the fact that the last sentence of your post directly contridicts the first one, here's what I believe is happening:

Apple is basically coasting on their core user base (thus the "milking" comments on the first page of this thread), and will do so until at least mid-2002....the G5 will not explode on the scene till Apple has at least 40-50 retail stores open... that's when "5 down and 95 to go" gets really serious!!!

Meanwhile, a large percentage of the creative, power-user crowd will buy whatever Apple has in the latest Power Mac every year or two, as long as the (perceived AND real) performance increase is there. The Power Mac line is currently rebounding from a most ugly stagnation.

Think about it - if you owned a G3/400, how anxious were you to upgrade to a G4/450 a year ago? OTOH, today, if you own a G3/400, you can replace it with a 733 or 867 - now THAT is a reason to upgrade!! And so, that is a reason for Apple to milk the G4 for another 6 months minimum.

I don't see the message of the MHz being "stupified" enough to make a difference till we see the G5, and until Apple Stores are widespread enough to get the message to the masses like TV commercials and superstore sales reps never will do. See Godzappa's post above....

[quote]Originally posted by Godzappa:
<strong>
My 2 year old G4 is still going strong after friends' PCs bought at the same time are being used as door stops, but we're preaching to the preachers here...
</strong><hr></blockquote>

E X A C T L Y !

WHEW - this went WAY longer than I intended... but then there are so many thoughtful posts to reply to here... "welcome back" to AI, and "C-ya" to a good night's sleep!

Final random thought for the night - Jobs should give an Apple board seat to John Lassiter, to help secure Apple's place as THE computer for creative/showbiz people.

[ 11-13-2001: Message edited by: FormerLurker ]</p>
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #50 of 484
[quote]Originally posted by BRussell:
<strong>My guess is that if they do G5s, they'll stop with the duals. They'll be too expensive, and they just don't help most people very much.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Maybe for an MP G5 would be too much for the "normal" PowerMac crowd, but I bet they could get away with selling MP G5s as servers.
post #51 of 484
[quote]Originally posted by Whisper:
<strong>

Maybe for an MP G5 would be too much for the "normal" PowerMac crowd.....</strong><hr></blockquote>

Nope.

The hard-core creative crowd (AKA the "normal" PowerMac crowd) will pay to push their pixels and render their frames faster - time is $$$$ !!

Make a MP G5 running an optimized 10.2, and you'll not only get the current power-creative users to upgrade, you'll also get back those who defected over the last few years for the price/performance of NT on x86 but still really miss the elegance of their Macs.

ROI is king in both the creative and number-crunching business world, and a MP G5, even at $4999, makes a LOT of financial and business sense for a large chunk of Apple's core ("high-margin, thanks-for-keeping-us-in-business") mkt. of Creative Pro Users.

[ 11-13-2001: Message edited by: FormerLurker ]</p>
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #52 of 484
[quote]Originally posted by FormerLurker:
<strong>

Nope.

The hard-core creative crowd (AKA the "normal" PowerMac crowd) will pay to push their pixels and render their frames faster - time is $$$$ !!

Make a MP G5 running an optimized 10.2, and you'll not only get the current power-creative users to upgrade, you'll also get back those who defected over the last few years for the price/performance of NT on x86 but still really miss the elegance of their Macs.

ROI is king in both the creative and number-crunching business world, and a MP G5, even at $4999, makes a LOT of financial and business sense for a large chunk of Apple's core ("high-margin, thanks-for-keeping-us-in-business") mkt. of Creative Pro Users.

[ 11-13-2001: Message edited by: FormerLurker ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

My mistake, I should have explained myself better. For some odd reason, I thought "normal" meant exclusively Prosumer and low-end Professional (or something like that). In short, I agree with you, even though you're disagreeing with me. Make sense?
post #53 of 484
[quote]Originally posted by Whisper:
<strong>

My mistake, I should have explained myself better. For some odd reason, I thought "normal" meant exclusively Prosumer and low-end Professional (or something like that). In short, I agree with you, even though you're disagreeing with me. Make sense? </strong><hr></blockquote>

Yes it does, as what I said seems to, for you.

