Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Hardware - Troubleshooting and Discussion > Mac Desktops > Not impressed AT ALL by new G5s!

Not impressed AT ALL by new G5s! (Page 2)
Thread Tools
ReggieX
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, ON
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 29, 2005, 05:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by Don Pickett
Yes, because the only thing that that matters about machine specs is the video card.
Let's think about this for a second. Aqua runs better the more video horsepower you throw at it, which translates into a better user experience. Apple used to offer 4 levels of video acceleration, now they offer only 3 on their fastest, high-end Pro models, the Dual G5s, two of which are essentially the same card, just one has more RAM.

On the lowest available single G5, the option exists for a much faster card than is available on the top-of-the-line Dual 2.7 GHz model, aimed at professional users who need ALL the horsepower they can get. It's downright pathetic.
The Lord said 'Peter, I can see your house from here.'
     
booboo
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 29, 2005, 07:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kristoff
How odd. My G5 doesn't have any audio issues. Sounds clear as a bell to me.
I'm talking pro audio.

Apple delete such posts from their boards ASAP, and although there have been numerous PSU exchanges, but the problem is not fixed.

Plenty of posts on the subject if you care to search . . .
     
Scooterboy
Senior User
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Minneapolis for now
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 29, 2005, 07:35 PM
 
I'm not in the market for a PowerMac G5 at the moment, but I'm well dissapointed as well. These are Apple's flagship computers, and they lack performance features and specs even of high end PC laptops. Want 64 bit CPU, X800 or 6800 GPU, PCIe as standard equipment in your new computer? The only place to go is PC land. Even with the refresh, the PowerMac G5 is looking really dated. I think Apple is concentrating more on iPods, ITMS, and Mac Minis, than they are on their PowerMacs and PowerBooks. I hope they have some major new hardware later this year, like a PowerMac with PCIe so they can use the latest GPU's, and even dual GPU's, and with lots of VRAM. OS X is moving more and more work over to the GPU and away from the CPU, so gaming isn't the only reason to want up to date system archeticture and Graphics cards.

Around Xmas time I'll be looking at towers, and I'd sure like to buy a G5, but I can still wait and rely on my PowerBook. I might build a gaming PC anyhow, so that should satisfy the tower lust for a while.
Scooters are more fun than computers and only slightly more frustrating
     
CatOne
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 29, 2005, 07:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by Scooterboy
I'm not in the market for a PowerMac G5 at the moment, but I'm well dissapointed as well. These are Apple's flagship computers, and they lack performance features and specs even of high end PC laptops. Want 64 bit CPU, X800 or 6800 GPU, PCIe as standard equipment in your new computer? The only place to go is PC land. Even with the refresh, the PowerMac G5 is looking really dated. I think Apple is concentrating more on iPods, ITMS, and Mac Minis, than they are on their PowerMacs and PowerBooks. I hope they have some major new hardware later this year, like a PowerMac with PCIe so they can use the latest GPU's, and even dual GPU's, and with lots of VRAM. OS X is moving more and more work over to the GPU and away from the CPU, so gaming isn't the only reason to want up to date system archeticture and Graphics cards.

Around Xmas time I'll be looking at towers, and I'd sure like to buy a G5, but I can still wait and rely on my PowerBook. I might build a gaming PC anyhow, so that should satisfy the tower lust for a while.
What are you talking about? You get a 64 bit CPU, X800 or 6800 GPU as standard equipment on a PowerMac G5 today. 64 bit has been out for 18 months, 6800 GPU for 6+ months.

Sure, it's currently AGP and not PCI Express. There's 0 appreciable performance difference. So BFD. Maybe in a couple years the limitation of AGP will be obvious via the cards, but for now you want a feature which is COMPLETELY unnoticeable to you. They could call it PCI-E today and 99.4% of people wouldn't know the difference.
     
lmhaffner
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Wisconsin
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 29, 2005, 08:34 PM
 
I'm in the market but my need isn't tremendously great. I would like to replace my home B&W G3 and have traditionally done most of my purchasing right after hardware bumps to maximize the bang for the buck. I'm having a really hard time with this cycle since the need isn't really strong and compared to the line they replaced, the machine is essentially the same. I wasn't going to be a hold-out for 3 GHz, personally. But I was hoping to see a little more bump for the same price on the other components.

