or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple introduces Power Mac G5 Quad & Power Mac G5 Dual
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple introduces Power Mac G5 Quad & Power Mac G5 Dual - Page 2

post #41 of 177
Quote:
Originally posted by Jeff Leigh
Love the markup on RAM. 16GB for $9500....that's funny. Quick price search found it for $3200.

So, does that mean we can find 2GB DIMMs for the new iMac for ~$200, too?

Quote:
Do they really expect people to not check and just overpay by 200%?

They probably add anyone who pays the Apple tax to a "special customer" (a.k.a. sucker) list.
post #42 of 177
It's actually $400 for 2GB, but yes.

http://eshop.macsales.com/item/Other.../4200DDR2M2GB/
post #43 of 177
Quote:
Originally posted by Algol
Well we'll see if it is just a few hundred more. I'm thinking it'll be 400 at least.

My figuring is that a few hundred is about from $300-$400.

But if you wait on this, ATI will most likely have boards out in the 'tween area.
post #44 of 177
Quote:
Originally posted by Jeff Leigh
Love the markup on RAM. 16GB for $9500....that's funny. Quick price search found it for $3200. Do they really expect people to not check and just overpay by 200%?

For all those bitching about the RAM markup, check your info again...

Yeah, Apple charges a special Apple Tax for RAM & HDDs, but the expensive RAM in question is ECC RAM... But then, if it goes bad, you just contact Apple... And if you are spending the kind of money it takes to jack up a new PowerMac, then you should also be springing the extra US$270 for the 3-year warranty...

Anything else is foolish...

Look a little closer at that dropdown menu on the Apple Store folks, there are selections to be made... Don't just go to the last on the list...
Late 2009 Unibody MacBook (modified)
2.26GHz Core 2 Duo CPU/8GB RAM/60GB SSD/500GB HDD
SuperDrive delete
Reply
Late 2009 Unibody MacBook (modified)
2.26GHz Core 2 Duo CPU/8GB RAM/60GB SSD/500GB HDD
SuperDrive delete
Reply
post #45 of 177
I find it strange that Apple is only including PCI-Express slots... this means that everyone who upgrades will need to replace their old PCI cards with new PCI-Express ones.

Fortunately, there is a new PCI-Express Fibre Channel Card, but no Gigabit Ethernet card. Xsan users will have to wait.

IMO they should have included two PCI-Express and two PCI-X slots, this would have made more sense...

On a side note, another plus for PCI-Express over AGP is that it can supply more power to the graphics card. In the PC world, most modern graphics cards that utilize AGP must have an additional power supply. However, their PCI-Express counterparts are fine without it.

I just added a 6600GT to my PC and am relatively happy with it (upgraded from the FX5200). At work I just ordered a X800 XT for my G5, hopefully it will be better than the crappy 5600 that it came with...
post #46 of 177
I just have two words about the all new G5 QuadraMac


EEEET'S ALIVE!
post #47 of 177
Quote:
Originally posted by 4fx
I find it strange that Apple is only including PCI-Express slots... this means that everyone who upgrades will need to replace their old PCI cards with new PCI-Express ones.

That's the whole idea.

Not to get people to spend their money, but to prevent them from screwing up the new standards.

When Apple went from the NUbus to PCI, they didn't include a NUbus controller and slots. So PCI went pretty smoothly. No issues about plug and play, etc.

When the PC world went from ISA to PCI they included ISA slots because PC people are loath to buy new things. People were putting their old ISA cards into their new machines. That was one of the major reasons why Plug n' Play didn't work consistantly.

Supporting two standards in one machine lead to problems. You have to make a clean sweep.
post #48 of 177
This might be a dumb question, but if I go to the Apple store tomorrow, will I be able to order a customized Quad PM G5? I have a multiple methods of payment issue, and I'm trying to figure out how to go about this.
post #49 of 177
Quote:
Originally posted by pazzo83
This might be a dumb question, but if I go to the Apple store tomorrow, will I be able to order a customized Quad PM G5? I have a multiple methods of payment issue, and I'm trying to figure out how to go about this.

No reason why not. I'd wait though. What's the rush?
post #50 of 177
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
No reason why not. I'd wait though. What's the rush?

