[MallyMal]

Thinksecret


* Dual-2GHz
o 512K L2 cache per processor
o Dual 1GHz frontside buses
o 512MB PC3200 DDR SDRAM (4GB max.)
o 160GB Serial ATA Hard Drive
o 128MB DDR SDRAM ATI Radeon 9600 video card

* Dual-2.3GHz
o 512K L2 cache per processor
o Dual 1.15GHz frontside buses
o 512MB PC3200 DDR SDRAM (8GB max.)
o 250GB Serial ATA Hard Drive
o 128MB DDR SDRAM ATI Radeon 9600 video card

* Dual-2.7GHz
o 512K L2 cache per processor
o Dual 1.35GHz frontside buses
o 512MB PC3200 DDR SDRAM (8GB max.)
o 250GB Serial ATA Hard Drive
o 256MB DDR SDRAM ATI Radeon 9650 video card

[Eriamjh]

Wonder if the Dual 2.3GHz model will be liquid cooled or not? I await...

[blackwind]

Originally Posted by MallyMal

Thinksecret


* Dual-2GHz
o 512K L2 cache per processor
o Dual 1GHz frontside buses
o 512MB PC3200 DDR SDRAM (4GB max.)
o 160GB Serial ATA Hard Drive
o 128MB DDR SDRAM ATI Radeon 9600 video card

* Dual-2.3GHz
o 512K L2 cache per processor
o Dual 1.15GHz frontside buses
o 512MB PC3200 DDR SDRAM (8GB max.)
o 250GB Serial ATA Hard Drive
o 128MB DDR SDRAM ATI Radeon 9600 video card

* Dual-2.7GHz
o 512K L2 cache per processor
o Dual 1.35GHz frontside buses
o 512MB PC3200 DDR SDRAM (8GB max.)
o 250GB Serial ATA Hard Drive
o 256MB DDR SDRAM ATI Radeon 9650 video card

If those specifications are accurate, then Apple's Power Mac line will be in trouble until the quad-core machines appear.

Why can the above machines not be quad-core? The 512-KB L2 belongs to the 970FX. Previously-leaked documents from IBM indicate that each core of the 970MP has 1 MB of L2 cache.

[Big Mac]

If TS's information is good, which I will assume, then it looks like Apple will disappoint. That's certainly bad for the company, but it's good for me as a proud owner of a DP 2.0. 300MHz increase and a larger hard drive is nothing to write home about, although TS leaves open the possibility that these could be dual cores. I have to doubt that myself. Most importantly, no mention of PCI-e - bad for Apple but good for my jealous side. Edit: At least now when the forum goes down for the nightly backup, the downtime is much shorter than it was under the old version of vBul.

[blackwind]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

If TS's information is good, which I will assume, then it looks like Apple will disappoint. That's certainly bad for the company, but it's good for me as a proud owner of a DP 2.0. 300MHz increase and a larger hard drive is nothing to write home about, although TS leaves open the possibility that these could be dual cores. I have to doubt that myself. Most importantly, no mention of PCI-e - bad for Apple but good for my jealous side. Edit: At least now when the forum goes down for the nightly backup, the downtime is much shorter than it was under the old version of vBul.

It the above specs are correct, they cannot be dual-core machines. The 970MP described by previously-leaked IBM documents about the thermal diode has 1 MB of L2 per core (making a total of 2 MB of L2 per processor).

It would be a horrible thing for Apple to be unable to ship quad-core Power Macs. On April 21, AMD will start shipping 8-way-capable dual-core Opteron 8xx processors (with the 875 running at 2.2-GHz), albeit the high-end costs
$2649 per processor. Intel is already shipping dual-core Pentium D's to major manufacturers.

Imagine a dual-core 3.2-GHz Pentium D costing $1500. It would be able to take on the supposedly-confirmed dual-2.3-GHz Power Mac G5, which would probably cost $1000 more.

Apple needs to get ahead of the pack. Professional markets are starting to lose tolerance for Apple's hardware not being able to keep up. Heck, even when Apple's hardware is able to keep up (dual 2.5-GHz G5), sales have been less than expected simply due to expectation of a faster G5.

I would feel better if no stopgap update was released. Apple needs to devote more effort into getting those quad-core machines out or else face near-extinction of its Power Mac sales.

[aafuss]

I've haven't heard of a Radeon 9650 (could be a typo at TS), but the specs seems OK to me.

