[zen]

While we'd all like to get the dual 2 Ghz G5, sometimes a wallet can't quite make the stretch.

So what's up with the 1.6 Ghz G5? It's not a Yikes machines by a long shot surely?

So what is different?

333 Mhz RAM, max 4 GB
PCI, not PCI-X

That's not really too significant is it? The Yikes G4s *were* crippled by using the G3 motherboard and with no AGP port, but the 1.6 Ghz G5 seems pretty solid to me.

Zen

[eddiecatflap]

..it is exactly like the yikes..

..a stop gap mac that any daft enough to buy will soon feel annoyed at buying..

..to be honest apart from the dual 2ghz , i don't see the attraction of the g5 at the mo'..the 1.6 and 1.8 seem destined for a deadend future..

..we all know multi-processing is the g5's forte..why get a mac with one when 2 or 2+ is the way to go?

..roll on rev. b..

oh well..

[SciFrog]

Dual 2 Ghz is th best value of the lineup. I hope they have a lot of 2Ghz chips becaus this will be their best seller. They really should have made the mid range a dual 1.8Ghz at $2,600 instead.

[Eug]

The 1.6 is an OK machine and would satisfy many. The biggest beef I have is 4 memory slots.
The 1.8 is VERY solid and future proof. It will perform very well and will be easily upgraded
The 2.0 dual is a absolute monster. It's for those where price is no object for maximum performance.

..we all know multi-processing is the g5's forte..why get a mac with one when 2 or 2+ is the way to go?

$$$ of course. I'm sure everyone would love a G5 dual, but not everybody has greenbacks bursting out of their mattresses.

Anyways, it's interesting to note that Apple doesn't seem to agree with you. If what you were saying is true, then we'd see duals across the line (or at least the option for duals at every level).

[silverlode]

Originally posted by zen:
While we'd all like to get the dual 2 Ghz G5, sometimes a wallet can't quite make the stretch.

So true, so true...

So what's up with the 1.6 Ghz G5? It's not a Yikes machines by a long shot surely?

So what is different?

333 Mhz RAM, max 4 GB
PCI, not PCI-X

That's not really too significant is it? The Yikes G4s *were* crippled by using the G3 motherboard and with no AGP port, but the 1.6 Ghz G5 seems pretty solid to me.

Zen

Sure it's solid. So was the original G4. Seen alone as a machine they were both great. The Yikes! label comes into play (in my mind) when comparing these machines to the rest of the current and future line-up. The 1.6 is the only G5 that will ever use 333MHz ram limited to 4GIGs, and the only G5 that will not be available with PCI-X. You can't even upgrade to PCI-X in the Apple Store. When revision B rolls around, the whole line will be like the 1.8 and dual 2.0.

Regarding duals vs. singles. Remember a big reason duals were introduced was to make up for the lack of MHz in the G4. I don't think Apple will offer duals across the line anytime soon.

[roders]

We won't know if the 1.6 is a Yikes or not, until someone tests one (Versus a 1.8) but a lot of the Mobo specs are the same as the outgoing G4...
As fot the 1.8 not being worth it, I have a Shuttle XPC (bit cube like) with an AMD XP1700+ (overclocked to 1833Mhz) running a 333FSB and it can deal with ANYTHING a demanding home or Proto Pro (snigger!) user could want, and more.
Remember my CPU is overclocked to the equivalnet of a XP2500+ or too put it another way, has at least comparable performance to a P4 2.5Ghz, as I'm sure the G5 @ 1.8 will too.

[DeathMan]

I don't think there is anything wrong with any of these machines. I'm sure apple hamstringed the 1.6 at least a little bit because they want us all to go big on the dual 2.0. They'll need to get the top end clock speed up a bit higher if they want to bring the duals to the middle ground. So they could have something like 1.8 bottom, 2X2.0, and 2X2.5 or something like that, Who would pay for the 2X2.4 if you could get a 2X2.2 for $500 cheaper? They're definately pushing people to the top end.

Maybe after all the holdouts are done splurging, they'll focus on moving the middle version, which historically has seemed to be the best value.

[Eriamjh]

I think owners of the Yikes G4 were happy when they bought, but now that their machines are a few years old, they have found that there is a lot of "Works in every G4 ecept the Yikes!" disclaimer. Do you want that to be you in a year?