Yea, I guess it's a bit irrational, but I've been waiting for this thing for months. My old Dell has outlasted its usefullness.
post #51 of 177
Quote:
Originally posted by pazzo83
Yea, I guess it's a bit irrational, but I've been waiting for this thing for months. My old Dell has outlasted its usefullness.

I understand the pent up feelings that guys are getting. But these are completely new machines. I'm waiting 'till January.

I keep vainly trying to get people to let Apple work the bugs out first.
post #52 of 177
Quote:
Originally posted by Jeff Leigh
It's actually $400 for 2GB, but yes.

http://eshop.macsales.com/item/Other.../4200DDR2M2GB/

Thanks for the price correction and link.

Looks like the ~$1K for a 2GB DIMM from Crucial that people were quoting during forum frenzies after last week's iMac update was for an ECC module. I don't even see a non-ECC 2GB module listed there.

Apparently Apple's making significantly more profit from selling non-ECC 2GB DIMMs.
post #53 of 177
Quote:
Originally posted by sunilraman
DUDE, DO NOT GET THE 6600. i have a 6600GT, which is better than the 6600, which i bought a few months ago for us $170.
you want the 7800GT. note: which is not the same as 7800GTX but 7800GT i hear gives a nice balance of heat/power/performance/etc.

I posted this link in another thread, but it seems useful here as well. Anandtech tested a bunch of cards with Battlefield 2 (PC game). The gap btwn 7800 and 6600 increases dramatically with resolution. And that's a 6600 GT in their tests, faster than the 6600.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2466&p=4
apple gets "it."
Reply
apple gets "it."
Reply
post #54 of 177
Quote:
Originally posted by noirdesir
No, I think it means that the four processor (core) machine with 1MB of L2 cache under (probably) ideal conditions is about twice as fast a similiarly clocked dual processor machine (4*2.5 = 1.88*2*2.7, LinPack).

I'm not following you. By Apple's own numbers:

(4 x 2.5)quad = 1.7 * (2 x 2.7)oldDual, for AE render.

Not 2x, 1.7x. (2.7/2.5)=1.08, so a (4 x 2.7)quad would empirically run at 1.83 of the dual speed, close to your number above.

This is almost twice, but not twice. Therefore, it seems likely the single dual-core 2.3 is empirically slower than the old 2.3 dual 970 model, right?

So slower, cheaper for Apple (one chip vs two), but the same price, right? My original point, then: Higher margins for Apple for slower hardware.

That said, I'm not complaining too loudly. Quite happy that Apple (finally) got on the PCI-e boat, and there will probably be more quad 970MP models at lower price levels before the PowerMac line goes Macintel.
apple gets "it."
Reply
apple gets "it."
Reply
post #55 of 177
I'm really anxious to hear the real life reviews particularily
regarding heat and noise in the dual cores.

These chips may run more efficiently, but we have no proven track record
on how the dual core chips will hold up in the real world.

My only other concern is the durability of the liquid cooling system.

We're back to a REV "A" essentially with these new models, so I would strongly
advise buying AppleCare.
post #56 of 177
I just about jizzed my shorts whe the magical word Quadro appeared in the new specs...

Here's the thing though...

Apple has no mention of SLI capabilities...

Yet they space the 16x & 8x slots apart, as if to allow space for two Quadros...

And the SLI v1 spec is for dual 8x slots, right...?!?

And we all know how Apple likes to cripple capabilities in early revisions, only to enable them as new features in later revisions...

Mmmm... Dual Quadros in SLI mode running quad 30" ACDs... That's what? 5120x3200? I just know those bastards down in the R&D labs at Cupertino have a patch to enable such a beastie... Probably had a custom bezel made for it, and got those LCDs as close as possible...

Or (if running quad GeForce 6600s) one could go either 6720x2100 (with octo 20" ACDs) or 7680x2400 (with octo 23" ACDs)...

I like the idea of the quad 30" ACDs running as one unified display, but in a sort of SLI mode...

You know, big and fast...!

That's what I would do, if my new numbers hit the Lotto...

4 8 14 15 23 42

Yeah...

