I don't think this is the situation at all. If Apple doesn't explicitly say that the 2.7 GHz G5 use overclocked 2.5 GHz CPUs, it's going to be a lawsuit time, and they will lose. I don't see it anywhere in the machine specs. Those parts are 2.7 GHz parts, officially rated as such from IBM.
This sentiment is more conspiracy theory than reality.
[edit: grammer...]
Thanks THT for making that clear.
There is always a post about Apple "overclocking" something and the fact is they would be committing massive fraud if they did that, so THEY DON'T DO THAT. If they are selling a 2.7 gHz part, that means that IBM's fab certified the part as 2.7 gHz. For Apple to do anything else would be corporate suicide.
I really don't understand this sentiment whatsoever. Overclocking is a fairly precise term describing what a customer can do to a processor, after it is bought. Whatever CPU is shipped in the Power Mac is officially rated, defined by default, to be a CPU capable of running at X.Y clock rate, and Apple advertizes it as such. I can gaurantee you (meaning I'm very confident) that every single 2.7 GHz CPU shipped in the new top-end Power Mac will be stamped with a part indentifier indicating its a 2.7 GHz part. Otherwise, we are talking lawsuits.
It will be another year before we see the next update. Its sad you cant get just one 2.7 G5 but Apple doesnt sell machines for what the people want they sell them how they want to make em period. Kind of sucks another yearly lame update. I guess this means iMac goes to 2.0 and more fx5200 crap. Glad as hell i got me a PC gaming rig to go with my collection of Macs. Sad but true. Athlons64s rule for the consumer/gamer. Anyways something is better then a year of nothing and this is something\
No, but I'm trying to figure out how to make a post filter that automatically holds all posts with the character string "overclock" or "0vercl0ck" for moderator review before posting.
Base Powermac is still a poor machine, only a 1.8 G5 and a fx5200 for $1500. I dont know but i think Apple should stop the handicap crap and start letting buyers choose their CPU speed and how many they want. This wasnt much of a update except for the top model. For the consumer who loves Mac this kind of sucks. Pro's will be happy. Base powermac can not be made into a game machine because a single 1.8 G5 just cant push the better videocards and to get something that can apple wants you to have 2 cpu's jacking up the cost. Help me spock! Apple doesnt want to sell computers.
Err we ramble on about "OMG NO DUAL CORE OMG OMG APPLE SUCKS" but hold on a second, can I verify something?
Ok, a Dual core chip, shares a single bus, so it has half the memory bandwidth, and bus to the rest of the system per chip. However it does have a fast communication between the two processors.
A Dual processor system doesn't have this, as it has to communicate to the other processor between FSBs. However dual processor machines have a full FSB per chip, so the bandwidth isn't halved...
Are Dual cores actually faster than Dual Processor machines, or is it that people want "quad" machines or for Apple to be able to say "look we got this too!" or are dual core chips faster than two separate chips regarding today's (not tomorrow's) apps and OS'?
Are Dual cores actually faster than Dual Processor machines, or is it that people want "quad" machines or for Apple to be able to say "look we got this too!" or are dual core chips faster than two separate chips regarding today's (not tomorrow's) apps and OS'?
There is Zero proof that Dual Core would be faster than two single cores. It's more of an ego thing. I frequently hear people talk about Steve Jobs' ego but let's be honest what Mac user "wouldn't" want a Dual 2.7Ghz G5???
It's a hobby for many people on AI. I'm really trying to think of technologies that have the ability to disrupt my standard way of computing and improve it. I'm not sure we're there yet. Some simple tech that I look forward to.
802.11n ....more wireless speed and MIMO antenna.
SATA 3Gbps the real reason why Apple needs more HD bays.
HDMI- longshot but a better way of handling Digital Video and Audio
Dual-Core The future but only Quad cores really get my juices flowing.
I was surprised about that as it seems silly not to support the new standard. 802.11g was used by Apple before many devices used it but who's going to adopt a new standard if nobody uses it. USB took off due to Apple, so did FireWire. I think Bluetooth 2 was needed.