[Goldfinger]

Huge disappointment.

[U n i o n 0015]

If those aren't dual-core, that is a really, really horrible update. It's like Apple is trying to fall behind.

[Pierre B.]

Originally Posted by U n i o n 0015

If those aren't dual-core, that is a really, really horrible update. It's like Apple is trying to fall behind.

How is Apple trying to fall behind? If IBM cannot deliver, what would you expect them to do? Not update at all?

We all see however that if the report is proved true, it should be at least embarrassing for Apple. To not recall that this summer will be two years after this historical S. Jobs promise for 3 GHz.

[Big Mac]

. . .And the reaction seen in this thread is one reason why Apple endeavors to shut the rumor sites down. This update, as described by TS, does appear to be very weak. But let us not jump to such harsh conclusions prematurely. Why not let Apple announce the product, and then we can take turns berating the lackluster outcome?

[U n i o n 0015]

Originally Posted by Pierre B.

How is Apple trying to fall behind? If IBM cannot deliver, what would you expect them to do? Not update at all?

We all see however that if the report is proved true, it should be at least embarrassing for Apple. To not recall that this summer will be two years after this historical S. Jobs promise for 3 GHz.

They haven't updated for 10 months, what's another 5 or 6 while they wait on IBM?

Oh I forgot, the market that buys Power Macs doesn't care or need more power. We just do minor stuff, like video editing and graphic design. Guess the Dual 2.5GHz will do fine for another couple of years for that! /sarcasm

Face it, Apple is falling behind in their Power Mac line. PCs are faster AND cheaper. How long can one expect to stay with Apple when they neglect to update their top of the line computers for 10 months. Honestly.

[Pierre B.]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

But let us not jump to such harsh conclusions prematurely. Why not let Apple announce the product, and then we can take turns berating the lackluster outcome?

Correct, it is just that Think Secret is way too accurate in what they say. Even if they miss something, it is not since they invent things, but since for some reason Apple decided to do changes. We all know they have real sources inside Apple. This is why when Think Secret says something people here take it as a given. This is why Apple sues them.

But 512 KB L2 and 970MP? Something is messed up.

[blackwind]

Originally Posted by U n i o n 0015

Face it, Apple is falling behind in their Power Mac line. PCs are faster AND cheaper. How long can one expect to stay with Apple when they neglect to update their top of the line computers for 10 months. Honestly.

Well, to be entirely fair to Apple, the very top-end for the last two updates had kept up fairly well at their respective times of release (dual 2-GHz G5 versus slightly more expensive dual 2-GHz Opteron, dual 2.5-GHz G5 versus slightly more expensive dual 2.4-GHz Opteron).

The problem, as you correctly point out, is Apple's apparent neglect of the Power Mac. Between the start of June 2004 and the end of April 2005, we will have had seen (in approximate order of release):

-2.5-GHz PowerPC 970FX
-2.4-GHz Athlon 64 FX-53
-2.4-GHz Opteron x50
-3.6-GHz Pentium 4 560
-2.6-GHz Athlon 64 FX-55
-3.8-GHz Pentium 4 570
-3.46-GHz Pentium 4 Extreme Edition
-2.6-GHz Opteron x52
-3.6-GHz Pentium 4 660
-3.73-GHz Pentium 4 Extreme Edition

-confirmation of the existence of the dual-core PowerPC 970MP
-2.2-GHz Opteron 875 (dual-core)
-3.2-GHz Pentium D XE 840 (dual-core with Hyperthreading)

-2.7-GHz PowerPC 970FX ???

Worse than the apparent sporadic updates in performance, Apple does not give any attention to the Power Mac at all. It does not drop prices, nor does it provide any updates to other newer equipment (eg. new video cards, faster DVD-RW drives, etc.)

ADDENDUM:
Now that I think about it, the specs Think Secret released seem more appropriate for the missed January 2005 update. Regardless, Apple needs quad-core Power Macs this year (at latest WWDC).

[U n i o n 0015]

Originally Posted by blackwind

Now that I think about it, the specs Think Secret released seem more appropriate for the missed January 2005 update. Regardless, Apple needs quad-core Power Macs this year (at latest WWDC).

Good post (the whole thing). If Apple does give the Power Macs a minor update, I'm worried that they won't update at WWDC in June. It doesn't make much sense to update only two months after a previous update.