;^p
Late 2009 Unibody MacBook (modified)
2.26GHz Core 2 Duo CPU/8GB RAM/60GB SSD/500GB HDD
SuperDrive delete
Reply
Late 2009 Unibody MacBook (modified)
2.26GHz Core 2 Duo CPU/8GB RAM/60GB SSD/500GB HDD
SuperDrive delete
Reply
post #57 of 177
Quote:
Originally posted by MacRonin
That's what I would do, if my new numbers hit the Lotto...

4 8 14 15 23 42

Dude ! dont do it !! tho you might end up with hella boofy curly hair the chicks will prob love to play with, so maybe the risk is worth it.
post #58 of 177
Quote:
Originally posted by imiloa
I'm not following you. By Apple's own numbers:

(4 x 2.5)quad = 1.7 * (2 x 2.7)oldDual, for AE render.

Not 2x, 1.7x. (2.7/2.5)=1.08, so a (4 x 2.7)quad would empirically run at 1.83 of the dual speed, close to your

Did you see the small word I added in brackets:
Quote:
(4*2.5 = 1.88*2*2.7, LinPack)

and the other small word I had the sentence before:
Quote:
under (probably) ideal conditions

To summarize, using LinPack, Apple claims the 4x2.5GHz to be 88% faster than a 2x2.7GHz.

Now, I had a look at some more real-world benchmarks. Trying to compare apples with apples (i.e. 1 MB L2 cache with 1 MB L2 cache) and taking the biggest difference between the 2.3 GHz dual-core and the 2.5 GHz 2x dual-core I could find (AE +272% and the latter and +92% on the former) you can calculate a multiprocessor efficiency of 0.89 (3.72/1.92/2/(2.5/2.3)).

That means there are apps out there that can take nice advantage of multiple processors. But then again these are very few that really use the potential.
post #59 of 177
Originally posted by 4fx
......I just added a 6600GT to my PC and am relatively happy with it (upgraded from the FX5200). .......


YEAH!! 6600gt rulz !!11!11!
-mine is msi pci express 6600gt 128mb gddr3ram overclocked to 555mhz core 1.22ghz mem, copper heatsink... YEAH!!!111!!

edit:
oops i forgot to take my fanboy-suppressant pills today
post #60 of 177
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
I understand the pent up feelings that guys are getting......

you sound like my bloody high skool gym teacher...
"you know, you guys are going to have urges, a lot of pent up feelings, and you're gonna want to do this stuff.... but you know, you gotta wait till it's right..."
post #61 of 177
Quote:
Originally posted by 4fx
Fortunately, there is a new PCI-Express Fibre Channel Card, but no Gigabit Ethernet card. Xsan users will have to wait.

How many Gigabit Ethernet ports do you need?
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
post #62 of 177
Quote:
Originally posted by MacRonin
I just about jizzed my shorts whe the magical word Quadro appeared in the new specs...

Here's the thing though...

Apple has no mention of SLI capabilities...

Yet they space the 16x & 8x slots apart, as if to allow space for two Quadros...

And the SLI v1 spec is for dual 8x slots, right...?!?

And we all know how Apple likes to cripple capabilities in early revisions, only to enable them as new features in later revisions...

Mmmm... Dual Quadros in SLI mode running quad 30" ACDs... That's what? 5120x3200? I just know those bastards down in the R&D labs at Cupertino have a patch to enable such a beastie... Probably had a custom bezel made for it, and got those LCDs as close as possible...

Or (if running quad GeForce 6600s) one could go either 6720x2100 (with octo 20" ACDs) or 7680x2400 (with octo 23" ACDs)...

I like the idea of the quad 30" ACDs running as one unified display, but in a sort of SLI mode...

You know, big and fast...!

That's what I would do, if my new numbers hit the Lotto...

4 8 14 15 23 42

Yeah...

;^p


whoa. one valium over here, thanks.

but you are right



you could have 16x sli via 2 slots running 8x.
so 1 quadro goes into the 16x slot. "The NVIDIA GeForce FX 4500 graphics card occupies the 16-lane PCI Express slot and adjacent PCI Express slot." as apple says.. so this means you could pop another quadro in the 8x slot and that will take up the space of the 4x slot as well. now, the SLI bridge connector, apple-nvidia quadro sli driver from the secret driver lab, and one is all set to go

....
somewhere in cupertino there is the "secret driver lab" where they are coding this stuff to be used in powermacs. like the underground bunker thingy in Lost



http://www.nvidia.com/object/quadro_sli_faq.html

""
What is SLI for NVIDIA Quadro?