.... Are Dual cores actually faster than Dual Processor machines, or is it that people want "quad" machines or for Apple to be able to say "look we got this too!" or are dual core chips faster than two separate chips regarding today's (not tomorrow's) apps and OS'?....
most whiners wouldn't know what to do with dual-core dual processors even if it bit them in the behind.
but for those really fully into gaming, a PowerMac g5 is not for you. Given the not as extensive title availability.... GPU is not an issue, if you are really into a better GPU you could spend an extra $200-$500 on a top of the line ATI or Nvidia for Mac, rather than set up a whole 'nother $1500+ PC machine for gaming...
the only thing that really bugs me about this upgrade is the GPU. i'm happy they got rid of the crappy 5200, but really, how much better is a 9650 over a 9600? seems pretty minimal to me. if you look on BTO, the 9800XT is no longer offered. i kinda wish this option was still here so that there would be something between the 96x0 series and the nVidea 6800. it goes from a 40 dollar upgrade to a ~500 dollar upgrade (for educational prices, may be different otherwise, i dunno). seems pretty steep. oh well, thats my thoughts
also, with the 1.8, it didn't change at all today. its not that they've decided that it shouldn't get 512 Ram or a speed boost or anything, its that they didn't touch it AT ALL. most likely they'll leave it untouched til stock runs low and then introduce a single 2.0 w/ 512 ram and a DL Superdrive, and *hopefully* a 9600. we'll see...
the only thing that really bugs me about this upgrade is the GPU. i'm happy they got rid of the crappy 5200, but really, how much better is a 9650 over a 9600....
$50 better. seriously, play with the BTO options and you'll see
Quote:
Originally posted by exhibit_13
.... if you look on BTO, the 9800XT is no longer offered. i kinda wish this option was still here so that there would be something between the 96x0 series and the nVidea 6800. it goes from a 40 dollar upgrade to a ~500 dollar upgrade (for educational prices, may be different otherwise, i dunno). seems pretty steep. oh well, thats my thoughts......
i feel this is a valid concern for any consumer.
a 9800 pro, 9800 pro special edition, and x800 xt would fill out
(my guess is $175, $225, $399 respectively)
those
middle point upgrades between the $50 to $500 gap
and offer an all-round win for ati, apple, and customers.
Comments
Originally posted by MacCrazy
I wrote that earlier - it wasn't mentioned in the press release either. http://www.apple.com/pr
Apologies, didn't see your post.
Originally posted by G_Warren
Apologies, didn't see your post.
no problem - just thought I'd tell you!
Originally posted by THT
I don't think this is the situation at all. If Apple doesn't explicitly say that the 2.7 GHz G5 use overclocked 2.5 GHz CPUs, it's going to be a lawsuit time, and they will lose. I don't see it anywhere in the machine specs. Those parts are 2.7 GHz parts, officially rated as such from IBM.
This sentiment is more conspiracy theory than reality.
[edit: grammer...]
Thanks THT for making that clear.
There is always a post about Apple "overclocking" something and the fact is they would be committing massive fraud if they did that, so THEY DON'T DO THAT. If they are selling a 2.7 gHz part, that means that IBM's fab certified the part as 2.7 gHz. For Apple to do anything else would be corporate suicide.
grrrr
Go AMD or something
Anyway, whats up with the Dual Layer DVD recorders not supporting DVD-R Dual Layer recording??????
Originally posted by ZO
this is SO (hopefully) a pathetic Stop-Gap before the DualProcs are announced...
grrrr
Go AMD or something
Anyway, whats up with the Dual Layer DVD recorders not supporting DVD-R Dual Layer recording??????
and what would you do with dual-processors?
i think IIRC most dual layer recorders support only DVD+R dual layer, not DVD-R dual layer
Originally posted by THT
I really don't understand this sentiment whatsoever. Overclocking is a fairly precise term describing what a customer can do to a processor, after it is bought. Whatever CPU is shipped in the Power Mac is officially rated, defined by default, to be a CPU capable of running at X.Y clock rate, and Apple advertizes it as such. I can gaurantee you (meaning I'm very confident) that every single 2.7 GHz CPU shipped in the new top-end Power Mac will be stamped with a part indentifier indicating its a 2.7 GHz part. Otherwise, we are talking lawsuits.
Can somebody make this a sticky!