For customers like me, who will probably bite the bullet on the new generation of HD DV cameras that debut at NAB '05, the current Power Macs are only slightly up to snuff for that kind of work. The dual core machines would be a serious power injection into the Power Mac lineup and I'd be more willing to drop 3 grand on that kind of machine. But a 300MHz bump at the top of the line? No way, it's not worth it when I can get a PC (even though I really, really don't want to) that'll outperform the PM for cheaper.

I shouldn't get so worked up over a RUMOR, but I seriously expected Apple to wow us with the next Power Macs, especially after such a long wait.

[Pierre B.]

Originally Posted by U n i o n 0015

But a 300MHz bump at the top of the line?

Not even that. It is 200 MHz. The 300 MHz is in the middle of the line.

[Garage81]

why are they still using the radeon 9600? i wouldve assumed they wouldve moved to the x700, etc.

[Commodus]

Garage81:

The Radeon 9600 is the base-model graphics chip in the lineup according to this rumour, not the mid-range as it is now. That's a dramatic jump over the FX 5200 Ultra.

The mid-range is the interesting part. Is Apple going to continue using ATI there, or will they go to nVidia? The 6600 GT (which is available in AGP!) would make a nice mid-range option.

[jyunderwood]

Originally Posted by Eriamjh

Wonder if the Dual 2.3GHz model will be liquid cooled or not? I await...

I think the Dual 2.3 xServes aren't liquid cooled.

[NY152]

I was waiting on this announcement before purchasing my first PM. All I can say is, WOW, what a disappointment if this rumour comes true. I was sure Apple would at least hit 3 GHz. And possibly dual core.

[Lateralus]

In conjunction with PCIe, this update might be nice. But without PCIe or 970MPs, this update is going to suck.

The only thing that would save it would be a nice price drop across the entire line.

[The Ancient One]

Originally Posted by Lateralus

In conjunction with PCIe, this update might be nice. But without PCIe or 970MPs, this update is going to suck.

The only thing that would save it would be a nice price drop across the entire line.

Amen, but Apple might also provide some other inducements - free Shuffle, free software, free .Mac, etc. Still VERY disappointing - if correct (that "Radeon 9650" does not appear on ATI's site).

[Lateralus]

You know...

Pretend we had a choice between two different outcomes for this update:

1) New technology roll-out. Including PCIe, Dual-Core G5s, increased memory capacity... etc.

or

2) A clock speed update, with a substantial price drop across the entire line.

Upon thinking about it, I would much rather see #2, and I think Apple would too. Because history seems to be showing that regardless of how much hardware improvement Apple crams into a Power Mac, the thing isn't going to sell because the entire computer buying segment is shying away from high-end equipment more and more.

At this point, I really think that driving the Power Mac line as far away from the $3,000 price point as possible would do more to help sales than any technology update would.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Lateralus

In conjunction with PCIe, this update might be nice. But without PCIe or 970MPs, this update is going to suck.

In truth, most of the programmer types think that PCIe doesn't matter *that* much with current video cards. Mind you I know you like to upgrade.

The only thing that would save it would be a nice price drop across the entire line.

Even without an overall price drop, the mid-end machine becomes very attractive. The dual 2.3 with Radeon 9600 would be a pretty good deal at $2499. If it's $2299, even better.

[Truepop]

Originally Posted by Lateralus

At this point, I really think that driving the Power Mac line as far away from the $3,000 price point as possible would do more to help sales than any technology update would.

A dual 2.0 at $1799 would be enough for me to upgrade from my space-heater of a G4. The video card, double the HD of the current model, and the new Super-Drive makes it a nice upgrade for me personally. However I don't know why if it stated at $1999 seems to put me off but that $200 extra does.

[3.1416]

Originally Posted by Pierre B.

How is Apple trying to fall behind? If IBM cannot deliver, what would you expect them to do? Not update at all?

Make improvements in areas other than the CPU. They've done a bit of that with the improved GPUs and extra RAM (although really 512 should be the absolute minimum for a "professional" machine), but they could still move to PCI Express, DDR2, add drive bays, etc. And there's always price cuts.

And if IBM continues to fail to deliver, it will be time to dust off the plans for migration to x86. Apple can't afford another CPU stagnation like the one inflicted by Motorola before the G5.

[Kristoff]

This thread is retarded.

You people are nuts..

I want a dual-core wah wah wah..