I have to agree that the GPU offering is poor, and doesn't make a lot of sense to me. The 6800 is just overkill right now while the 9600/50 feels a bit too long in the tooth to get in a top of the line desktop. The 9800SE would have made perfect sense here. Instead, I'd be forced to buy that middle option myself and waste the 9600 OEM card. Frankly, I would have liked Apple bite the bullet a little here and shared the frustration of the slow chip speedups by including a 9800 as this price.

Now I look back on my B&W (rev. 1, no less) and see how much legs I got out of it (6 years). But there were a few things I wished I'd had in it that would have made it a little better these last few years. First, an AGP slot would have helped a lot in giving me options for video upgrades. I look at the market (and seeing where PC cards are going is probably not a bad idea) and wonder if the AGP slot in this round of G5s will be the same for me in 3-4 years.

The rest could just be sour grapes when comparing to what I might have had 6-9 months ago for the same price. But looking forward, I feel like I'm just padding out Apple's profit line at this point while they wait to have something to wow us with if I buy now. If I wait for something more substantial (certainly subjective, but that's where I'm at right now), I feel like my money is going more for the technology.

I'm happy they did something, but I'm wondering if they shouldn't have done something near the beginning of the year instead and then rolled out something new (or at least announced it) in June/July.

mh
     
inchhigh
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 29, 2005, 08:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by CatOne
What are you talking about? You get a 64 bit CPU, X800 or 6800 GPU as standard equipment on a PowerMac G5 today.
x800 is no longer available on the Apple site. On the 2.7 model they offer ATI 9650, with the Nvidia 6800 as the only option.

I think this is a pretty pathetic upgrade too, but Apple knows that. That's why it was such a low key announcement. Steve likes to be dramatic, that's why he made the infamous '3Mhz G5 in a year' statement in the first place. He knew we suffered through the 500Mhz G4 era. I actually think he does know what would make all of us go 'OMG that is the ****'. Look at how they promoted the original Dual 2.0 G5.. they had things on the apple website before the show saying 'stay tuned we've got stuff to blow away the rumor sites' (or something like that). They would have loved to have dual cores out the door today, it seems a lot of the development work has been completed with this Tiger release. I think you can safely assume that they were not released now because they are just not available in enough supply at this point, or just simply aren't ready for prime time.

I would however stop short of equating IBM with Moto of years gone by. Moto had a shrinking CPU business that let most of it's major (CPU) talent go to Intel and AMD. Moto was enjoying the cellphone boom, they really had no use for a CPU division, hence they spun it off. IBM on the other hand, has a vested interest in the success of their chip line. They are investing a lot of money in chip fab technology and PPC Linux, and are selling CPU's based on the the same or similar chips as the ones they sell to apple. They would like nothing better than to be able to develop revenue streams that do not involve Intel and MS.

So I agree I'm disappointed at this update, but to put it simply it was probably the best they could do at this point. Business is business, they probably have a nice upgrade in development waiting for the new G5 chips to be ready, but with them not being ready, they must have deemed that it was not worth the money to stick those other (mobo, RAM, PCI speed) upgrades into the current form factor. As a shareholder, I think it was probably the prudent move, as a buyer it pisses me off.

- hi out - PZ
     
ReggieX
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, ON
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 29, 2005, 09:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by inchhigh
x800 is no longer available on the Apple site. On the 2.7 model they offer ATI 9650, with the Nvidia 6800 as the only option.
Apple never offered the X800, just the 9600XT and 9800XT.

Let me put it another way: according to their own web site, all Dual G5s now available at their store have a default graphics card that doesn't support Core Image, one of the fancy new features they're trying to tout as a reason to upgrade to Tiger. And yet before this speed bump and a few weeks ago when the 9800XT was dropped, all 4 of the graphics card options supported Core Image.

