Should Apple release Dual 1.8 G5?
Well.....if the yield of the G5 cpus are the same as what was posted on the web few days ago....with 1.8GHz one far exceeds the yield of the 2GHz....
I think Apple should release a dual 1.8 (even it's a BTO only model) set it up in between the single 1.8 and dual 2
By doing this the extreme demand of the dual 2GHz should relief a bit....and for people who don't want to wait too long or don't want to spend too much will have a dual cpu tower for a bit lower price....
what do you think?
I think Apple should release a dual 1.8 (even it's a BTO only model) set it up in between the single 1.8 and dual 2
By doing this the extreme demand of the dual 2GHz should relief a bit....and for people who don't want to wait too long or don't want to spend too much will have a dual cpu tower for a bit lower price....
what do you think?
Comments
Originally posted by applenut
or how about 1.8 processor on the 1999 model and a dual 1.6 for the price of the 1.8
They tried having a configuration like that once, remember? It just confused people.
Originally posted by BRussell
I hope that they soon move to all-dual PowerMacs and singles in everything else. Then they can put G5s in the rest of the line, and those of us who don't need duals or expansion slots (99% of us?) can get G5 iMacs.
i think alot of people...especially on these boards are prosumers, i for one do not use my machine for business, but i do demand the best when i buy a computer
I suspect the iMacs and the like are tailored for 7457 chips, which in all respects should be pretty quick. . . Probably faster than the Pentium-M's that are out there. When the 970 Moves to 90nm, then we'll likely see it hit most/all of the lines in various shapes and forms.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
I see no reason to make a 1.8 Dual. Anyone who buys a G5 because they want a badass machine will get the Dual 2Ghz. That's what I would buy for certain if I wanted a G5 right now. It is the best value of all the models. . . 600 dollars more than the 1.8 and with quite a bit more punch. Additionally it has a nicer video card. I don't know for sure, but I don't suspect the cost of a 2Ghz 970 chip is much different than a 1.8Ghz 970 (Apparently a 2Ghz 970 costs something on the order of $500 when you factor in all the costs that reach the consumer.)
well, i may be in the minority, but i would buy a dual-1.8, for the following reasons:
- i need a computer sooner rather than later, for some pro-level work, even if it is just a matter of a few weeks.
- i don't want to spend a thousand or two on last year's model, money that could go towards a MUCH more "future-proofed" computer in a few weeks time. i would kick myself if i saved a few months of work for a year or two of return on investment.
- i want a dual, both for the added power, but for upgradeability later. now, i know folks have said that upgrading a g5 down the road may not even be possible, but i have to believe that duals are the future, AND it will be easier to upgrade a model from dual to dual down the road, as opposed to trying to get a single up to dual specs.
- saving about $500 would buy me a nice peripheral and 19" lacie monitor, without losing too much speed from the highest end.
there are probably other reasons, to, but those are weighing the most on my mind.
Originally posted by applenut
or how about 1.8 processor on the 1999 model and a dual 1.6 for the price of the 1.8
Bad idea because applications that aren't optimized for multiple processors would likely run slower on the dual 1.6 gig than on the single 1.8 gig.
Originally posted by Tidris
Bad idea because applications that aren't optimized for multiple processors would likely run slower on the dual 1.6 gig than on the single 1.8 gig.
You make a good point. But there is at least one application the user will be using at all times that does take advantage of dual (or multi) CPUs. OS X. That in and of itself is enough to outweigh the possible drawbacks of a non-SMP aware app.
Originally posted by torifile
You make a good point. But there is at least one application the user will be using at all times that does take advantage of dual (or multi) CPUs. OS X. That in and of itself is enough to outweigh the possible drawbacks of a non-SMP aware app.
I dissagree.
OSX is actually a large collection of libraries plus a number of background applications that provide services to the user applications.
If a user application isn't trivial it will likely spend a significant percentage of its time doing its own processing without any interaction with OSX. If the application doesn't divide that work among multiple threads then all the work gets done by a single processor. Even when the application interacts with OSX, in many cases OSX doesn't to anything that would result in more than one processor being used to provide the requested service.