For christ's sake, the current (prior to 4/29) OS can't even take full advantage of the 64-bit CPUs we have now.

Get a clue.

[AssassyN]

If this is true, it's bad news...

Sad news, actually. The only good I can see is you'll be able to get your hands on a "old" Dual 2.5 liquid cooler G5 for a great price.

[Big Mac]

You're dreaming, pi - an x86 transition would most certainly kill Apple outright. There would not be enough of an incentive for developers and end users to migrate over, and the platform would stagnate as more and more vendors would tell Mac customers to dual boot into Windows. SJ humored people when he said he considered moving to Intel-land. If the PPC hits another roadblock while IBM is behind the wheel, we better get our Linux contingency plans ready.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Kristoff

This thread is retarded.

You people are nuts..

I want a dual-core wah wah wah..

For christ's sake, the current (prior to 4/29) OS can't even take full advantage of the 64-bit CPUs we have now.

Get a clue.

And this has something to do with dual-core and clock speed how? Not to mention that Tiger ships in... what... two weeks?

I think you might want to take your own advice.

[Kristoff]

I am so mad at Apple for not putting quantum CPUs and 3-D storage in the new PMs....how disappointing.

[Luca Rescigno]

I don't get the supposed GPU update. WTF?

TS doesn't mention which variant of each video card they're using, which makes a huge difference with ATI since their naming schemes are so retarded. I can only assume that the 9600s mentioned will be 9600XTs, which is a nice (not huge) improvement over the 5200 Ultra. But what's a 9650? Based on what ATI has done in the past, a 9650 should be SLOWER than a 9600. The 9550 is slower than the 9500, and the 9250 is slower than the 9200.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Luca Rescigno

I don't get the supposed GPU update. WTF?

TS doesn't mention which variant of each video card they're using, which makes a huge difference with ATI since their naming schemes are so retarded. I can only assume that the 9600s mentioned will be 9600XTs, which is a nice (not huge) improvement over the 5200 Ultra. But what's a 9650? Based on what ATI has done in the past, a 9650 should be SLOWER than a 9600. The 9550 is slower than the 9500, and the 9250 is slower than the 9200.

AFAIK: 9600XT > 9600 Pro = 9650 Pro > 9600 non-Pro.

(It seems the 9650 series is the RV351 series, which is essentially just the 9600 series but on a smaller process and thus cooler and cheaper.)

In the same article, TS also says the eMac will get a 64 MB Radeon 9600 (again, no variant specified) while the iMac will stay the same. Unless that's a plain, non-Pro 9600, that means the eMac's graphics will be ahead of the iMac's (again).

Read the article again. It states the iMac will get the 9600 (no variant specified).

[Goldfinger]

We can only hope that Apple leaked fake specs to Think Secret.

[Luca Rescigno]

Yeah, I edited out the line about the iMac not getting an updated GPU. See, immediately after TS's listing of the new configurations it says that the other specs will remain unchanged, and the GPU was not part of that list. I just didn't notice that it was mentioned ABOVE the list.

So yeah, I am still really confused about the 9650 thing. That seems made up to me. Even if it does exist, I doubt it would be different enough from the 9600 to justify having the two different cards available. The GeForce 6600GT would be an excellent midrange card for the top-end model.

As for the dual core thing... well, I agree with Lateralus and most of you guys that if they don't get dual core at 2.7 GHz, they'd better get a several hundred dollar price drop. 200 MHz represents a mere 8% clock speed increase over the current high end model, and this is a full year later. Adding more RAM and hard drive space into the mix isn't enough.

I'm not whining about performance. I think the current PowerMacs are beasts, and a 2.7 GHz model would be a beast too. But not a $2999 beast. More like a $2699 beast. And that's including the RAM, hard drive, optical drive, and video card upgrades.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Luca Rescigno

Yeah, I edited out the line about the iMac not getting an updated GPU. See, immediately after TS's listing of the new configurations it says that the other specs will remain unchanged, and the GPU was not part of that list. I just didn't notice that it was mentioned ABOVE the list.

So yeah, I am still really confused about the 9650 thing. That seems made up to me. Even if it does exist, I doubt it would be different enough from the 9600 to justify having the two different cards available. The GeForce 6600GT would be an excellent midrange card for the top-end model.