Furthermore, I'm not looking to flame anyone I disagree with - I very much like the tenor of intelligent discussion on these revived boards so far - AI always had it, MacNN never did and never will...

Gotta go get some sleep now, but I'll leave you with this agreement to disagree...

<strong> [quote]
For some odd reason, I thought "normal" meant exclusively Prosumer and low-end Professional (or something like that).</strong><hr></blockquote>

Thought One:

"Why Be Normal?" bumper sticker = "Think Different"
Perhaps you should re-think your use of the term "normal" in this context

Thought Two:

Your theorized "Prosumer/low-end Pro" market was the target market for the G4 Cube.

I own a Cube, and I'm incredibly thrilled with (and emotionally attatched to) it, but I understand that not enough people Thought as Different as I did...
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #54 of 484
[quote]Originally posted by BRussell:
<strong>My guess is that if they do G5s, they'll stop with the duals. They'll be too expensive, and they just don't help most people very much</strong><hr></blockquote>

Weeellll....

I would love to have dual or even quad engines to run my web servers on.

Now that Lasso comes with an embedded MySQL db and speed is possible, I want as much as I can get.

Oh...

And rack sized.
- me

$me = ('Berber' + 'Carpet');
Reply
- me

$me = ('Berber' + 'Carpet');
Reply
post #55 of 484
hell, whatever ships in a new enclosure better frikken have 2 full bays instead of 1.5 have we have now. Thats just the stupidist thing in the world.

Regarding G5s in January... I would love to believe it, but I don't think it will happen.

What they could do, to get rid of G4 stock, is offer dual G4s as entry, then faster and fastest as G5s for the early adopters.

But then again, why would they have to get RID of G4s. I can only logically think that G4s would FINALLY be used in iMacs as soon as the G5 goes mainstream in the Pro line.
I'm having deja-vu and amnesia at the same time. I think I've forgotten this before.
Reply
I'm having deja-vu and amnesia at the same time. I think I've forgotten this before.
Reply
post #56 of 484
To address those dual processor posts:

Unless you are spending all of your time in OS 9, I think that dual processors fall into the Greatest Thing Since Sliced Bread category of Mac improvements. My dad got a G4 500 in May 2000 and I got a G4 500 DP in July 2000. Right now, both are running OS X.1 and mostly the same software, and mine is definately far superior. In everything.

While I agree that some of the other machine improvements have something to do with it, the dual processors are the main factor. Ripping a DVD in the background while listening to iTunes 2 while compiling a new Java 2 Applet (thanks for the Dev Tools Apple) works without missing a beat on my machine, his becomes nearly unusable and typing is sporadic at best.

No, with the increasingly popular OS X, dual processor systems need to stay. Finally dual processors are really twice as fast.

$0.02

-Ender
If you find yourself sided with the majority, it is time to change your thinking.

-Mark Twain
Reply
If you find yourself sided with the majority, it is time to change your thinking.

-Mark Twain
Reply
post #57 of 484
It came to my mind that MacOS X 10.2 is more or less programmed for a 2002 March release.
So, wouldn't it be logic to release both an adapted OS with the new G5.
This scenario would match the predicted timeframes for release of both products.
Only some ideas.
"Starting to think is like starting to be mined." Camus
Reply
"Starting to think is like starting to be mined." Camus
Reply
post #58 of 484
Releasing the G5 is only part of what Apple needs. Apple also needs smarter ads...cuz "Up to twice as fast" and "hahahah, there is no step 3" don't work as well as they should in this market.

They need to alter Steve Jobs psychopathic rage so that he doesn't throw hardware out the window while people are working on it.