* SLI Frame Rendering: Combines two PCI Express graphics cards with an SLI connector to transparently scale application performance on a single display by presenting them as a single graphics card to the operating system.

o Benefits Visual simulation, broadcast, and video applications that are fill ratelimited will benefit from using the split frame rendering (SFR) mode.
o SPECviewperf 8 and other applications that are geometrylimited will benefit from using the alternate frame rendering (AFR) mode.

Requirements:
o Two identical NVIDIA Quadro graphics cards (4500, 4400, 3450, 3400, and 1400)
o SLI connector


* SLI Multi View: Combines the power of two NVIDIA Quadro PCI Express graphics cards to span a single hardware-accelerated OpenGL application window across multiple displays, run a single application per GPU with multiple display outputs, or enable other flexible usage of two PCI Express graphics cards.

Benefits
o View professional applications over multiple displays to increase visual real estate.
o Run a single application per GPU to offload geometry processing to a second GPU.

Requirements
o Any two NVIDIA Quadro PCI Express graphics cards: NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500, 4400, 3450, 3400, 1400, or 540
""
post #63 of 177
Quote:
Originally posted by JLL
How many Gigabit Ethernet ports do you need?

more than two, apparently...
post #64 of 177
Quote:
Originally posted by 4fx
...but no Gigabit Ethernet card. Xsan users will have to wait.

As they state in their own marketing drivel on the Apple website, the second Gigabit Ethernet port on the new PowerMac is for Xsan users...

Duh...
Late 2009 Unibody MacBook (modified)
2.26GHz Core 2 Duo CPU/8GB RAM/60GB SSD/500GB HDD
SuperDrive delete
Reply
Late 2009 Unibody MacBook (modified)
2.26GHz Core 2 Duo CPU/8GB RAM/60GB SSD/500GB HDD
SuperDrive delete
Reply
post #65 of 177
i think you still can get the old pci-x model if you wish really hard...

anyway, do you think the low-end models are upgradeble with a extra dualcore cpu-module..?
born to lose, live to win
Reply
born to lose, live to win
Reply
post #66 of 177
Ok, there is no point putting a second card in the 8X slot. SLI wont work right like that.
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #67 of 177
Quote:
Originally posted by MacRonin
Yet they space the 16x & 8x slots apart, as if to allow space for two Quadros...

And the SLI v1 spec is for dual 8x slots, right...?!?

And we all know how Apple likes to cripple capabilities in early revisions, only to enable them as new features in later revisions...
;^p

Quoting myself for public notice, remember this around April/May 2006...

For when Apple announces this "new" feature for the next (last eh-varh!) PowerMac 970MP speed/spec bump... You know, where they go all "Quad" (aka - Dual dual-cores) on us, with very little MHz gain... Probably 2.3GHz/2.5GHz/2.7GHz... Bump the minimum RAM to 1GB, and make the 500GB HDD standard entry trim...

I bet that even if IBM came up with 3GHz 970MPs, at this point Steve Jobs would reserve that "honor" for the first Intel PowerMacs...
Late 2009 Unibody MacBook (modified)
2.26GHz Core 2 Duo CPU/8GB RAM/60GB SSD/500GB HDD
SuperDrive delete
Reply
Late 2009 Unibody MacBook (modified)
2.26GHz Core 2 Duo CPU/8GB RAM/60GB SSD/500GB HDD
SuperDrive delete
Reply
post #68 of 177
Quote:
Originally posted by tubgirl
i think you still can get the old pci-x model if you wish really hard...

anyway, do you think the low-end models are upgradeble with a extra dualcore cpu-module..?

1st part yes
2nd part no.
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #69 of 177
Quote:
Originally posted by MacRonin


Yet they space the 16x & 8x slots apart, as if to allow space for two Quadros...

And the SLI v1 spec is for dual 8x slots, right...?!?


