This is essentially why The Cube failed. Despite Apple's limited upgrabability (HD, RAMM, etc.), everyone -- and I mean everyone complained that it was too expensive for a non-upgradable computer.
The people who are selective enough about computers to buy CPUs and monitors separately are the people who want expansion options (like PCI slots). People who want a cheap computer buy all-in-ones (eMac/iMac) or whatever PC/monitor bundle that Wal-Mart has on sale that week.
Then the kids upgrade the box with a faster gpu every year.
Why can't apple just build a unit with a cartrage like upgrade path. you can slide in a new cartrage when it's time to upgrade the GPU/ram etc. If you buy a well designed box, it is ok out of the box in a year or two when memory and gpu's get cheaper (as they do) you could pull out an old cartrage of gpu and ram and put in a new one with new features. This way one could keep their computer for 3 years and upgrade it yearly with great ease.
This would appeal to the people who don't know how to upgrade and just buy a new cheap dell for 600 bux evey 2 years.
No G5 Mac will run without active cooling. BTW I haven't seen a Cube with a G4 > 1GHz that doesn't need active cooling.
My point was a machine that doesn't allow natural cooling will need more powerful, louder active cooling. The fact that the Cube can be upgraded to a 1.4GHz processor and only need a 19cfm (18dba) fan, thats is very quiet.
A G5 is possible to cool passively but safer to cool actively (but quietly). It won't be 2GHz. I can imagine a chip undervolted attached to a very large heatsink can be cooled with nothing more then a 20dba 80mm fan (better to use a 120mm though). Do you know how large the heatsink was in the Cube? How heavy it made the thing?
They could pull it off, and they should. If its one thing I've noticed is that Apple is in no way weight-conscious for their desktops.
This is essentially why The Cube failed. Despite Apple's limited upgrabability (HD, RAMM, etc.), everyone -- and I mean everyone complained that it was too expensive for a non-upgradable computer.
Everyone? More accurate to say "too expensive for a semi-upgradable computer." The CPU, GPU, RAM, Airport and HDD can all be upgraded, thats more I can say for any small-footprint desktop Apple has had in recent memory.
Umm, actually active cooling does involve fans, after all you have to cool the radiator cooling the liquid too. unless you have such huge amounts of liquid in such a huge radiator, that normal convection works sufficiently. Then you have what you find behind your fridge: It's huge.
So what was all the talk on these forums a while back about liquid cooling in the G5 Powerbooks if we ever see them? Was it all just BS? And I thought maybe just liquid cooling and heatsinks would be enough, well not for a 2.5Ghz obviously but 1.8Ghz maybe?
It all depends on how much heat a G5 really produces.
Using heatpipes and heatsinks is fine, but as you know, even the Powerbooks have a fan that kicks in often enough, when the pipes&sinks no longer cool enough.
Somehow I don't think any of the current 130nm 970 or 90nm 970FX can be run without fans cooling either the sinks or the radiators (which are of course also heatsinks, just to cool the liquid instead of direct CPU metal surface)
A G5 is possible to cool passively but safer to cool actively (but quietly). It won't be 2GHz. I can imagine a chip undervolted attached to a very large heatsink can be cooled with nothing more then a 20dba 80mm fan (better to use a 120mm though).
They could pull it off, and they should.
I used to think that this was a simple matter too, but running a lower core voltage is not as simple as that. You need high quality parts to switch reliably at a lower core voltage, that means expense.
Also, it may not be worth it to run the G5 at anything much slower than 1.6-2Ghz. With the full-speed FSB and I/O control at least possible on a desktop, a sub 1.6Ghz G5 may still be worth it. I don't know.
The combination of slow clock rate/slow FSB that would be needed for a laptop is probably what has killed a G5 PB so far: the chip depends on high clock rates and big big big FSB throughput, without them it may just be embarrasingly slow.
I don't think cooling a full speed G5 would really be any sort of issue in a desktop enclosure -- except maybe for an iMac type dome, but there are solutions for that too.
Merovingian: A vertical design is very appealing from a case design perspective. But a horizontal design like Outsider's mockup makes more engineering and sales sense. Drives that function vertically are more expensive, because they have to be slot-loading.