They also need to dump "Power" and "i" cuz its cheap.
970 pork chop sandwiches
Reply
970 pork chop sandwiches
Reply
post #59 of 484
[quote]Originally posted by Ender:
<strong>Unless you are spending all of your time in OS 9, I think that dual processors fall into the Greatest Thing Since Sliced Bread category of Mac improvements. </strong><hr></blockquote>

I'd totally agree. Sadly, for many pro users, the apps are still in 9. I find it pathetic that FCP is still not carbonized/cocoa-ified... Although I'm pretty sure it's DP-capable in 9 anyway.

This may not be logical, but I think a lot of people would update based on software concerns: once photoshop, flash, dreamweaver, FCP, After Effects, etc. are running natively in X, you'd want whatever new hardware you could get your hands on.

Nice to be back... although I've changed my username since then.
post #60 of 484
[quote]Originally posted by jutus:
<strong>Some say that mosr's source is actually Apple non-employee Mea D. Ersass.</strong><hr></blockquote>

ROTFLMAO.

MOSR is falling ever lower in terms of journalistic integrity. (I'm giving MOSR the benefit of the doubt in assuming that they had journalistic skills at some point.) Think Secret is well-written and reliable, but the news are usually not quite groundbreaking. I'm really curious to see how the "new AI with the same old sources" stacks up. But regardless of front page news, we now have stable and active AI boards once again. &lt;crosses fingers&gt;

Escher
"The only laptop computer that's useful is the one you have with you."
Until we get a 3 lbs sub-PowerBook, the 12-inch PowerBook will do.
Reply
"The only laptop computer that's useful is the one you have with you."
Until we get a 3 lbs sub-PowerBook, the 12-inch PowerBook will do.
Reply
post #61 of 484
The G5 line is due for junuary 2002.
At this time there will be a new i mac line based on G4 chip with no L3 cache. Probabily there will be a new case, and why not a lcd screen, considering that all apple's screen are lcd at this time.
post #62 of 484
Mosr's source is Santa, and his toy factory is in Calafornia: <a href="http://www.mosr.com/" target="_blank">http://www.mosr.com/</a> :eek:
post #63 of 484
MOSR's report is total bull$#!%. I'm getting to where I can spot these puppies a mile away. The MHZ estimates are waaay too starry-eyed. Given the past 5 years we've had with Motorola, I had a good belly laugh when I read the estimates going all the way up to 20 GHZ in short order! Yeah, rite! And if you remember the press reports from 1998, the PowerPC was supposed to be the first chip to break the GHZ barrier; we are now dead last.
post #64 of 484
[quote]we are now dead last. <hr></blockquote>

Not really, the MIPS is at what?

500mhz?
rm -rf /bin/laden
Reply
rm -rf /bin/laden
Reply
post #65 of 484
Just my uninformed opinion

The MPC8450, allegedly to be manufactured using HiP7, won't be sampling until the second half of 2002. This does not bode well for a January introduction of the G5(85XX) processor.

<a href="http://www.motorola.com/mediacenter/news/detail/0,1958,568_322_23,00.html" target="_blank">http://www.motorola.com/mediacenter/news/detail/0,1958,568_322_23,00.html</a>

[quote]"Samples of the MPC8540 are expected to be available in the second half of 2002."<hr></blockquote>

Maybe the two processors are not related, but it still doesn't seem to promising.

Hope I'm wrong, because come January I'm buying the best machine I can afford.
just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
Reply
just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
Reply
post #66 of 484
[quote]Originally posted by AlbertWu:
<strong>

woah! ::rubs eyes::

cipher? a junior member?

</strong><hr></blockquote>


Woah! ::rubs eyes::
AlwertWU? a junior member? Say it ain't so.