I think it's for matching cards. There are other PCI-E slots in the PowerMac if you ant to try it. The best you could get would be dual 8x, but a single 16X slot would be better bang for the buck. at $1,600.00 a pop I'd wait for dual 16x to try something like that. But, if a person wanted to be adventureous. They could buy 2x matching Nvidia SLI capable cards like the 6600, or 7800 GT's.
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #70 of 177
Quote:
Originally posted by onlooker
I think it's for matching cards. There are other PCI-E slots in the PowerMac if you ant to try it. The best you could get would be dual 8x, but a single 16X slot would be better bang for the buck. at $1,600.00 a pop I'd wait for dual 16x to try something like that. But, if a person wanted to be adventureous. They could buy 2x matching Nvidia SLI capable cards like the 6600, or 7800 GT's.

I mainly mentioned the whole tawdry affair to throw out the future "new feature" plans by Apple...

But in other news...

In pricing around on current workstations compared to equally equipped units:

Dell is about 1500 bucks more expensive than apple

Boxx and Apple are about even

Alienware is about 500 bucks or so more than Apple...

All Dual dual-cores (max. speed for each company), all with two max. HDDs, all with equal RAM (ECC pricing when required), all with dual-layer DVD burners, and ALL with nVidia QuadroFX 4500 OpenGL cards!

Who's the DCC beotch now, Windoze...!?!
Late 2009 Unibody MacBook (modified)
2.26GHz Core 2 Duo CPU/8GB RAM/60GB SSD/500GB HDD
SuperDrive delete
Reply
Late 2009 Unibody MacBook (modified)
2.26GHz Core 2 Duo CPU/8GB RAM/60GB SSD/500GB HDD
SuperDrive delete
Reply
post #71 of 177
Quote:
Originally posted by imiloa
So slower, cheaper for Apple (one chip vs two), but the same price, right? My original point, then: Higher margins for Apple for slower hardware.

My sentiment exactly.
post #72 of 177
Quote:
Originally posted by KidRed
I won't not assume that the current releases would be slower then the ones they replace, but what does a single 2.3 dual-core compare to? A dual 2.3? A dual 2.5?

Have a look at these xBench results:
http://media.99mac.se/g5_dualcore/

Processor-wise a 2.3 GHz dual-core falls in between a 2 GHz and 2.5 GHz dual processor. In memory tests it is faster than a 2.5 GHz dual processor and the graphics are even faster than a 6800 Ultra (could be driver related).
post #73 of 177
Quote:
Originally posted by 4fx
I find it strange that Apple is only including PCI-Express slots... this means that everyone who upgrades will need to replace their old PCI cards with new PCI-Express ones.

Fortunately, there is a new PCI-Express Fibre Channel Card, but no Gigabit Ethernet card. Xsan users will have to wait.

The new Powermacs have dual gigabit ethernet.

It does seem pretty odd to abandon the old PCI standard when PCI-express has been around for 9+ months and there's only three I/O expansion boards that I've found. It also leaves the pro audio and video guys in a bind, if they have any PCI capture cards for either they'll have to wait for new cards.

Quote:
Originally posted by onlooker
Ok, there is no point putting a second card in the 8X slot. SLI wont work right like that.

I thought many PC SLI boards used 8x in the second SLI slot.
post #74 of 177
Quote:
Originally posted by bjewett
3 - Are we splitting hairs? Tech page at apple says 1.15 GHz frontside bus, period, for the 2.3: http://www.apple.com/powermac/specs.html
Apple store page says 1.15 per processor. I assume they mean per chip ...

1 processor = 2 cores. There's 1 1.15 GHz bus per processor or 2 cores. AMD, Intel and IBM's semiconductor division all adhere to the definition 1 processor = x cores on a single piece of silicon so both of Apple's statements are correct except given there is only 1 processor in the 2.0 and 2.3 it's a bit superfluous.
"When I was a kid, my favourite relative was Uncle Caveman. After school, wed all go play in his cave, and every once and awhile, hed eat one of us. It wasnt until later that I discovered Uncle...
Reply
"When I was a kid, my favourite relative was Uncle Caveman. After school, wed all go play in his cave, and every once and awhile, hed eat one of us. It wasnt until later that I discovered Uncle...
Reply
post #75 of 177
Quote:
Originally posted by noirdesir
Have a look at these xBench results:
http://media.99mac.se/g5_dualcore/

Just a question, but not on the benchmark: look at this picture;



if one dual core processor with its cooling system needs that much space, how they do managed to put in there two of them? I guess the space is just enough, since there would be one and the same cooling system for the two processors, and pehaps this was the reason for the humongous Power Mac G5 case.
post #76 of 177
Quote:
Originally posted by MacRonin
I mainly mentioned the whole tawdry affair to throw out the future "new feature" plans by Apple...

