The New G5 PowerMacs

1246710

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 195
    nathan22tnathan22t Posts: 317member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BRussell

    Stop it. They're not going to release new PowerMacs 2-3 months after shipping the previous generation. This is it for 2004.



    Quote:

    Originally posted by Existence

    I think you're forgetting the June 1999 update to the Blue and White G3s. [....]

    It can happen. This update screams "Let's clear our inventory for the next generation."




    Even though I respect the optimism of Existence. I think BRussell is right... The 2.5 wont even be shipping until august/september. The B&W update shipped immediately, and we knew the G4 wouldn't be far off. In this case, there is no next-gen to move to anytime soon. Apple confirmed that today in the MacCentral article. IBM is obviously having major troubles.



    The only suspicious thing is that the motherboard doesn't match the ones shown in the manual pics here at AI. They were retrofitting existing inventories of B&W machines for that update. Do we have other evidence they are doing that here though?
  • Reply 62 of 195
    algolalgol Posts: 833member
    The most obvious reason they added liquid cooling was so they could create a less noisy machine. The fans can run slower and less often and people won't get sucked into the machines and killed. Someone was bitching about how all these x86 chips don't need it, well thats cause they have huge fans that are really noisy. Apple is trying to avoid the wind tunnel effect.
  • Reply 63 of 195
    minguezminguez Posts: 19member
    "Thus, they did what they could"

    I dont realy care if the processor is 2.5 or 3.0.

    The main problem (at least for me)is the graphic card options.



    Like I said, the current apple lineup is like a Ferrari, Porshe and BMW, but with shoppingcart-wheels option only.



    They could deliver a GF-card that is not a joke.... that is a pretty easy thing to do.
  • Reply 64 of 195
    algolalgol Posts: 833member
    I didn't realize the 9600XT was a joke? I thought it was considered a rather good card. Maybe i'm wrong? What should they be putting in them?
  • Reply 65 of 195
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by hobBIT

    Why is liquid cooling necessary for a 2.5GHz 970fx chip?



    According to IBM (pdf file), the 970 typically consumes 51W at 1.8 Ghz, while the FX consumes 24.5 W at 2 Ghz. But that's typical. the "Junction temperature range," and I have no idea what that means, is 0-85 C in the 970 but 0-105 C in the FX. Could it be that with the ability to switch to lower power, the "typical" temp is lower, but the thing in reality has a higher maximum heat? So the liquid cooling is required to use it at its fullest?
  • Reply 66 of 195
    minguezminguez Posts: 19member
    Algol,

    a Quadro or a Fire



    otherwise it just isn´t pro 3D...
  • Reply 67 of 195
    hobbithobbit Posts: 532member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Existence

    This update screams "Let's clear our inventory for the next generation."



    Considering the lack of new graphic cards, more HD bays, a second removable drive bay, PCIe, EEC RAM, the lack of 3.0+GHz speeds,... it does seems a bit like a stopgap update.



    Unless Apple will surprise us with a new 'workstation' class hardware segment.



    They could easily introduce a new 'MacStation' line within the next 6 months since they would not replace existing PowerMacs.

    Why not already in August? Apple has (reportedly a big) stand at SIGGRAPH 2004 in mid August. Apple has not been an exhibitor at SIGGRAPH for many years. Why this year? To show PowerMac G5s and Xserve RAIDs?

    Or will they only demo software like Final Cut Pro and Shake...

    Pixar has its own booth.
  • Reply 68 of 195
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Existence

    I think you're forgetting the June 1999 update to the Blue and White G3s. Apple, in June 1999, boosted the speed by 50MHz and changed specifications of it's Blue and White G3s in early June of 1999 as a move to clear inventory. Then, in September 1999 Apple introduced the PowerMac G4 that began shipping in October of that year.



    It could happen, but how likely is it? You can find one example in how many years? And even that example involved a hopelessly bungled G4 introduction.



    You can almost feel Steve's personality causing these problems. He's incredibly optimistic and gets people to work hard for him, but at the same time he makes these stupid projections (100 million iTunes sales, 3 Ghz G5).
  • Reply 69 of 195
    dr.bimanedr.bimane Posts: 50member
    Wow, totally underwhelming and very disappointing.



    I guess this just proves that IBM IS no better than Motorola. Perhaps Apple is in the wrong chip camp?



    It has been a full year with these G5 chips and the best IBM can do is .5 Ghz and it is not even shipping yet. Shipping in July? My ass.....shipping in July is pathetic enough but we all know it won't ship until September.



    That makes me laugh. Apple never changes.



    Apple should NOT promise what they can't deliver.



    -Dr.Bimane
  • Reply 70 of 195
    spookyspooky Posts: 504member
    Christ.



    After all the grief with MOTO and the f**k**g G4 we now have this horsesh*t.



    Is it simply too much to ask for apple just for once to get it right?



    How can they expect to sell computers when people are always convinced that a better deal is round the corner becuase apple's updates always seem too little too late?



    I believe that jobs is seeking to dump the whole mac thing in favour of apple becoming an ipod, itunes, software company.



    How MOTO must be laughing . . .
  • Reply 71 of 195
    outsideroutsider Posts: 6,008member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by hobBIT

    Why is liquid cooling necessary for a 2.5GHz 970fx chip?



    Here's one thing I do not understand:

    Wasn't the 970fx chip supposed to be running a lot cooler than the first generation 970? Wasn't this the whole idea of the 970fx to allow it to run as cool as a 2.0GHz 970 chip at 2.5GHz?



    Why then does the new 2.5GHz PowerMac have liquid cooling? Apple wouldn't add this unless it would be absolutely necessary.