I would go for the 1.8 in a second, but really would prefer the dual for video rendering.

As I have pointed out before, there is nothing anywhere about the layout or architecture of the 1.6 or 1.8 G5. Everything talks about the dual G5 as if it was the only model.... I wonder if the 1.8 is also crippled in some way?

[milhouse]

Originally posted by Eug:
The 1.6 is an OK machine and would satisfy many. The biggest beef I have is 4 memory slots.
The 1.8 is VERY solid and future proof. It will perform very well and will be easily upgraded

These machines are not "processor upgradable" according to Apple.
There is a highly specific match between the Processors and HS/Fan set up. Apple has noted that at best another processor would run for a short time and likely lock up. At worst it might cook itself.

Perhaps some thrid party will come up with a "non-noisy" work around.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by milhouse:
These machines are not "processor upgradable" according to Apple.
There is a highly specific match between the Processors and HS/Fan set up. Apple has noted that at best another processor would run for a short time and likely lock up. At worst it might cook itself.

Perhaps some thrid party will come up with a "non-noisy" work around.

I didn't mean CPU upgrades. I mean upgrades of everything else. eg. Memory, FW800 external drives, etc.

[Superchicken]

the 1.6 probably has fewer features so they can get the price low.

If I had the cash for only a 1.6 I'd buy it in a second. The pro pros are gona go with the Dual 2 anyway, but if all you're doing is some heavy Photoshop stuff, and a bit of video or something a 1.6 would be fine!

Any web designer would love this machine.

[Eriamjh]

If the processor is removable, it is upgradeable.

Apple doesn't WANT people to replace the processor. They want them to replace the whole machine.

I'm sure some vendor out there will figure out how to re-calibrate the fans for new processors. It may take years, but it will probably happen.

[Scotttheking]

Originally posted by Eriamjh:
If the processor is removable, it is upgradeable.

Apple doesn't WANT people to replace the processor. They want them to replace the whole machine.

I'm sure some vendor out there will figure out how to re-calibrate the fans for new processors. It may take years, but it will probably happen.

Don't forget that the FSB is 1/4 of the processor speed. Put in a faster processor, and the FSB goes up.

[d0ubled0wn]

Originally posted by Eug:
The 1.6 is an OK machine and would satisfy many. The biggest beef I have is 4 memory slots.

judas priest isn't 8 GB enough for ya??

[slider]

Originally posted by Scotttheking:
Don't forget that the FSB is 1/4 of the processor speed. Put in a faster processor, and the FSB goes up.

I thought it was a half.

[Xaaron Swiftblade]

It is half, unless your adding 2.0ghz + 2.0ghz together.

But is it probable that the 1.6 isn't upgradable? I'll be taking a big leap in processor speed if I get one (from a pentium II 350mhz) so I doubt I'll notice a lack of speed initially; but down the line a few years am I and other 1.6ghz owners gonna be stuck?

Damn you marketing! Why ya gotta be good at what you do?!

[kupan787]

Originally posted by slider:
I thought it was a half.

It is technically one forth. But because of DDR, it is effectively half. So a 2.0GHz 970 has a FSB of 500MHz real, 1GHz effective (because of ddr).

And since each processor has its own bus, we are talking some major bandwidth going on here!

[nvaughan3]

Originally posted by d0ubled0wn:
judas priest isn't 8 GB enough for ya??

Yeah, like anyone who is buying the lowest price g5 is going to be spending 5 grand on RAM. It wouldn't make economic sense. You'd be better off buying the dual 2 ghz and going with 1GB sticks instead of 2GB sticks. You'd actually save money.

[Arkham_c]

Originally posted by nvaughan3:
Yeah, like anyone who is buying the lowest price g5 is going to be spending 5 grand on RAM. It wouldn't make economic sense. You'd be better off buying the dual 2 ghz and going with 1GB sticks instead of 2GB sticks. You'd actually save money.

1 GB stick of DDR 3200 is $170 right now.
2 GB stick of DDR 3200 is $1100 right now.

If you get the 2GB sticks you're insane.