Now I gotta play the waiting game for a few weeks in case they decide to start offering better cards for their Duals, as the ATI store is out of stock of the X800 at the moment. Gah.
The Lord said 'Peter, I can see your house from here.'
     
inchhigh
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 29, 2005, 09:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by ReggieX
Let me put it another way: according to their own web site, all Dual G5s now available at their store have a default graphics card that doesn't support Core Image
I'm not sure that's quite correct. Here they list the ATI 9600 and the NV 6800 as core image compatible, and although it's not listed the 9650 is apparently just the 9600 with more VRAM, so it should be ok too.
     
CharlesS
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 29, 2005, 10:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by Luca Rescigno
Yeah, um, comparing an 8 MHz bump to a 200 MHz bump is dumb. 25 MHz to 33 MHz is a whopping 32%. Other than the Sawtooth/Yikes! fiasco, where Apple didn't actually ship any 500 MHz processors before dropping the speed, and the dual 500 MHz upgrade where the processor speed stayed the same but a second processor was added (arguably a 100% speed bump), the 8% bump for the current line is the smallest relative processor bump for any Mac, ever. I'm talking high end to high end.
Original Power Mac G4: 500 MHz -> 450 MHz. A difference of -50 MHz, or -10%.

-10% is far less than 8%. 225% less, in fact.

Ticking sound coming from a .pkg package? Don't let the .bom go off! Inspect it first with Pacifist. Macworld - five mice!
     
MichaelNH
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Massachusetts
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 29, 2005, 10:39 PM
 
Why don't you get out of your house and play around on a Dual 2.7??? I played with the demo the day after it was announced, and can't figure how a machine can get much faster! Programs were opening in under a second... now those of you complaining that it was a weak upgrade, and that you will stay with your G4 processor a bit longer... please.. I beg you.. tell me exactly what YOU do with a machine that you feel a Dual 2.7 G5 is so slow that your G4 is somehow superior..... obviously you aren't doing anything that needs a Dual 2.7....... stop complaining...... I have a Dual 1.8, and the 2.7 was significantly faster.. instead of using blanket statements of how it sucks, grace us all with why you need the speed, and maybe give us the insight that some of us are lacking.
     
Severed Hand of Skywalker
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: The bottom of Cloud City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 29, 2005, 10:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by MichaelNH
Why don't you get out of your house and play around on a Dual 2.7??? I played with the demo the day after it was announced, and can't figure how a machine can get much faster! Programs were opening in under a second... now those of you complaining that it was a weak upgrade, and that you will stay with your G4 processor a bit longer... please.. I beg you.. tell me exactly what YOU do with a machine that you feel a Dual 2.7 G5 is so slow that your G4 is somehow superior..... obviously you aren't doing anything that needs a Dual 2.7....... stop complaining...... I have a Dual 1.8, and the 2.7 was significantly faster.. instead of using blanket statements of how it sucks, grace us all with why you need the speed, and maybe give us the insight that some of us are lacking.
First people used to say they can't imagine getting a 450MHz G4 getting any faster.

Second Who the heck measures speed by launch times?

"Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh"
     
riotge@r
Forum Regular
Join Date: Apr 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 29, 2005, 10:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

Second Who the heck measures speed by launch times?
Isn't that how we define "snappy"?
MacBook Pro 15" 2.4Ghz
     
MichaelNH
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Massachusetts
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 29, 2005, 10:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker
First people used to say they can't imagine getting a 450MHz G4 getting any faster.

Second Who the heck measures speed by launch times?
Well you can get a basic measure of speed by how fast things launch, windows opening closing... those are the things we do all the time.. which you can see first.. I haven't had time to use Final Cut Pro on there and bench mark it.. if you use iPhoto with thousands of photos, and you can trim off seconds each time opening it, well to me that is a big step.. I do use FCE and such.... I'd be more than happy to run xbench on it to get the "true speed" as it is measured by a program that does that as its only job.. but how real world is that... opening apps copying huge files, doing filters to pictures.. those are real world, and someone that complains about speed, should be able to see those little things.. that DOES make a difference.. but try a Dual 2.7, you too will notice that right off the bat..... I'll have FCE2 and FCP on it tomorrow to give it a hard test, but with only 512MB that won't be fair in real world, since I have 4.5GB of ram in my home machine when using those Apps... but will try nonetheless.
     