Escher
Vertical drives do not HAVE to be slot-loading. See PlayStation 2.
Comments
Originally posted by Michael Grey
This is essentially why The Cube failed. Despite Apple's limited upgrabability (HD, RAMM, etc.), everyone -- and I mean everyone complained that it was too expensive for a non-upgradable computer.
The people who are selective enough about computers to buy CPUs and monitors separately are the people who want expansion options (like PCI slots). People who want a cheap computer buy all-in-ones (eMac/iMac) or whatever PC/monitor bundle that Wal-Mart has on sale that week.
Then the kids upgrade the box with a faster gpu every year.
Why can't apple just build a unit with a cartrage like upgrade path. you can slide in a new cartrage when it's time to upgrade the GPU/ram etc. If you buy a well designed box, it is ok out of the box in a year or two when memory and gpu's get cheaper (as they do) you could pull out an old cartrage of gpu and ram and put in a new one with new features. This way one could keep their computer for 3 years and upgrade it yearly with great ease.
This would appeal to the people who don't know how to upgrade and just buy a new cheap dell for 600 bux evey 2 years.
Originally posted by smalM
No G5 Mac will run without active cooling. BTW I haven't seen a Cube with a G4 > 1GHz that doesn't need active cooling.
My point was a machine that doesn't allow natural cooling will need more powerful, louder active cooling. The fact that the Cube can be upgraded to a 1.4GHz processor and only need a 19cfm (18dba) fan, thats is very quiet.
A G5 is possible to cool passively but safer to cool actively (but quietly). It won't be 2GHz. I can imagine a chip undervolted attached to a very large heatsink can be cooled with nothing more then a 20dba 80mm fan (better to use a 120mm though). Do you know how large the heatsink was in the Cube? How heavy it made the thing?
They could pull it off, and they should. If its one thing I've noticed is that Apple is in no way weight-conscious for their desktops.
Quiet, Lightweight, Powerful. Pick Two
Originally posted by Michael Grey
This is essentially why The Cube failed. Despite Apple's limited upgrabability (HD, RAMM, etc.), everyone -- and I mean everyone complained that it was too expensive for a non-upgradable computer.
Everyone? More accurate to say "too expensive for a semi-upgradable computer." The CPU, GPU, RAM, Airport and HDD can all be upgraded, thats more I can say for any small-footprint desktop Apple has had in recent memory.
Using heatpipes and heatsinks is fine, but as you know, even the Powerbooks have a fan that kicks in often enough, when the pipes&sinks no longer cool enough.
Somehow I don't think any of the current 130nm 970 or 90nm 970FX can be run without fans cooling either the sinks or the radiators (which are of course also heatsinks, just to cool the liquid instead of direct CPU metal surface)
Originally posted by IonYz
A G5 is possible to cool passively but safer to cool actively (but quietly). It won't be 2GHz. I can imagine a chip undervolted attached to a very large heatsink can be cooled with nothing more then a 20dba 80mm fan (better to use a 120mm though).
They could pull it off, and they should.
I used to think that this was a simple matter too, but running a lower core voltage is not as simple as that. You need high quality parts to switch reliably at a lower core voltage, that means expense.
Also, it may not be worth it to run the G5 at anything much slower than 1.6-2Ghz. With the full-speed FSB and I/O control at least possible on a desktop, a sub 1.6Ghz G5 may still be worth it. I don't know.
The combination of slow clock rate/slow FSB that would be needed for a laptop is probably what has killed a G5 PB so far: the chip depends on high clock rates and big big big FSB throughput, without them it may just be embarrasingly slow.
I don't think cooling a full speed G5 would really be any sort of issue in a desktop enclosure -- except maybe for an iMac type dome, but there are solutions for that too.
Originally posted by Escher
Merovingian: A vertical design is very appealing from a case design perspective. But a horizontal design like Outsider's mockup makes more engineering and sales sense. Drives that function vertically are more expensive, because they have to be slot-loading.
Escher
Vertical drives do not HAVE to be slot-loading. See PlayStation 2.