The DP 2GHz is the Only Config Worth Buying!
I'm finally confident enough to make the assertion that the DP 2GHz is the only configuration of the G5 worth buying. It's still too early to talk about the G5's full potential (since compilers must be optimized, Panther released), but the general trends will hold. The second processor is incredibly beneficial.
The 1.6GHz machine is delivering Photoshop scores equivalent to a 2.8GHz PC. That's fine in terms of MHz : performance but certainly not price : performance. Only the 2GHz machine makes any sense whatsoever. Apple only publicizes tests for the 2. 200 extra CPU and 100 FSB MHz is nice, but it's certainly not the stellar performer. And if you're going to pay that much for a single 1.8, there's really no reason not to go for broke with the 2.0 instead.
Apple knows it's true, and most customers do too, if the Apple Store sales figures are accurate. So now that I've decided the 2.0 is the only choice, my pesky conscience is the only thing preventing me from placing the order. But can I afford to continue languishing with my 8600/300? The fact that Apple only gave us one DP config tells me they planned it exactly this way!
The 1.6GHz machine is delivering Photoshop scores equivalent to a 2.8GHz PC. That's fine in terms of MHz : performance but certainly not price : performance. Only the 2GHz machine makes any sense whatsoever. Apple only publicizes tests for the 2. 200 extra CPU and 100 FSB MHz is nice, but it's certainly not the stellar performer. And if you're going to pay that much for a single 1.8, there's really no reason not to go for broke with the 2.0 instead.
Apple knows it's true, and most customers do too, if the Apple Store sales figures are accurate. So now that I've decided the 2.0 is the only choice, my pesky conscience is the only thing preventing me from placing the order. But can I afford to continue languishing with my 8600/300? The fact that Apple only gave us one DP config tells me they planned it exactly this way!
Comments
revs
What would be really nice is if Apple kept, say, a semi-neutered 1.6 GHz G5 around once faster G5 PowerMacs are introduced, at a truly low (not "low") price. Or at least a reasonable price. But that's been discussed to death in many other areas.
Originally posted by Big Mac
I'm finally confident enough to make the assertion that the DP 2GHz is the only configuration of the G5 worth buying.
I totally agree assuming you don't need to run VirtualPC.
Originally posted by Placebo
Spare me. The G5/1.8 is a perfectly fast machine, and the price, considering that it has a 160 GB HD, high-end RAM, a superdrive, et al, is great. Just give it a rest, okay?
I don't know, Placebo, that's a pretty high price to pay for a single processor machine. It may be a fine machine, but in terms of price : performance it is sorely lacking.
Originally posted by Luca Rescigno
I bet within one or two revisions they'll move towards having two dual configurations.
Wouldn't be nice to see an option to configure any of the models as a single or dual?
More choice can't be a bad thing... or can it?
He didn't like when I said anything to this sort...may his wrath be upon you also!
I was so disappointed that the 1.6 was so expensive.
Apple needs a $1200 G5 entry level PowerMac (if not cheaper!).
They would sell tons of those.
It looks like I'll have to either wait for the next revision of the G5s, or pick up a used dual 1.25GHz G4. I just don't like the price/performance ratio of the single G5s processor models.
Originally posted by heaven or las vegas
Perhaps Apple should just adopt the pricing scheme used by the airlines. This would still gouge the average person but offer a window of opportunity for mac zealots. I would log in at 3am to order my dualie for $2500 three months in advance. Oops - that's what some of you did and paid $3K. for the privilege.
cruel, but funny nonetheless.
anyway, barefeats just released more comprehensive benchmarks, with more to come. the dual G5 wipes the floor with many configs, but there is just not a lot of separation from dual 1.42 GHz G4s and either single G5. in fact, MP aware apps like photoshop still kick butt on dual G4s.
Screed
Originally posted by rok
[B]cruel, but funny nonetheless.
B]
I wasn't trying to be cruel. To those of you who really *need* a G5 for your work - I hope you get it soon. I mean it.
If Apple is going to impose such secrecy around their product plans, couldn't they at least build inventory before the final announcement?
I was watching an ER rerun last night. A song , "Sand and Water", was playing repeatedly throughout the episode. After the show ended, I went to my iMac, fired up Safari, typed a few lyrics into the search field, found the song and author, launched iTunes and bought it for 99 cents plus tax. Instant gratification.
Apple sets the bar high in one hand and low in the other.
Though the final result is even I think the Dual is the best price/performance.