    If you ask me this does not bode well for a 3.0Ghz (or dare we hope 3.4GHz) chip. 3.4Ghz G5s (i.e. 'Intel-speed') would probably need liquid nitrogen cooling. \



    I feel that the 970fx is a big disappointment. With liquid cooling required at 2.5GHz, I do not see this chip making 3.0GHz ever.



    Let's hope the Power5 derived chip is a lot better, whatever its name. And let's hope it get's used in a PowerMac this year...




    I don't see it that way. i see it as Apple introducing a new cooling method to their units. the 1.8 and 2.0GHz machines use the regular 130nm 970 processors so they continue to use the same coooling method. With the new 970FX they can rework their heatsink and cooling method. Maybe make room for even more processors or the eventual dual core processors.
  • Reply 72 of 195
    emig647emig647 Posts: 2,440member
    Everyone conveniently missed your question...



    PCI-X and PCIexpress are 2 different animals. PCI-X is a doubled version of PCI. PCI Express can be considered AGP 12x but 12x both ways. Current AGP is 8x one way and 1X the other way.



    To the person that said it would have been stupid to move to pci express because then you couldn't use your old cards. All they would replace with pci express is the agp slot... your pci-x slots and pci slots would remain there. 2 different animals.



    This update is very mystifying. I stayed up all night last night programming UDP packet programs for my final Software Engineering class today, so I'm really out of it. But true it isn't apple's fault on the speed.



    As far as the Liquid Cooling... 2 things. One was already mentioned and that was noise. But another major thing has been forgotten... the rev a g5's had powersupply issues... they had what 12 fans on dual models? With the liquid cooling i'm sure this significantly cut power consumption... how big are the new Power Supplies in these machines?



    Also has anyone else verified if the dual 1.8 and dual 2 are 970fx yet?



    Quote:

    Originally posted by mecha

    Hey All,



    The new updates are good, but not great! I have been waiting since December to switch from PC to Mac and am a little dissapointed that we had to wait this long for what is essentially a "bump" rather than a full on update! Also, the fact we have to wait until July for the 90mm 2.5 dualie just stinks of "we havent quite sorted our yield problem yet......"



    Anyway, one question - is PCI-X the same as the much touted PCI Express? If so, do you think we may finally get some PRO cards (3D) on the MAC?



    mecha




  • Reply 73 of 195
    placeboplacebo Posts: 5,767member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by hobBIT

    Why is liquid cooling necessary for a 2.5GHz 970fx chip?



    Uh...so it remains as quiet as the Rev A G5s.
  • Reply 74 of 195
    hobbithobbit Posts: 532member
    Apple finally publicly stated that they will not get to 3.0GHz any time soon. Nor will the G5 make it into PowerBooks this year. And they are not even sure about iMacs.



    It almost seems that Apple itself is a bit disappointed the way the G5 turned out (at least in the near future).



    Perhaps this is why Jon Rubinstein left the Mac hardware division to look for greener pastures in the iPod division?



    Let's face it. It definitely does not look good for any PowerMac updates this year. 2.5GHz that's going to be it until MWSF 2005 at the least.
  • Reply 75 of 195
    For the low end tower with a 128MB 9600 XT card, AppleCare, and a 17 inch monitor, the total comes out to $4,029 Canadian, and that's using the educational discount. That is not a low-end tower. How in the bloody does Apple expect to pick up users with costs like that on their low-end machines?
  • Reply 76 of 195
    mlnjrmlnjr Posts: 230member
    This probably doesn't deserve a thread of its own since it's related to the new G5s, but has anyone noticed what's wrong with this picture?







    Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm pretty sure the 1.8 GHz model shouldn't have been tested twice.
  • Reply 77 of 195
    satchmosatchmo Posts: 2,699member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Jim Paradise

    For the low end tower with a 128MB 9600 XT card, AppleCare, and a 17 inch monitor, the total comes out to $4,029 Canadian, and that's using the educational discount. That is not a low-end tower. How in the bloody does Apple expect to pick up users with costs like that on their low-end machines?



    Exactly. That's the only real major gripe I have with this speedbump round of revisions. The low-end (low priced) desktop market has not been addressed.



    I think Apple believes that only creative professionals with deep pockets want expandability. I admit, I personally don't but I'm guessing a large segment of users want that option, but don't want to spend megabucks.



    Perhaps Apple will surprise us and introduce a single processor G5 consumer tower for under a thousand ( I doubt it). Or maybe this market will be soon be addressed by a somewhat expandable 3rd gen iMac (crossess fingers) at WWDC.
  • Reply 78 of 195
    satchmosatchmo Posts: 2,699member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by mlnjr



    Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm pretty sure the 1.8 GHz model shouldn't have been tested twice.




    Makes you wonder if the lineup was originally intended to be dual 1.6, 1.8 and 2.0 only.
  • Reply 79 of 195
    kidredkidred Posts: 2,402member
    LOL, looks like they forgot the 2.5 and the 2.0. Unless that 1.8 has no apps running while the other one....
  • Reply 80 of 195
    onlookeronlooker Posts: 5,252member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by mlnjr

    This probably doesn't deserve a thread of its own since it's related to the new G5s, but has anyone noticed what's wrong with this picture?







    Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm pretty sure the 1.8 GHz model shouldn't have been tested twice.






    They are not even comparing the right Alienware setup against the dual PowerMacs. Try a Dual AMD, from the DCC workstation $3,545.0. before applicable rebates, and discounts. Comes with w/1GB ram <base/standard>/ a QuadroFX 1100, <base/standard> and other configurable options up the wazzooo.

    These are Lightwave tests we are talking about here right? (duhhh 3D) Wouldn't you naturally configure the Dual Processor DCC workstation, rather than the single processor Gaming station?
Sign In or Register to comment.