1 GB sticks:
If you keep the two chips in the box when you get it, there are 2 slots open in the 1.6 GHz model, and 6 slots in the 1.8 and 2.0GHz models. That's $340 to fill the 1.6, or $680 to max it out at 4GB. For the 8-slot machines, it's $1020 to fill it, or $1360 to max it.

2GB sticks:
If you're using the 2GB sticks, I assume you're a nut and will max the RAM. That's $4400 for the 1.6 or $8800 for the 1.8 or 2.0. Crazy.

[nvaughan3]

yeah, that was my point. the poster I responded to was saying "8 gigs isn't enough?" when to get 8 gigs on the 1.6 you'd have to be buying 2 GB sticks.

[mfethers]

Don't Dis the Yikes!

I'm using mine right now, and it's worked well for me the past 4 years; I've had no significant issues or "agp" envy. I bought it for the same reason I'll probably buy a 1.6 G5 - I want the expansion options that aren't available in the Imac, but I don't have a need the fastest machine available. It's a good niche.

If I go with a 1.8 (got to wait until September for cash flows reasons) it will be because the cost difference is so little and I would have the 8GB opportunity in 3 years (right!)

[kakashi]

This is funny--there is no way in hell the 1.6ghz G5 is like the 'yikes' model. Why? Because the PowerMac G5's..ALL OF THEM..use a completely different architecture than the g4's. The 1.6ghz PM G5 is just as powerful as the other ones. It's the exact same motherboard besides the fact that it has less memory slots and only PCI slots. Also, I believe the 1.8ghz PM G5 also only has 4 slots. I think only the dual processor machines have 8 slots. The yikes machines actually were based ont he previous powermac g3 architecture, where as the 1.6ghz g5 is based on the new one. Hyper transport, etc. They just don't have pci-x to lower the price and possibly to give more of an incentive to buy the costlier models(think ibooks that couldn't span desktops, only mirror).

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by kakashi:
This is funny--there is no way in hell the 1.6ghz G5 is like the 'yikes' model. Why? Because the PowerMac G5's..ALL OF THEM..use a completely different architecture than the g4's. The 1.6ghz PM G5 is just as powerful as the other ones. It's the exact same motherboard besides the fact that it has less memory slots and only PCI slots. Also, I believe the 1.8ghz PM G5 also only has 4 slots. I think only the dual processor machines have 8 slots. The yikes machines actually were based ont he previous powermac g3 architecture, where as the 1.6ghz g5 is based on the new one. Hyper transport, etc. They just don't have pci-x to lower the price and possibly to give more of an incentive to buy the costlier models(think ibooks that couldn't span desktops, only mirror).

The 1.6 doesn't deserve the Yikes label, but it should be a big change from the 1.8 in terms of performance, at least with certain apps. Slower FSB is to be expected, but it also has a significantly slower memory bus. That said, memory bandwidth of the 1.6 G5 still wipes the floor with the dual G4s.

[Eriamjh]

Actually, I was revieing the las document that Apple put out and it does APPEAR that the mobo is the same and it only lacks the 4 DIMM slots.

I don't know how Apple can switch between PCI only and PCI-X slots, but perhaps they use a differnt controller chip on the same mobo.


It does appear that 4 GB will be the max memory, not 8 GB as some have theorized. The document clearly specifies 1GB dimms as the biggest. It doesn't have any notes about others being used as they become available.

Is it August yet?

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by Eriamjh:
It does appear that 4 GB will be the max memory, not 8 GB as some have theorized. The document clearly specifies 1GB dimms as the biggest. It doesn't have any notes about others being used as they become available.

Apple quite clearly states in their developer notes that the new Macs can use 16 GB of memory max (with 8 slots). Thus I wouldn't be surprised if that means the 1.6 GHz G5 Power Mac with four slots can use 8 GB max (with the uber-expensive 2 GB DIMMs).

Apple has an unusual habit of understating the max RAM capabilities, both with the laptops and with the desktops.

[Eriamjh]

Apple quite clearly states in their developer notes that the new Macs can use 16 GB of memory max (with 8 slots). Thus I wouldn't be surprised if that means the 1.6 GHz G5 Power Mac with four slots can use 8 GB max (with the uber-expensive 2 GB DIMMs).