All of us MacNN 'ers are junior members.....kinda sucks

G5, im still betting on january Demo and Intro, shipment in febuary type of thing. just wait and see....
ICQ: 41746288
Apple Computer: The company you love to hate, and hate to love...
Reply
ICQ: 41746288
Apple Computer: The company you love to hate, and hate to love...
Reply
post #67 of 484
[quote]
What they could do, to get rid of G4 stock,<hr></blockquote>

I think that's what the new Apple Promo $500 off G4/Studio Display that has been running for the last 2 weeks and ends Dec 31st is for
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
post #68 of 484
[quote]Originally posted by rickag:
<strong>The MPC8450, allegedly to be manufactured using HiP7, won't be sampling until the second half of 2002. This does not bode well for a January introduction of the G5(85XX) processor.

<a href="http://www.motorola.com/mediacenter/news/detail/0,1958,568_322_23,00.html" target="_blank">http://www.motorola.com/mediacenter/news/detail/0,1958,568_322_23,00.html</a>

Maybe the two processors are not related, but it still doesn't seem to promising.

Hope I'm wrong, because come January I'm buying the best machine I can afford.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Me too.

If that is the G5, that's pretty damning evidence. Still, it also means that it's at least a year away from market, and that page also says that it's "projected to be 600MHz - 1GHz, with power consumption expected to be 6.5W at 800MHz." That doesn't make it sound like a G5. Maybe the portable version, or (more likely) the embedded version?

Alex
post #69 of 484
6.5W dissipation targets it squarely at the embedded market, which wants processors that dissipate fewer than 8W.

That, of course, makes it an attractive notebook processor as well.

The 8500, by way of contrast, is rumored to suck down about 40W.
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
post #70 of 484
The G4 introduction was a complete suprise if you will remember, so the lack of real information on the G5 is the only credible evidence that I see (or don't) that would point to a possible introduction.

As far as mosr's most recent prognostication, I doubt any person that closely associated with the G5 development would have lips that loose. They wouldn't last two weeks in the Apple Gestapo.
Still waiting for a PowerMac that is a significant jump in performance from current levels.
Reply
Still waiting for a PowerMac that is a significant jump in performance from current levels.
Reply
post #71 of 484
Here is my reply to the "Mhz Myth", etc. I'm not trolling, as we have 3 macs on our wireless network at home.

There is a large, untapped market for Mac - gamers. To attract this population, Macs need to become faster and cheaper.

Consider the following tests:

<a href="http://www.barefeats.com/pm02.html" target="_blank">http://www.barefeats.com/pm02.html</a>

The above site shows an MP/800 Tower performing the same FPS as a single 1.6 GHz PIV. The code for the Tower was supposedly optimized to take advantage of both Altivec and multi-processing. Both systems used a GeF3 graphics card.

How can Apple possibly attract gamers given results like this, given that the MP/800 system is probably &gt;=2 times as expensive as the PC?

How about these results:

<a href="http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/systems/PowerBookG4_fall2001/powerbook_g4_667_quake3.html" target="_blank">http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/systems/PowerBookG4_fall2001/powerbook_g4_667_quake3.html</a>

A PB/667 is compared to a Toshiba Notebook with an 850 MHz PIII. The PB has a faster bus, more RAM and (I believe) a better graphics card. The Toshiba notebook slaughtered the PB in FPS - how could that happen? The version of Quake, 1.3, I think is Altivec aware.

The above are not impressive in the least.

I recognize that gaming isn't everything (I'm not a gamer). But, winning contrived "bake offs" between Mac and PC using Photoshop isn't going to get junior to plead with ma and pa to get an Apple. The Apple "experience" can overcome small deltas in price and performance - it is next to impossible to convince PC'ers to switch for less performance in important arenas and more $$.

My $0.02
post #72 of 484
danho said:
[quote] How can Apple possibly attract gamers given results like this, given that the MP/800 system is probably &gt;=2 times as expensive as the PC?
<hr></blockquote>

There is not a game you can play on a Mac that won't play like a dream on a DP800. It will handle all games adequately for the next three (give or take) years. What's the problem? Maybe you should leave the numbers at the door and step inside and try the computer out yourself? It's true that the DP800 is not quite the "BigDog", but it's certainly big enough.
Registered: Dec 1998
Reply
Registered: Dec 1998
Reply
post #73 of 484
Wormboy,

My point was NOT that the game would not play well on a MP/800. Rather, it was that for gamers (again, NOT me) there are not sufficient incentives to switch to Mac from PC.