Don Pickett
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: New York, NY, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 29, 2005, 11:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by ReggieX
Let me put it another way: according to their own web site, all Dual G5s now available at their store have a default graphics card that doesn't support Core Image, one of the fancy new features they're trying to tout as a reason to upgrade to Tiger. And yet before this speed bump and a few weeks ago when the 9800XT was dropped, all 4 of the graphics card options supported Core Image.

Okay, let's examine why this statement is so stupid:

1) It's plain wrong. Just check Apple's website;
2) Are you actually trying to argue that Apple would ship their top of the line machines configured in such a way as to not work with one of their core technologies? Are you REALLY trying to argue this?;
3) The graphics cards are just fine for everything other than hardcore gaming, and if you're a hard core gamer you either have a PC or a console. My 1.8 G5 has handled everything I've thrown at it with no problems.

In addition, all CPU manufacturers are hitting the wall, speedwise, so calling this upgrade "pathetic" shows a clear lack of understanding of what's happening in te industry.

You people need to stop complaining, turn off the computers and go outside.
     
UnixMac
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 33-37-22.350N / 111-54-37.920W
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 29, 2005, 11:32 PM
 
I am quite happy with the new line up. Having a dual 2.5 running on Tiger now, I can't see the need for a whole lot more speed (in any app). Basically, any app that runs faster on a pc now, is probably more to do with code and optimization (typical of games) than hardware...

PCIe would not have made the G5 that much faster with todays hardware.
( Last edited by UnixMac; Apr 29, 2005 at 11:43 PM. )
Mac Pro 3.0, ATI 5770 1GB VRAM, 10GB, 2xVelociraptor boot RAID, 4.5TB RAID0 storage, 30" & 20" Apple displays.
2 x Macbook Pro's 17" 3.06 4 GB RAM, 256GB Solid State drives
iMac 17" Core Duo 1GB RAM, & 2 iPhones 8GB, and a Nano in a pear tree!
Apple user since 1981
     
MichaelNH
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Massachusetts
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 29, 2005, 11:40 PM
 
Kudos to Unixmac. I didn't even get a chance to play on a DP 2.5 before so I couldn't compare that to what I had.. the fastest mac I used daily was a DP 2.0, which seemed just like my DP 1.8 (duh). So to play on a 2.7, man o man, Temptation is there, but can't justify it to my budget... Waiting for larger capacity 10,000 RPM sata drives to come out, and down in price. I have the 10,000 drives in my dual G4 and that thing rocks... I'm patient.
     
ReggieX
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, ON
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 30, 2005, 02:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by Don Pickett
Okay, let's examine why this statement is so stupid:

1) It's plain wrong. Just check Apple's website;
2) Are you actually trying to argue that Apple would ship their top of the line machines configured in such a way as to not work with one of their core technologies? Are you REALLY trying to argue this?;
3) The graphics cards are just fine for everything other than hardcore gaming, and if you're a hard core gamer you either have a PC or a console. My 1.8 G5 has handled everything I've thrown at it with no problems.

In addition, all CPU manufacturers are hitting the wall, speedwise, so calling this upgrade "pathetic" shows a clear lack of understanding of what's happening in te industry.

You people need to stop complaining, turn off the computers and go outside.
1) That's where I got the info in the first place, hence the link back to Apple's own site.
2) Yes, because they are, again according to their own site.

I never said a damn thing about the CPUs. Go read my post again a few more times until you get it.

Apple's video offerings for the Dual G5s are the 9600, 9650, and 6800 Ultra DDL. Not Pro. Not XT. Plain 9600 and 9650.

Apple's Core Image page says these cards are supported: ATI Radeon 9600 XT, 9800 XT, X800 XT. They do not sell the 9600XT or 9800XT anymore, except for the 9600XT option with the single G5. Until a couple of weeks ago, you could get the 9800XT with all G5 systems as an option, or the 9600XT. That option disappeared for all Duals with this speedbump.
The Lord said 'Peter, I can see your house from here.'
     
riotge@r
Forum Regular
Join Date: Apr 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 30, 2005, 02:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by ReggieX
1) That's where I got the info in the first place, hence the link back to Apple's own site.
2) Yes, because they are, again according to their own site.