That's good. I'm sure as prices drop and requirements go up, 8GB won't be enough.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by Eriamjh:
That's good. I'm sure as prices drop and requirements go up, 8GB won't be enough.

By the time I need more than 4 GB RAM, I will also need a brand new computer.

It's not as if I'd buy 1.6 to run a humungous scientific database or something. If I were in that market, I'd buy at least a dual 2.0 right of the bat anyway.

[clarkgoble]

A couple of thoughts...

How many people populate their PCI slots on a Mac? I do on my PC. But on my Mac? The only things I've ever considered were a 133 IDE card for a 250 GB drive or a USB 2.0 card. Occasionally I've thought about a SCSI card, but that is less of an issue now days.

Likewise the only people who'd need more than 4 GB of RAM are running large video programs, large graphics, or stunning scientific analysis. Those people aren't the market for the low end G5 systems!

Now I personally do wonder about the difference between the 1.6 and 1.8 G5's. I almost think the 1.6 is the better deal.

Realize, however, that most applications on the Mac already are limited not by the CPU but by things like your network bandwidth. A G5 is not likely to make Safari faster. For probably 90% of the applications business and home users run, you won't get much more out of it. (This is why the PC market is changing the last couple of years - most applications have sufficient speed even including all the bloat added the past 10 years)

The Mac is a tad different because of the demands that aqua makes - a faster CPU does improve usability a lot. But once again unless you are doing a lot of videa with iMovie, I don't think the average home user needs more than a 1.6 GHz G5. I think that the G5 will make a lot of difference over a sub 1GHz G4 though and is worth the upgrade. Whether the mid and high end systems are worth it is an other matter.

[Eriamjh]

The average home user doesn't need more than an iMac. The problem is no matter how adequate your machine is for 90% of what you do, it's that 10% you spend rendering in iDVD, making an iMovie, or even builidng web pages from iPhoto.

Most computers are fast enough for the internet, email, etc. But as soon as you have to wait for then 5 minutes for a task, there can be nothing fast enough.

I am impatient. I hate waiting even a moment for iMovie to render an effect or to scale a 4MB picture to 640x480. It just sucks!

Remember this rule?: Buy the fastest you can afford. Sure, there are "best bag for the buck" machines out there, but we all hate waiting for anything! I remember when my radio shack color computer could boot in 1 second (just turn it on). No modern operating system can touch that although waking from OSX sleep is close. Sure, I waited for everything else to load and run, etc. but it booted in 1 second.

I want those days to return. Instant restart.

End Rant.

Now bring on those G5s!

Update July 5, 2003 from macboudille.com:

Future of PowerMac G5 - Lionel - 05:41:37

The passage to the PCI-X 133 MHz is only the beginning for the new PowerMac. The next controller of the G5 will adopt the PCI-X 2.0 which will support frequencies of 266 then 533 MHz. The prototypes of this controler are already in preliminary tests .
The G5 which will come out at the beginning of 2004 will have a bus which can reach 1,7 GHz (currently 1GHz). For those which will try to overclock their G5, current architecture will not support processors exceeding 2,2 GHz. Further in the future, APPLE will adopt standard 3GIO, known under the name of PCI-Express. It will replace AGP. But it will not be until late 2004/early 2005 so that ATI and NVidia can manufacture cards with this standard.
To conclude, let us speak about the PPC 970. Some rare chips succeeded in coming out of manufacturing at 3,2 GHz!! Thermal dissipation is then of 82W, as for a PIV at the same frequency. The engineers however count chips at 2,5 GHz for the end of this year. It would be to foolish to try producing faster chips engraved in 0,13 Microns. IBM will thus reach the 3 GHz into 0,09 Microns.

In any case, what is fabulous, it is that APPLE has real future prospects which are very enticing.

What this tells me is that perhaps the whole G5 line, even the DP2Gs, is a "Yikes". If in January, a newer architecture with PCI-X version 2.0 is coming and AGP being replaced later (after 2004). If the current (but not shipping) G5 mobo cannot handle more than 2.2GHz, then it will have to be replaced with the next speed bump. It really makes you think doesn't it?

Some were saying "I'm waiting for revision 2.0"... But we all know we will always be waiting forever for something faster.