So what? It is my belief that this is a large, untapped market for Apple. If you cannot convince these young people to at least consider a Mac then it will be doubly hard to get their parents to consider a Mac.

But, these issues aside: those tests were singularly unimpressive for the Macs.
post #74 of 484
I just read that MOSR article.....lol that would be some funny sh!t if Steve actually said something like that.......does anyone remember the stuff about Steve throwing a phone when he was talking with Moto? Oh boy.....I'd have a heart attack if I saw that.

I believe Apple is being aggresive in getting the G5 out. The low-end 7460s are an interesting concept, and unfortunately could be true. However, the G5 prices stated at The Register were lower than that of the P4. Hopefully Apple realizes what us consumers want, and makes a big bang at MWSF.
~Winner of the Official 2003 AppleInsider NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament Pool~
Reply
~Winner of the Official 2003 AppleInsider NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament Pool~
Reply
post #75 of 484
danho wrote:

[quote]My point was NOT that the game would not play well on a MP/800. Rather, it was that for gamers (again, NOT me) there are not sufficient incentives to switch to Mac from PC.<hr></blockquote>

If Apple tripled the game performance of their machines tomorrow, there still wouldn't be sufficient incentives for most: All the theoretical performance in the world doesn't count for much if the games aren't there. By going with DirectX, MS has successfully tied 99% of all game development closely to Windows, and the effort required to port over to the Mac relative to the market (and the diminished appeal of a game that's released 6 months later) makes it worth the effort only for some A-list titles. There are some (Half-Life) that will never make it to the Mac.

Faster machines won't lure game developers, either. Believe it or not, the iMac looks great to a game developer. But porting is still a daunting and expensive project. The initial development budgets tend to consume whatever resources the company has.

To try to bring this back around to topic, the G5 - even if it boasts astonishing gaming performance - will appeal primarily to graphics artists of various kinds, engineers, people working in TV and film, scientists, musicians and producers - the people who have always shelled out for the most powerful Macs. That is who Apple will target. Unless there is a radical change in the way games are made for the PC - which is highly unlikely at this point - the Mac games market will remain in the shape it's currently in until Apple commands a much larger market share than it does now.

[ 11-13-2001: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
post #76 of 484
I have tried to say before that we should be looking at as much evidence as we can find and then, using what we know, draw some reasonable conclusions.

We have heard that Job's has been quoted as saying the MHZ gap would be over by the end of this year....given his slight underestimation of timelines (such as 10.1 in September...that was a close one), this could reasonably mean January's MacWorld. Why does this point to a G5? Well, it would be highly unlikely for the G4 to go from 867mhz to say, 1.6ghz in one fell swoop. Even though 1.6 isn't really there, it is much closer, and would, from what we know, detroy a Pentium chip in terms of performance. I think this is a resonable indicator. I don't think Apple is any happier than we are at the perceived gap....and they want to fix it. This, IMHO, points to a G5 release at SF or Tokyo.

We also have been hearing from sources that the G5 is sampling well and yields are better. It sounds as if they are within weeks of finalizing the first run. More and more people are jumping on board in saying it IS going to happen. Well, when I keep hearing it over and over again from different sources, I start to take notice. We have also heard a fairly consisent story in terms of speeds, Altivec performance, etc. The source at Rumors and the Register actually seems legit to me. the info seems very plausible and, well, it just reads like a legit thing to me....I know that is subjective but I am going with my gut here as well.

As far as not having enough time, that isn't true at all. If Apple has everything else ready to go (enclosure, board, etc.), and the rumors of "1200 or so" prototypes floating around are true, then they are simply waiting on the processors. I believe that within 30-60 days of the processors being ramped up in terms of production, Apple can crank a G5 out the door. This means if the chip was deemed suitable on say one month from today, they could ship these things without a problem by February.