As for the dual core thing... well, I agree with Lateralus and most of you guys that if they don't get dual core at 2.7 GHz, they'd better get a several hundred dollar price drop. 200 MHz represents a mere 8% clock speed increase over the current high end model, and this is a full year later. Adding more RAM and hard drive space into the mix isn't enough.

I'm not whining about performance. I think the current PowerMacs are beasts, and a 2.7 GHz model would be a beast too. But not a $2999 beast. More like a $2699 beast. And that's including the RAM, hard drive, optical drive, and video card upgrades.

My guess is the low end would be 9600 non-Pro. The 9650 would be the new 9600 Pro replacement, which is RV351.

That makes perfect sense to me. The 9600 non-Pro, although a crappy card, is way less crappy than the 5200 Ultra. And the 9650 is much cheaper than the 9600XT, even if it ain't as fast. It's also cooler, and probably fanless. (Is the 9600XT fanless?)

[Luca Rescigno]

Yeah, the 9600 XT in the currently shipping PowerMacs is fanless.

Why would they downgrade the card, though? I can maybe see keeping it the same from one revision to the next, but a downgrade to the equivalent of what was shipping in 2003? That's stupid.

[Pierre B.]

Originally Posted by Luca Rescigno

Why would they downgrade the card, though? I can maybe see keeping it the same from one revision to the next, but a downgrade to the equivalent of what was shipping in 2003? That's stupid.

I think U n i o n 0015 has the answer:

Originally Posted by U n i o n 0015

It's like Apple is trying to fall behind.

[blackwind]

Originally Posted by Kristoff

I am so mad at Apple for not putting quantum CPUs and 3-D storage in the new PMs....how disappointing.

If Apple's direct competitors in the segment of the market of interest was implementing quantum computing and 3D holographic storage while Apple was not doing the same, then yes, we would be freaked out (for Apple's sake).

This thread is not about wishful thinking; rather, it is about the possibility of Apple not being able to keep up with its direct competitors.

Admittedly, a lot of us are getting worked up over a possibly-incorrect rumor, but with not much else happening, I think we need the adrenaline.

[badtz]

... does the 970MP include integrated memory controller [like the opteron]?

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by badtz

... does the 970MP include integrated memory controller [like the opteron]?

As far as we know, no.

[Link]

I think judging by the way people trying to explain this goes into meaningless loops, this rumor is hopelessly wrong.

1. A 200mhz speedbump almost a year after 3ghz was promised to be out? That's STILL 300mhz too slow, and would get insane criticism unless it was accompanied by a huge price drop.

2. The 9650 can't be explained, and why they'd replace the 9600XT with a 9600 "non pro" that doesn't exist, is beyond me.. Last I checked, the numbers refer to the series and the letters refer to speed and possibly features.. Pro = "regular", SE = "Slow Edition" or in mac land, "Special Edition", XT = "eXTreme"... something like that.. there isn't a non-pro 9600, and the pro only had 64mb of vram...

So they'd ship machines with 32mb maybe? Yeah right..

3. Where's the low end model? You mean because they bump the top line 200mhz they'll drop the budget model? I thought they'd make a speedbump there to 2ghz...

4. YOU KNOW Apple isn't going to reuse the dual 2 in a low end version.. No way, nah ah, aint happening.. The dual 2ghz was the "top of the line", and they aint putting it that low without neutering it or releasing a version that's 67mhz faster or something so as not to piss off all the people who think their 2 year old macs are really worth something.

5. The g5s are overdue for some sort of redesign, maybe not a big one, but a new board or new feature or something.. maybe as simple as PCi-X, but apple generally doesn't use the same thing that long..

[Luca Rescigno]

Link, you ignorant slut, there IS a non-Pro Radeon 9600. The only differences between the various models are the clock speeds (core/RAM) and the width of the memory bus:

9600 SE = 325/400 MHz, 64-bit memory bus
9600 = 325/400 MHz, 128-bit memory bus
9600 Pro = 400/600 MHz, 128-bit memory bus
9600XT = 500/600 MHz, 128-bit memory bus
9650 = ???

By comparison, the GeForce 5200 is 250/400 and the 5200 Ultra is 325/650. I think the standard can have either a 64-bit or 128-bit memory bus, and the Ultra is 128-bit. So the Ultra is about comparable to the 9600 Pro, but the standard is pretty bad; it's similar to the 9600 or 9600SE depending on the memory bus (probably one of the biggest factors in performance for low-end cards, as cards with 64-bit memory buses tend to really suck).