I never said a damn thing about the CPUs. Go read my post again a few more times until you get it.

Apple's video offerings for the Dual G5s are the 9600, 9650, and 6800 Ultra DDL. Not Pro. Not XT. Plain 9600 and 9650.

Apple's Core Image page says these cards are supported: ATI Radeon 9600 XT, 9800 XT, X800 XT. They do not sell the 9600XT or 9800XT anymore, except for the 9600XT option with the single G5. Until a couple of weeks ago, you could get the 9800XT with all G5 systems as an option, or the 9600XT. That option disappeared for all Duals with this speedbump.
All 9600 series and greater video cards support core image, which requires Shader 2.0. Whether the card is a 9600, 9600 Pro, 9600XT, etc doesn't matter. The key differences between these cards are in GPU and RAM clock speed. A 9600XT is just a faster version of the standard 9600. Don't let the marketing brand names confuse you, they are all from the same core GPU.
MacBook Pro 15" 2.4Ghz
     
rm199
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: May 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 30, 2005, 06:43 AM
 
In contrast to the title I'm a few hours into using a new dual 2Ghz and I'm seriously impressed. It was tempting to go for the 2.7 but ultimately there is some seriously next gen hardware around the corner at some stage - I figured it was a better cost/benefit situation to take advantage of the 2ghz price drop and start planning for a tech refresh in 9 months.

I know I'm missing out on 1.4Ghz but compared to the 1.5 powerbook I've been using this is incredible. To be fair though I'll drop an R520 based ATI board in when they become available. If enough coreimage image-units are around by then CPU might not be something I care about at that stage (assuming an image-unit can be made to offload things other than 'photoshop' filters such as parts of the h264 decoding process etc)
     
paulc
Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: New York, NY US
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 30, 2005, 08:00 AM
 
Several have indicated the major disappointment was not so much the processor speed, but the "rest of the machine." This I agree with 100%. I had the old plastic poised, but [pulled it back.

For the processors, I'm actually more interested in the fact that rumors have both the MP and the GX variants running a lot cooler. I gotta say I'm looking forward to that over just speed alone (although, both these parts are supposed to start at 3G).

As for PCIe, to those that think this is a non-issue, think about the fact that the market is rapidly moving to this for their entire lines... I've read in many places that all new cards from ATi will be PCIe. However, the issue is that Macs have long legs... how many here have used the same machine for 3-4-5 years? Buying a brand new machine w/o PCIe now means that you are essentially locked out of any significant GPU upgrade next year. AND I understand that implementing PCIe is NOT a major engineering feat.

What nobody ever seems to mention is "value." Remember, you're paying totally top of the line pricing here. When paying top of the line pricing, one should expect top of the line hardware. However, what we have is top if the line processors with low end hardware. And by low end I mean no PCIe, no DDR2, no second optical bay, no room for more than two drives in a HUGE enclosure.
     
MallyMal
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 30, 2005, 08:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by paulc
Several have indicated the major disappointment was not so much the processor speed, but the "rest of the machine." This I agree with 100%. I had the old plastic poised, but [pulled it back.

For the processors, I'm actually more interested in the fact that rumors have both the MP and the GX variants running a lot cooler. I gotta say I'm looking forward to that over just speed alone (although, both these parts are supposed to start at 3G).

As for PCIe, to those that think this is a non-issue, think about the fact that the market is rapidly moving to this for their entire lines... I've read in many places that all new cards from ATi will be PCIe. However, the issue is that Macs have long legs... how many here have used the same machine for 3-4-5 years? Buying a brand new machine w/o PCIe now means that you are essentially locked out of any significant GPU upgrade next year. AND I understand that implementing PCIe is NOT a major engineering feat.

What nobody ever seems to mention is "value." Remember, you're paying totally top of the line pricing here. When paying top of the line pricing, one should expect top of the line hardware. However, what we have is top if the line processors with low end hardware. And by low end I mean no PCIe, no DDR2, no second optical bay, no room for more than two drives in a HUGE enclosure.
     