Other things that point to a G5 are:

1) The G4 has been around for quite awhile now. Apple could use the marketing kick.

2) The iMac is also suffering, and has been for a year. This means LCD iMac and perhaps a G4. We obviously won't have a G4 iMac AND a G4 in the towers.

All in all, I think the evidence points to a G5.

The argument for LCD iMac is even more compelling. The iMac design is three years old. We expected it last time, but it is reasonable to conclude that Apple waited due to market conditions. If Apple brought this out early next year though, I think we would see a huge upgrade cycle. If it had a G4 the cycle would be even bigger. The PC market will still be in shambles, but Apple will have a truly different and powerful machine. I think this will also happen.

Sorry this is so long. It just seems that the evidence points to both happening. anyone have other evidence in SUPPORT of these coming out?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #77 of 484
[quote]Originally posted by danho:
The above site shows an MP/800 Tower performing the same FPS as a single 1.6 GHz PIV. The code for the Tower was supposedly optimized to take advantage of both Altivec and multi-processing. Both systems used a GeF3 graphics card.<hr></blockquote>

Two reasons that I can see:

1. Fast RAM. Those two G4s are absolutely starved for bandwidth, and until Apple puts at least PC2100 DDR RAM into their products we simply will not see the same kind of framerates that they see on the PC side of the camp. Fortunately this seems to be a hurdle that Apple will soon surmount. I hope.

2. Better drivers. I don't think anyone can argue this, and Apple just has to slog through it.

[quote]A PB/667 is compared to a Toshiba Notebook with an 850 MHz PIII. The PB has a faster bus, more RAM and (I believe) a better graphics card. The Toshiba notebook slaughtered the PB in FPS - how could that happen?<hr></blockquote>

The GeForce2Go is a better graphics card than the mobile Radeon. The Radeon used in the G4 does not have hardware T&L while the GeForce does, and then there is the driver issue as well.

On a more general note, Altivec is of limited use in the Q3 engine. It probably provides a 15% speedup at very low resolutions and detail levels, but above that it's all about bandwidth. I am also skeptical of Apple's claims to support write combining at anything approaching the level of that in the intel architectures.

It should also be noted that the 7450 chips seem to have a lower bus throughput figure that could be a factor in both cases.

All in all, I really don't think that it matters much. Even if the Mac consistently reached 1000fps in Wolf3D and Quake3 it still doesn't have the sheer mass of games that exist for the PC, and nobody will ever buy a Mac if gaming is their sole priority.
post #78 of 484
The MOSR article stated that the price for the G5 might be too expensive to warrent its inclusion on the lower 2 or so models of the Power Macs.

My question, what would they call the new machines? Power Mac G4&5, just Power Mac, or have two semi-separate product lines called Power Mac G4 and G5.

Having 2 chips on the high-end towers would be somewhat confusing to the consumer (albeit most of the customers of the towers are pros.)

They should all be G5, or all G4, not both. Preferably G5.

If they want to appease Mot, why not have the G4 (7460s) in the iMacs, and maybe PowerBooks (if feasable).

I don't really want to see another G3 iMac.

But of course, this is an article posted on MOSR, so of course, none of what I say could matter.

Its good to see AppleInsider back up. Just noticed it today.
"All good things must come to an end."
Reply
"All good things must come to an end."
Reply
post #79 of 484
[quote] I don't really want to see another G3 iMac. <hr></blockquote>

You kidding? The Sahara I'm sure will be a great chip when it comes out. I think we might be in a G3-G4-G5 line up.
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
post #80 of 484
I too think we will see a G3 - G4 - G5 lineup for a while.

iBook: 700-1 GHz G3
iMac: 1 GHzish G4
PowerBook: 1 - 1.2 GHz G4
Power Mac: 1.6 Ghzish G5

I'm generalizing next year as one big event in that prediction.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › G5 Rumors