Originally Posted by Link

4. YOU KNOW Apple isn't going to reuse the dual 2 in a low end version.. No way, nah ah, aint happening.. The dual 2ghz was the "top of the line", and they aint putting it that low without neutering it or releasing a version that's 67mhz faster or something so as not to piss off all the people who think their 2 year old macs are really worth something.

5. The g5s are overdue for some sort of redesign, maybe not a big one, but a new board or new feature or something.. maybe as simple as PCi-X, but apple generally doesn't use the same thing that long..

Why wouldn't they reuse the Dual 2.0? They did it before... the dual 1 GHz PowerMac was the top of the line, then went to the middle, and finally was the bottom-end (in a single-processor variant). Why bother increasing it by "67 MHz or something"?

Also in case you didn't notice, the PowerMacs already have PCI-X. Maybe you mean PCI Express, which is abbreviated PCIe.

[Eug Wanker]

The 9650 is a die shrunk 9600 Pro.

The 5200 Ultra is quite a bit slower than the 9600 Pro.

[Luca Rescigno]

Where'd you get that information? The die-shrink, that is. I couldn't find any results on Google... just speculation from 2003 about what the updated 9600 would be called (some thought it would be the 9650, it ended up being the 9600XT) and some people talking about the Mobility Radeon 9650 (apparently an alternate name for the MR9700).

I suppose the 5200 Ultra is a bit slower than the 9600 Pro. Their clock speeds are fairly similar but you're right that the 9600 Pro is a better card anyway.

Either way, it just doesn't make any sense. Even if the 9650 exists, which you say it does but I don't know about, why would it be in the lineup alongside the 9600? Maybe it was just a typo or some kind of error.

[jamil5454]

If ThinkSecret is right about the next PowerMacs, I wouldn't be too disappointed as long as they kept the prices in line with the current models. If I can buy a Dual 2.0 in a couple months for the price of a single 1.8 (or even Dual 1.8) then I will be satisfied.

I think that list is missing something, though. It's got the low to mid-end, but there still needs to be a monster machine at the top. Maybe a dual 3.0 with BlueRay drives and other good technologies. It would also be cool if Apple decided to go all-duals with their next update and still keep prices around the same mark.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by jamil5454

I think that list is missing something, though. It's got the low to mid-end, but there still needs to be a monster machine at the top. Maybe a dual 3.0 with BlueRay drives and other good technologies.

I think that's a very good point some of you are missing.

Wouldn't a dual 2.0GHz for $1499 be the bomb? An incredible increase in value compared to a single 1.8Ghz. OTOH the dual 3GHz 970MP is really missing on the top end. Never mind, once they introduce it, it will be so freaking expensive that none of you will be able to afford it anyway.

[rogerkylin]

Originally Posted by Kristoff

This thread is retarded.

You people are nuts..

I want a dual-core wah wah wah..

For christ's sake, the current (prior to 4/29) OS can't even take full advantage of the 64-bit CPUs we have now.

Get a clue.

It drives me nuts when people on this forum assume they know what other people need. We run Dells and Xserve's that run 24/7. The faster they are the more work we can get done. We will benefit from Tiger's 64-bit OS, but we can still work with only 32-bit.

[AssassyN]

How 'bout we just wait and see what is released instead of aruging about who's e-pecker is bigger, mmkay?

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Luca Rescigno

Where'd you get that information? The die-shrink, that is. I couldn't find any results on Google... just speculation from 2003 about what the updated 9600 would be called (some thought it would be the 9650, it ended up being the 9600XT) and some people talking about the Mobility Radeon 9650 (apparently an alternate name for the MR9700).

I suppose the 5200 Ultra is a bit slower than the 9600 Pro. Their clock speeds are fairly similar but you're right that the 9600 Pro is a better card anyway.

Either way, it just doesn't make any sense. Even if the 9650 exists, which you say it does but I don't know about, why would it be in the lineup alongside the 9600? Maybe it was just a typo or some kind of error.

Google up RV351. It is a 110 nm rejigged 9600 Pro, and it's listed as a 9650.

[BZ]

Originally Posted by AssassyN

How 'bout we just wait and see what is released instead of aruging about who's e-pecker is bigger, mmkay?

No contest. My e-pecker (I like to call it my iPecker) is bigger.

BZ