[slider]

OK, I wanted to get everyones ideas on when the iMac might see the G5, what the introduced processor speed might be, and of course how might they be configured, oh, and price too.

After see the size of the heat sinks and the "thermal zone", with computer controlled cooling, am not sure well see it too soon. I am thinking 1.42 G4 and a G4 line for awhile. I hope I am wrong, I G5 iMac would be totally killer. And Apple is almost coming right out and saying, 'yep, we were really behind", so maybe we'll see it sooner than later.

Well, what do you thing?

[slider]

Interestingly, Apple has said that they have no intention of dumping Motorola and that they still have a strong relationship with them. So I think it maybe a year before we see the G5 in the iMac.

Both my sister and father are finally getting serious about replacing there aged iMac 333 and both will be considering the G5 initiallly. Of course the price point with a monitor may bring they back down to an iMac. I wonder what the huge leap in speed differences will do for iMac sales. I mean the price on the G5 has jumped back up to $2000, I think a lot of people, when looking at the iMac, just decide to get a PowerMac instead. It will be interesting to see what happens over the rest of the year.

[bradoesch]

I'm hoping Apple has intentions of shipping G5 iMacs when the Power Mac G5s ship, but just didn't preannounce them.

[slider]

Well, I certianly hope so too, but I just don't see it happening. I would think, with the more thinking I have done about it, that they might want to maintain a clear distinction between the consumer models and the Pro models. Of course only Apple knows what Apple will do. I can think of reasons to do either or. They'll probably go dual across the PowerMac line first and then offer a single G5 in an iMac with the eMac lagging far behind with a G4 for quiet awhile. This new chip has made it possible for Apple to make clear distinctions between each model. That has become very clear to me. As has the fact that this allows Apple to clearly charge prices based on these differences: note the $400 price increase on the low end PowerMac, or was it $500.

[AssassyN]

I highly doubt Apple will plop the G5 in anything other than the PowerMac for awhile; if anything, they'll put it in the the Xserves next. It's already been officially stated the G5's won't see laptops for a good while, and Apple can't destroy the value of their new PowerMacs quickly by instating their new processor in a lesser machine.

[ericdelangen]

apple could always toss a G5 that's clocked a little lower into an iMac... say a 1.4 GHz chip. I'd throw down some money if I could get a 17" iMac with a 1.4 G5 for $1999.00. It seems like all the other systems are really lagging right now. isn't the low end iBook still an 800 MHz G3? the low end iMac is an 800 MHz G4 for $1299, whereas the low end G5 gets you a 1.6 GHz chip for $1799 without a superdrive. that just doesn't look good on paper.

[mathew_m]

Well since the iMac no longer poses a threat to Powermac sales I don't see why Apple shouldn't throw in the fastest G4 currently possible with 167mhz bus and L3 cache. It would be still a pretty kick ass machine.

[slider]

Originally posted by mathew_m:
Well since the iMac no longer poses a threat to Powermac sales I don't see why Apple shouldn't throw in the fastest G4 currently possible with 167mhz bus and L3 cache. It would be still a pretty kick ass machine.

Yep, that's what I'm thinking, 1.42Mhz G4 with the fastest system bus they can. A great high end consumer machine, oh and a really good graphics card too. They should do something like 1.42-->1.25-->1Ghz the three models. Do you think they should just put a 17 lcd on all of them now or are there still those who would perfer a 15 lcd on it?

[Starry Night]

Originally posted by ericdelangen:
apple could always toss a G5 that's clocked a little lower into an iMac... say a 1.4 GHz chip. I'd throw down some money if I could get a 17" iMac with a 1.4 G5 for $1999.00. It seems like all the other systems are really lagging right now. isn't the low end iBook still an 800 MHz G3? the low end iMac is an 800 MHz G4 for $1299, whereas the low end G5 gets you a 1.6 GHz chip for $1799 without a superdrive. that just doesn't look good on paper.

The G5 PM has a ton of fans, 9 I believe (could be mistaken), to keep it cool. The FP iMac just doesn't have room in the base for a bunch of fans. Even at a lower clockspeed, you'll still need quite a few fans......

[Simon]

Originally posted by Starry Night:
The G5 PM has a ton of fans, 9 I believe (could be mistaken), to keep it cool.

Wrong, not 9 to keep it cool, but 9 to keep it quiet. The number of fans is not a measure for the amount of heat generated.

[austeros]

the power macs arent even shipping yet. why would apple announce new consumer machines too (which would also not be shipping) and totally screw up the sales of all desktop macs?

i think the imacs have one more g4 revision left in them before they go g5, to give apple time to get them PMs off the line and perhaps the xserve. Id bet on the first PM speed bump would bring the g5 to the imac

hope im wrong though

[Starry Night]

Originally posted by Simon:
Wrong, not 9 to keep it cool, but 9 to keep it quiet. The number of fans is not a measure for the amount of heat generated.

Simon,

Sure, keeping it quiet is a priority, but they certainly have the 9 fans in there to keep it cool as well. The fans aren't in there just for show, they serve a practical purpose. The cheese grater design (lots of holes and limited internal expansion) also suggests that heat is an issue.

The 9 fans are in there for *both* cooling, *and* quiet, it's not an either/or deal. You say they aren't in there for cooling. If they didn't need them for cooling, they wouldn't be in there at all

Even if we agree with your logic, there are still obstacles for the imac to overcome. A big selling point for the imac is that it's quiet. There's not much room in the base, does that mean it will take one high volume fan to compensate for the 9? If so, you're back to the leaf blower.

I'm not saying that Apple won't figure something out, who knows, we'll have to wait and see.

[Simon]

Listen Starry, I know damn well that fans are there for cooling.

What I was trying to tell you is that technically you're being a fool if you say the number of fans corresponds proportionally to the amount of generated heat.