But in other news...

In pricing around on current workstations compared to equally equipped units:

Dell is about 1500 bucks more expensive than apple

Boxx and Apple are about even

Alienware is about 500 bucks or so more than Apple...

All Dual dual-cores (max. speed for each company), all with two max. HDDs, all with equal RAM (ECC pricing when required), all with dual-layer DVD burners, and ALL with nVidia QuadroFX 4500 OpenGL cards!

Who's the DCC beotch now, Windoze...!?!


i like this guy...
*meanwhile*
i'm waiting for the athlon x2 dual-cores (socket 939) to come down in price. come down in price dammit!!! so i can boast about having dualcore as well. umm.... yeah.
post #77 of 177
Quote:
Originally posted by PB
Just a question, but not on the benchmark: look at this picture;



if one dual core processor with its cooling system needs that much space, how they do managed to put in there two of them? I guess the space is just enough, since there would be one and the same cooling system for the two processors, and pehaps this was the reason for the humongous Power Mac G5 case.

eh? PB no disrespect, but i am confused about what you are talking about? the original powermac g5 case was always designed to take into consideration two g5 cpus, naturally evolving from the two g4 powermacs.

assuming any dualcore chips, eg 1xdualcore2ghz, 1xdualcore2.3ghz, requires liquid cooling, as shown on the 1xdualcore2.3ghz in that link, then i think overall it is more economical to simply use the same liquid cooling/radiator unit for the whole line of the powermacs, with the 2xdualcore2.5ghz maybe having some better thermal characteristics or maybe the fans spin faster.

overall i think in terms of economy (profits!) apple really wanted to keep the powermac g5 form factor mostly untouched and just also standardise the liquid cooling module across the line.

this suggests though that the 1xdualcore2.3ghz will run quiet and cool while the 2xdualcore2.5ghz will have the fans/radiator "sweating" a bit more. or maybe some copper bits in the radiator liquid cooling unit for the 2xdualcore2.5ghz

edit: i do understand if you meant it seems like a waste of space for the single processor dualcore models.
post #78 of 177
Quote:
Originally posted by Telomar
1 processor = 2 cores. There's 1 1.15 GHz bus per processor or 2 cores. AMD, Intel and IBM's semiconductor division all adhere to the definition 1 processor = x cores on a single piece of silicon so both of Apple's statements are correct except given there is only 1 processor in the 2.0 and 2.3 it's a bit superfluous.

i think though that on the apple store page they wanted to make it clear that there is a separate 1MB L2 cache for each core even though there is only 1 frontsidebus from cpu to mobo.

edit: also i think since that was the page where you go "click here to blow thousands of dollars on a shiny piece of metal" apple legal just wanted to make sure everything is clean and clear as you get ready to drop some cash.
post #79 of 177
OK guys. I just got off the phone with Apple and they have NO IDEA when the 7800 will be available. No idea. It could be two months. So, to cancel my order and two months for the 7800 at $400 more isn't something that sounds appealing.

So my question- I do photoshop 90% of the time, I don't really play games and I only watch video. So, I know the 7800 kills the 6600, but would I see any or enough of the benefit that warrant the wait and $400?
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
post #80 of 177
Quote:
Originally posted by KidRed
OK guys. I just got off the phone with Apple and they have NO IDEA when the 7800 will be available. No idea. It could be two months. So, to cancel my order and two months for the 7800 at $400 more isn't something that sounds appealing.

So my question- I do photoshop 90% of the time, I don't really play games and I only watch video. So, I know the 7800 kills the 6600, but would I see any or enough of the benefit that warrant the wait and $400?

heh. in this case the $400 and two months wait is definitely not worth it \
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple introduces Power Mac G5 Quad & Power Mac G5 Dual