Dual 1.8 GHz, no PCI-X, big deal?
Ok, so the new Dual 1.8 GHz doesn't have PCI-X slots. What is the big deal? I am a video editor, what cards am I missing out on? I can't think of any. Are there faster SCSI PCI-X cards? If so should we be moving to Fiber Channel anyway?
It seems to me that the only people bitching about these PCI slots are 3D animators because they want faster graphics cards. Ok, I see your point.
Name three deceives the rest of us will want that take advantage of PCI-X.
It seems to me that the only people bitching about these PCI slots are 3D animators because they want faster graphics cards. Ok, I see your point.
Name three deceives the rest of us will want that take advantage of PCI-X.
Comments
PCI X cards are not common and horribely expansives.
Anything that pushes gobs of data would be better served by PCI-X.
Therein lies the conundrum. Those that can afford high end cards can afford a Powermac with PCI-X.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Well as a Video Editor you'd need PCI-X for the high end HD Decklink cards from Blackmagic.
Anything that pushes gobs of data would be better served by PCI-X.
Therein lies the conundrum. Those that can afford high end cards can afford a Powermac with PCI-X.
... but if you need that kind of hardware you'll buy a dual 2.5 anyway ... I agree with the original posting, if you are in the 2x1.8-class of people, you'll be just fien with a "cheap" G5!
Originally posted by Powerdoc
I think it's just the contrary, some people will be happy to have a dual G5 with normal PCI slots, and not PCI X ones.
PCI X cards are not common and horribely expansives.
Im pretty sure PCI-X is backwards compatible with PCI, but if you have just a single PCI card in the machine, the entire PCI-C bus slows down to PCI speed.
I do, however, think the following changes would have made everyone less angry:
1 - 512 MB RAM standard on all 3 models.
2 - Radeon 9600 XT standard on all 3 models.
3 - 160 GB HD on 1.8, 250 GB HD on 2.0/2.5 models.
Of course I realize Apple wouldn't do that, because they use the video card, RAM, and HD size as incentives for people to switch to the higher machines. And a Dual 1.8 WITH the 160 GB HD and the Radeon 9600 XT for $1999 would be pretty sweet, even without PCI-X, and therefore less incentive to upgrade. Instead, taking the low-end and adding the extra 256 MB RAM, Radeon 9600 XT, and upgrading to 160 GB gives Apple an additional $225 in build-to-order prices. Multiply that $225 by thousands of orders, and you see why they don't just throw it in standard. But still...I think we'd have seen far less whining with those minor changes.
Back to the original topic...I'm guessing only about (3) out of the hundreds of people I've seen whining about the missing 4 RAM slots and PCI-X on the "low-end" model have a PCI-X card at all, or 4 GB of RAM. It's just a p*ssing contest, essentially.
Originally posted by Ensoniq
I think the real issue is that there's nothing really "wrong" with the new machines. It's that expectations were so high, because of Steve's "3 GHz Promise" that anything less than that would not be considered good enough.
I do, however, think the following changes would have made everyone less angry:
1 - 512 MB RAM standard on all 3 models.
2 - Radeon 9600 XT standard on all 3 models.
3 - 160 GB HD on 1.8, 250 GB HD on 2.0/2.5 models.
Of course I realize Apple wouldn't do that, because they use the video card, RAM, and HD size as incentives for people to switch to the higher machines. And a Dual 1.8 WITH the 160 GB HD and the Radeon 9600 XT for $1999 would be pretty sweet, even without PCI-X, and therefore less incentive to upgrade. Instead, taking the low-end and adding the extra 256 MB RAM, Radeon 9600 XT, and upgrading to 160 GB gives Apple an additional $225 in build-to-order prices. Multiply that $225 by thousands of orders, and you see why they don't just throw it in standard. But still...I think we'd have seen far less whining with those minor changes.
Back to the original topic...I'm guessing only about (3) out of the hundreds of people I've seen whining about the missing 4 RAM slots and PCI-X on the "low-end" model have a PCI-X card at all, or 4 GB of RAM. It's just a p*ssing contest, essentially.
THE BEST ANSWER since this fiasco started!
Thank you.
Now the real question is. How do you feel about a 12 month production cycle for the PowerMac? Do you think this update is good for one years work? Or do you think this is the new speed of the industry?
Originally posted by lowbudgetfun
Now the real question is. How do you feel about a 12 month production cycle for the PowerMac? Do you think this update is good for one years work? Or do you think this is the new speed of the industry?
Personally, I think this is a 6 month update at best. By December/January, Apple needs to announce the 3 GHz update. And the RAM upgrades, video upgrades, and HD upgrades that we all agree were missing this time.
Others may disagree, but I do happen to believe that IBM has been working on a PPC 9xx variant of the Power5 simultaneously. Turning the Power4 into the PPC 970 was an afterthought brought on by Motorola's repeated failures. But I have no doubt the Power5 and it's little brother for Apple were designed in tandem. Let's hope the dual core/SMT rumors are true.
The question is, why, oh why, cant Apple find a better way to distinguish their machines than disfiguring them.
The first gen machines are all the same machine, with various sockets not installed. DIMM sockets dont cost that much, not having them on the 1.6 was pure marketing. The 1.6 could have had PCI-X as well, but doesnt, because of marketing. The iBook, eMac and iMac all support dual head displays, but dont, because of marketing.
You do in fact have to pay for those features. Apple dont get a discount because they dont want to use the features in the chips they buy.
So whats the conclusion?
Without the extra features higher end machines just arent worth their price.
Apple need to sort a fundamental perceived value problem with their hardware. I just hate looking at their machines and feeling them ripping people off ( not absolute price, but having to pay for features that they disable ).
What do I think?
You should be able to buy a Powermac, it starts at $2000. It has all the features that you are paying for enabled. Whatever it costs to put in a faster cpu, thats now much extra you pay to get a faster machine. Very simple product line. Feel free to pay extra to get a better video card, and more ram, bigger HD.
Originally posted by mmmpie
The first gen machines are all the same machine, with various sockets not installed. DIMM sockets dont cost that much, not having them on the 1.6 was pure marketing. The 1.6 could have had PCI-X as well, but doesnt, because of marketing. The iBook, eMac and iMac all support dual head displays, but dont, because of marketing.
This is true, but considering Apple is a proprietary hardware maker I think they do pretty good.
You also have to realize that included in the cost of hardware is also OSX, the entire iLife suite, including Garage Band. They make look free, but the money for their development has to come from somwhere. When you throw in the high resale value of these machines, I think your getting a pretty good deal. a $3000 Alien machine is worth nothing after a year, where a Powermac could get at least half of its value.
Given that the POWER5 is dual-core+SMT, I'd imagine that its little brother would be smaller, not the same thing.