We know EXACTLY what the 970 dissipates, i.e. something like 42W. Now, 42W is an electric energy, but since we know about Joule Heat we know that 99.9% are converted into heat. So, we have 42W of heat.

That is not much. And it isn't more if we install another 10 fans. So, basically, we have a CPU that is warm, but by no means exceptional. We have many fans and a case that suggests big airflow.

Final conclusion: Either Apple intended to have the fans run at the smallest RPM possible, or they are planing on putting something much hotter in that box. You may guess which one it is.

Just stop saying 9 fans = lots of heat because 42W is not that much.

[scottiB]

Simon's right-on. Four of the nine fans are used for CPUs (2 ahead and two behind the chips on dual configs--on singles, there's only one in front). It's not like all nine are needed to cool the chips.

In fact, it may be easier to engineer a G5 for an iMac because there are lesser variable to contend with: no PCI slots, multiple drives, a constant graphics card.

Apple may need to consider having an external powerbrick--like the Cube--to remove some heat and size(?).

[Starry Night]

Originally posted by Simon:
Listen Starry, I know damn well that fans are there for cooling.

What I was trying to tell you is that technically you're being a fool if you say the number of fans corresponds proportionally to the amount of generated heat.

We know EXACTLY what the 970 dissipates, i.e. something like 42W. Now, 42W is an electric energy, but since we know about Joule Heat we know that 99.9% are converted into heat. So, we have 42W of heat.

That is not much. And it isn't more if we install another 10 fans. So, basically, we have a CPU that is warm, but by no means exceptional. We have many fans and a case that suggests big airflow.

Final conclusion: Either Apple intended to have the fans run at the smallest RPM possible, or they are planing on putting something much hotter in that box. You may guess which one it is.

Just stop saying 9 fans = lots of heat because 42W is not that much.

Dude, relax man, it's just a computer. We're all just speculating, no need to take it so seriously.

None of us are at the Apple labs and virtually none of us have spent any time with a G5. At this point, none of us know how hot or cool the G5 runs.

Given the re-design of the PM case to allow for a lot of air flow combined with all the fans, it's reasonable to "speculate" that maybe, as in "perhaps", heat may be an issue with the G5.

Is heat an issue with the G5? I don't know! Never claimed to know, and am in no position to know for sure, one way or the other. However, there is enough evidence to at least raise a "question" about the heat. In general, when you see such a major performance boost, ie between the G4 and G5, an increase in heat comes along with the boost. How much? Who knows. Maybe there's none, we'll soon see.

That's all I'm doing, raising the question, the question about heat. What's the answer? I don't know for sure, nor do any of the rest of us. My iIgloo comment was meant to be a joke, not scientific evidence to prove that the G5 is a toaster

Truly, there's no harm is raising questions, and certainly no need to take all so seriously. I'm not answering the question in any definitive way, just asking it, and then speculating.

No matter what, even if the G5 can freeze ice cream, it will probably (yet more speculation, nothing definitive as everything in this thread is mere speculation) be awhile before the G5 reaches the iMac. The G5 PM was released to boost lagging PM sales. The G4 iMac has been eating into PM sales because the G4 PM didn't offer significant peformance boosts over the less expensive iMac.

Now that Apple has put some distance between the two lines, one would be reasonable to speculate that it will be at least 6 months to a year before the iMac makes the leap, perhaps (yet more speculation, don't attack!), with a redesigned enclosure to meet the G5's needs.

[slider]

Hmm, a redesigned enclosure, wonder what that would look like.

[scottiB]

Originally posted by slider:
Hmm, a redesigned enclosure, wonder what that would look like.

Place a stainless steel collander upsidedown.

[Simon]

Originally posted by Starry Night:
Dude, relax man

Dude, relax man? Well, I happen to be quite relaxed at the moment, so I'll make it quick.

You seam to still believe we need to guess about the heat of the 970. Well that is simply wrong. We know it. Go get IBMs 970 docs and they will tell you that it dissipates 42W of heat. Now, if you take the material of the heatsink, the airflow and those 42W you can calculate what the temp of this CPU and the air leaving the box will be.

You can also take a more experimental approach and hold your hand behind the vent holes of the box and feel the air temp. People at WWDC have done this. These people do not report about very hot air. Why? Because 42W is not a whole lot.

Now, this has nothing to do with the G5 going into an iMac or not. I believe it will take quite a while until we get that, but that is entirely the point.

All I am telling you is to stop telling people that the 9 fans indicate that this CPU will be a frying pan, but that we need to wait and see. That is - quite frankly - bullshit. Because a) it's wrong, b) we don't need to guess because c) we know the necessary physical properties.

And as a final note I would like to stress the fact that Steve wasn't just babbling marketing baloney when he mentioned that they used more fans to get less noise. That makes abolute sense. If you have one uni-directional fan you sure need much more airflow (->RPM->noise) than with multiple well-placed blowers.

[MikeJW]

If Apple were to throw a G5 at the iMac, then they would probably throw a 1 GHz G5 (only 1.0 volt) and probably use a 1 GHz FSB but only be 64 bits wide, compared with 128 in the PM G5.

But the G5 would probably still use more power than a dual motorola 1.0 GHz (1.0 volt) 7447 G4e+, with a nice 200 MHz (DDR?) FSB

By having a single 1.0 GHz with the combo drive, and 15" screen for $1250, and a dual 1 GHz and superdrive & 17" for $1750 that would keep the iMac viable for another 6 months, until Jan 2004 when IBM get the G5 fabricated on a 0.09 micron process, then the G5s should be flying everywhere

Edit: Well, the eMac needs a 1GHz G4 & fast system bus so, the entry level iMac (15") should be a dual G4, and the 17" should be a G5, as of 4 July 2003