We, as Mac people, are ALWAYS "waiting for the...". Always. Something's announced, doesn't ship. Does ship, but isn't quite what it should be. Is announced, doesn't ship, gets delayed and doesn't ship some more. Nothing is announced but the entire universe KNOWS it's needed and due (ahem...aluminum 15" PowerBook...).
What BRussell said: do whatever it takes to get the entire line to the G5 or some IBM version of a G4-ish kinda thing. SOMETHING to where we're not having to wait and wait. And something to where yet another Motorola "issue" pops up and delays a long-awaited, lusted-for product.
The G5 SHOULD'VE been duals across the board (1.6, 1.8 and 2.0). The PowerBook SHOULD be sporting a G5 by spring 2004 (it won't). The iBook SHOULD have a G4, if only because OS X and the iApps themselves perform better with it.
But hell, the pro line of laptops is having trouble, apparently, with getting any newer, 1GHz-plus G4s, so what hope does the iBook have at the moment?
I guess that's our perpetual humbler, huh? I mean, we've got the OS. We've got the ease-of-use. The integration, the cool iApps and Apple software. The amazing hardware design. The best mp3 player and web cam on the market. The nicest displays. The most killer portables. The fastest personal computer. The sexiest all-in-one.
I guess it would simply be overkill to also have the fastest, most robust and modern chips in ample supply too, huh?
This is God's way of keeping us all in check and keeping Apple from ruling the world, apparently.
[thunderousvoice]I shall give thee curvy translucence that quickens the heart of all that vieweth it. Yea, I cast upon thee much coolness and an OS bested by no other. And to my children, I give you iPhoto and iTunes. But I will smite the proud processor, for it is necessary...and he shall evermore be but a lowly beast. I do this to keep my people humble and less obnoxious than they'd be otherwise. I have so hampered Microsoft in the areas that I've graced thee Apple. But I believe in balance. And get this: MY G5 is still on backorder! I mean, really...look who I AM! If I can't get my new dual G5 in a timely manner, what chance do you people have? Haha...hoo-boy! So let it be written, so let it be done[/thunderousvoice]
Originally posted by pscates
I guess it would simply be overkill to also have the fastest, most robust and modern chips in ample supply too, huh?
no kidding. and i know that apple is trying to stimulate interest with lots of hype, but watching bucs vs. jets last night, i must have seen the G5 commercial 4 or 5 times before HALFTIME. sure would be nice to be able to find them in a compusa, or best buy or something with a trained salesperson to answer questions, huh?
Originally posted by Tidris
I dissagree.
OSX is actually a large collection of libraries plus a number of background applications that provide services to the user applications.
If a user application isn't trivial it will likely spend a significant percentage of its time doing its own processing without any interaction with OSX. If the application doesn't divide that work among multiple threads then all the work gets done by a single processor. Even when the application interacts with OSX, in many cases OSX doesn't to anything that would result in more than one processor being used to provide the requested service.
So you're saying that the OS is SMP aware isn't a big deal? Surely you're kidding.
Originally posted by rok
no kidding. and i know that apple is trying to stimulate interest with lots of hype, but watching bucs vs. jets last night, i must have seen the G5 commercial 4 or 5 times before HALFTIME. sure would be nice to be able to find them in a compusa, or best buy or something with a trained salesperson to answer questions, huh?
I have yet to find a knowledgeable employee at either of those stores.
Dual 1.8...not as pretty to look at as the dual 2.0, but I bet the price would be!
I went from a 400MHz G3 iMac DV to the 800MHz G4 iMac SuperDrive. If I maintain this, I really shouldn't get a PowerBook until it's a 1.6GHz G5. Then, after that, I gotta wait for a 3.2GHz G6 and so on...
I KNOW what'll happen...I'll buy a 7457 PowerBook in late November, and in a TOTALLY unprecedented (or predicted) surprise at MWSF in January, Jobs' "there's just one more thing..." will indeed be 1.6GHz G5 PowerBooks.
Just wait, you'll see...
Originally posted by torifile
So you're saying that the OS is SMP aware isn't a big deal? Surely you're kidding.
I am not saying that at all. I am saying that OSX cannot force a user application to take advantage of multiple processors for its private data processing. I am also saying that when OSX provides a service to a given application, in many (but not all) cases only one processor is involved in providing that service to that particular application.