Originally posted by Carson O'Genic
Can somebody make this a sticky!
No, but I'm trying to figure out how to make a post filter that automatically holds all posts with the character string "overclock" or "0vercl0ck" for moderator review before posting.
Ok, a Dual core chip, shares a single bus, so it has half the memory bandwidth, and bus to the rest of the system per chip. However it does have a fast communication between the two processors.
A Dual processor system doesn't have this, as it has to communicate to the other processor between FSBs. However dual processor machines have a full FSB per chip, so the bandwidth isn't halved...
Are Dual cores actually faster than Dual Processor machines, or is it that people want "quad" machines or for Apple to be able to say "look we got this too!" or are dual core chips faster than two separate chips regarding today's (not tomorrow's) apps and OS'?
Originally posted by SethMonster
But, no Bluetooth 2.0?
Yes Bluetooth 2.0, for the six people that use it.
Are Dual cores actually faster than Dual Processor machines, or is it that people want "quad" machines or for Apple to be able to say "look we got this too!" or are dual core chips faster than two separate chips regarding today's (not tomorrow's) apps and OS'?
There is Zero proof that Dual Core would be faster than two single cores. It's more of an ego thing. I frequently hear people talk about Steve Jobs' ego but let's be honest what Mac user "wouldn't" want a Dual 2.7Ghz G5???
It's a hobby for many people on AI. I'm really trying to think of technologies that have the ability to disrupt my standard way of computing and improve it. I'm not sure we're there yet. Some simple tech that I look forward to.
802.11n ....more wireless speed and MIMO antenna.
SATA 3Gbps the real reason why Apple needs more HD bays.
HDMI- longshot but a better way of handling Digital Video and Audio
Dual-Core The future but only Quad cores really get my juices flowing.
I actually use Bluetooth all of the time, and I am quite excited about the improved transfer speed.
Originally posted by clonenode
Might be minor, but while you are all debating video cards, etc., did anyone notice that there is no modem listed for these?
Although the 1.8Ghz still has a modem. More evidence that the 1.8 is just old stock that won't be around much longer?
Originally posted by SethMonster
But, no Bluetooth 2.0?
I was surprised about that as it seems silly not to support the new standard. 802.11g was used by Apple before many devices used it but who's going to adopt a new standard if nobody uses it. USB took off due to Apple, so did FireWire. I think Bluetooth 2 was needed.
Originally posted by mattyj
.... Are Dual cores actually faster than Dual Processor machines, or is it that people want "quad" machines or for Apple to be able to say "look we got this too!" or are dual core chips faster than two separate chips regarding today's (not tomorrow's) apps and OS'?....
most whiners wouldn't know what to do with dual-core dual processors even if it bit them in the behind.
but for those really fully into gaming, a PowerMac g5 is not for you. Given the not as extensive title availability.... GPU is not an issue, if you are really into a better GPU you could spend an extra $200-$500 on a top of the line ATI or Nvidia for Mac, rather than set up a whole 'nother $1500+ PC machine for gaming...
also, with the 1.8, it didn't change at all today. its not that they've decided that it shouldn't get 512 Ram or a speed boost or anything, its that they didn't touch it AT ALL. most likely they'll leave it untouched til stock runs low and then introduce a single 2.0 w/ 512 ram and a DL Superdrive, and *hopefully* a 9600. we'll see...
Originally posted by exhibit_13
the only thing that really bugs me about this upgrade is the GPU. i'm happy they got rid of the crappy 5200, but really, how much better is a 9650 over a 9600....
$50 better. seriously, play with the BTO options and you'll see
Originally posted by exhibit_13
.... if you look on BTO, the 9800XT is no longer offered. i kinda wish this option was still here so that there would be something between the 96x0 series and the nVidea 6800. it goes from a 40 dollar upgrade to a ~500 dollar upgrade (for educational prices, may be different otherwise, i dunno). seems pretty steep. oh well, thats my thoughts......
i feel this is a valid concern for any consumer.
a 9800 pro, 9800 pro special edition, and x800 xt would fill out
(my guess is $175, $225, $399 respectively)
those
middle point upgrades between the $50 to $500 gap
and offer an all-round win for ati, apple, and customers.