MallyMal
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 30, 2005, 08:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by exca1ibur
I got one for $70 at newegg. LAst I checked they were on special for $64 for a Pioneer 109. Great drive BTW.
That's not bad at all but I think I'm getting a Lightscribe drive instead.
     
Monstermind
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 30, 2005, 08:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by riotge@r
You guys with G4 machines calling this upgrade pathetic are really silly. Give me a freaking break. Even the 2Ghz Dual G5 will pounce your systems.
Indeed. I have a dual-1Ghz G4 -- the crappiest, kludgiest, noisiest Mac ever shat out of Steve's @ss -- and these new machines look dynamite compared to that model.

Granted, a mid-range 2.5 would have been nicer, instead of a 2.3. What's wrong, Stevie? Too busy suing rumor sites to concentrate on doing some REAL work?
     
ReggieX
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, ON
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 30, 2005, 11:20 AM
 
Originally Posted by riotge@r
All 9600 series and greater video cards support core image, which requires Shader 2.0. Whether the card is a 9600, 9600 Pro, 9600XT, etc doesn't matter. The key differences between these cards are in GPU and RAM clock speed. A 9600XT is just a faster version of the standard 9600. Don't let the marketing brand names confuse you, they are all from the same core GPU.
OK, thanks for that. I couldn't remember if the cores were still the same. Time to bow out of that part of the argument, since I have been proven wrong.

I still think the lack of a midrange card is pretty bad on Apple's part.

AND, if the cores are the same and support Shader 2.0, Apple better get their friggin' act together and have a proper listing on that Core Image page!
The Lord said 'Peter, I can see your house from here.'
     
ReggieX
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, ON
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 30, 2005, 11:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by Monstermind
Granted, a mid-range 2.5 would have been nicer, instead of a 2.3. What's wrong, Stevie? Too busy suing rumor sites to concentrate on doing some REAL work?
Don't know where you're living, but the US online Apple Store has a whole Special Deals section where they have old and/or refurbished models for sale, there were a couple of Dual 2.5s. Plus a lot of independent dealers will be trying to sell of any unsold older machines to make way for the new one. Whether it's a true bargain or not is up to them, I see some of my local ones have the old machines but the discount isn't that much.
The Lord said 'Peter, I can see your house from here.'
     
riotge@r
Forum Regular
Join Date: Apr 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 30, 2005, 11:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by paulc
Several have indicated the major disappointment was not so much the processor speed, but the "rest of the machine." This I agree with 100%. I had the old plastic poised, but [pulled it back.

For the processors, I'm actually more interested in the fact that rumors have both the MP and the GX variants running a lot cooler. I gotta say I'm looking forward to that over just speed alone (although, both these parts are supposed to start at 3G).

As for PCIe, to those that think this is a non-issue, think about the fact that the market is rapidly moving to this for their entire lines... I've read in many places that all new cards from ATi will be PCIe. However, the issue is that Macs have long legs... how many here have used the same machine for 3-4-5 years? Buying a brand new machine w/o PCIe now means that you are essentially locked out of any significant GPU upgrade next year. AND I understand that implementing PCIe is NOT a major engineering feat.

What nobody ever seems to mention is "value." Remember, you're paying totally top of the line pricing here. When paying top of the line pricing, one should expect top of the line hardware. However, what we have is top if the line processors with low end hardware. And by low end I mean no PCIe, no DDR2, no second optical bay, no room for more than two drives in a HUGE enclosure.
Paul,

You have valid points and I too would have liked to see faster RAM and PCIe in the new PowerMacs. Given the short supply of ATI and NVIDIA PC video cards, I think Apple would have a harder time getting access to these cards given their purchasing power relative to the Dells of the industry. Plus, right now the difference is almost zero between 8X AGP and PCIe... we're talking about 1 FPS gain at max resolutions. From a business standpoint, it would be completely silly for ATI and Nvidia to not support AGP for the next couple of years. Doing so would mean that in order to buy a video card from them you will also need to buy a new motherboard and new RAM. Video cards don't push system upgrades, CPUS do. In the hardcore gaming crowd - the market for high end video cards, a CPU may stay in a system for a 1-1.5yrs where a video card may get swaped every 6-8 months. Casual gamers/mainstream users will just upgrade their entire system after 3 or 4 years and thus have PCIe when it trickles down to the lower end systems. Even the ATI X850 XT comes in both PCIe and AGP flavors. I suspect in 2-3 years you'll see cards that take advantage of PCIe and by then many of the "enthusiasts" on this board will have moved on to newer PowerMacs. I don't keep my computers for longer than 2 years - (thanks eBay) - so this is a non-issue for me.