But the topic comment is misleading, as different price points are they all suitable in a manner of speaking.
The key word to investigate is "performance"
What do customer, "standard", think performance is?
Base on the comments, it's processing power, and only processing power. THAT is the fatal newbie mistake.
Performance is not just how fast you can get from point a to point b, but also options.
With that even the 1.6, there is a key item here, and that's "super drive". Never before have we had a low end stock config with super drive. This raises the 1599 G4 we used to compare it with up $200 easily(quoted by apple store).
Still 1799 is still a little inflated, but we have to see that other components are much more beefer. Notably the Serial ATA(about twice as much as a EIDE), graphics card, and 512 cache(as opposed to the 256 usual).
Now people aren't really wowed if there had been another G4 bump, but really, the price point of low end 1599, would have been much lowered specs from history standpoint.
Mid range is kinda a toss up IMO to beat the dual in price/performance. The lacking info is obviously how expensive/needed is the 2nd processor.
Though because of the engineering of the G5 the Dual would beat the 1.8ghz simply from the *drool* aspect as it's kinda easy to imagine double performance gain after all the nice work Apple and IBM put in that.
Realistically, the 1.8 isn't bad because non CPU-wize it has a lot of goodies for its price. I'm not sure if Customers are going to render 8 hours a day, but if they do, that 3k is going to seem a lot smaller.
~Kuku
Originally posted by Big Mac
I don't know, Placebo, that's a pretty high price to pay for a single processor machine. It may be a fine machine, but in terms of price : performance it is sorely lacking.
I would disagree. The difference in price between a 1.8 GHz G5 and a comparable Dell is roughly ±$400 (exact spec comparison is not available). And, the Dell (a Dimension 8300) doesn't have Serial ATA drives, can only support up to 2 GB of RAM, doesn't have Firewire or Firewire 2 ports and of course the Dell does not come with MacOS X (which I'm happy to pay a little extra for).
I'm sure this has already beren said, but it bears repeating, this first Rev G5s are set at their current price because it's what the market will bear. Once the pent up demand has been exhausted I believe we'll see the PowerMac line return to its standard pricing in the next Rev, possibly as soon as November.
Originally posted by Cake
When the G5's were announced it was obvious just looking at the prices that the dual 2Ghz was the best deal.
I was so disappointed that the 1.6 was so expensive.
Apple needs a $1200 G5 entry level PowerMac (if not cheaper!).
They would sell tons of those.
They do, they are called G4s. The 1.6ghz so expensive? What are ypu comparing it to?
The 1.8 has a high price for a single processor? Ah, I think it's faster then the DUAL 1.42 which was how much 6 months ago? Wow, the 1.8 and even the dual 2.0ghz are much cheaper then in the past. My dual gig was $3500 when I got it. $3000 for the dual 2ghz is a steal to me. And the $2500 1.8ghz would be quite an upgrade over my wifes/ $2000 800mhz iMac. Let's put some of these prices in perspective before making blanket statements that are ridiculous upon further reflection.
Originally posted by rok
i am inclined to agree. unfortunately, i couldn't swing close to $3000 for the dual-G5, so I had to cut back and spend $1800 on the dual G4. the single 1.6 just will not be appreciably faster than the 1.42 GHz G4 and is lacking the ram expansion and the pci-x slots that help make the 1.8 a bit more palatable. but the dual g5 is by far the best value, IF you can afford it.
I'm getting a 1.6 with the Radeon 9600, which will be a fantastic upgrade from my B&W G3/300 (upgraded to a G4/600 about a year ago). I certainly agree the dual 2.0 is the best value, but $3,800 Cdn (edu price) just isn't in my budget. But the 1.6 for about $2,500 is. The way I see it, I'm getting a machine somewhere between a G4 dual 1.25 and dual 1.42 for less than the G4 single 1.0 (assuming an added Superdrive) was before the G5 announcement. In other words, I'm getting something similar to the prior high-end machine for lower cost than the previous low-end machine. No way I can complain about that.
There is always something better, but the 1.6 will be great for my home user needs (I enjoy video editing and am looking forward to being able to make DVD's finally; and the occassional game of Quake 3/Unreal Tournament will be great on this new machine, too). And with the money saved by not getting the 1.8 or dual 2.0, I've bought a 15 GB iPod (fantastic little device), 512 MB RAM to add to the stock 256 MB, and another 80 GB S-ATA hard drive. The lack of PCI-X and only 4 RAM slots won't be a big deal to me.
Now if only it really ships "on or before Sep 11"