One thing is for sure, my 2.7Ghz machine feels A LOT faster than my 2Ghz machine. I saw an instant benefit in World of Warcraft even with the 9650 card and apps opened faster across the board. The purchase of the X800 XT card gives me breathing room for the next couple of years.

Cheers!
( Last edited by riotge@r; Apr 30, 2005 at 12:01 PM. )
MacBook Pro 15" 2.4Ghz
     
riotge@r
Forum Regular
Join Date: Apr 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 30, 2005, 11:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by ReggieX
Don't know where you're living, but the US online Apple Store has a whole Special Deals section where they have old and/or refurbished models for sale, there were a couple of Dual 2.5s. Plus a lot of independent dealers will be trying to sell of any unsold older machines to make way for the new one. Whether it's a true bargain or not is up to them, I see some of my local ones have the old machines but the discount isn't that much.
Yeah, the Apple core-image compatibility page needs to be revamped. It is confusing and misleading.
MacBook Pro 15" 2.4Ghz
     
JeffHarris
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 30, 2005, 02:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker
It's called faxing.
Y'know, eFax works great!
You don't have to have a fax machine OR even a phone line.
All you need is broadband and a scanner.

I haven't had a "real" phone for two years!
     
shadowself
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 30, 2005, 02:31 PM
 
The issue for me is very different than it seems to be for everyone else posting here.

My issue IS system perfomance. A little over a year ago I spec'd a series of large Xserve clusters for a long term project. This was intended to be a series of seven clusters with 200+ Xserves each. This was based upon the assumption that the Xserves available in late 2007 would be at least twice as fast as the Xserves of early 2004. Using the performance of the Xserves available in February/March of 2004 the sysems would need about 400+ Xserves. We anticipated the processing capability of the clusters would at least double by late 2007 (CPUs faster, faster RAM, faster disks, faster card busses, faster FibreChannel, etc.)

In March/April of 2004 when I spec'd the clusters people were still hoping Apple would make the 3 GHz mark in the desktops. Most were expecting Apple to fall short but make it up in the next year (this year).

I was a bit disappointed with the increase from 2.0 GHz to 2.3 GHz in the Xserves in the last speed bump. But if Apple made the 3 GHz mark in the summer of 2005 in their desktops then I felt there was still hope that the Xserves would double in capability from early 2004 to late 2007.

With this paultry speed bump in the G5 this does not bode well for a doubling of processing capability by 2007. I don't expect the Xserves to hit anything higher than 2.5 GHz in the next revision and probably not before late fall or even next MWSF.

What does this mean to me? Well, if I stick with Apple Xserve clusters this means more Xserves, more interconnects, more online spares (each cluster must be a high availability system), more power, more cooling, more floor space, etc., etc. How much more? Well, if each cluster has to go from 200 Xserves to 300 Xserves then that is 700 more Xserves we need to purchase. At $3,000 a node (not including FibreChannel cards, cabling, rack space, cooling, etc.) that's $2.1 million more in cost. And before anyone says that we should just process it more slowly... These are truly real-time systems. There is no option to process the data more slowly.

If Apple does not come out with significantly faster machines over the next year we may have to rethink our choice of sytem vendor.
     
riotge@r
Forum Regular
Join Date: Apr 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 30, 2005, 02:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by shadowself
The issue for me is very different than it seems to be for everyone else posting here.

My issue IS system perfomance. A little over a year ago I spec'd a series of large Xserve clusters for a long term project. This was intended to be a series of seven clusters with 200+ Xserves each. This was based upon the assumption that the Xserves available in late 2007 would be at least twice as fast as the Xserves of early 2004. Using the performance of the Xserves available in February/March of 2004 the sysems would need about 400+ Xserves. We anticipated the processing capability of the clusters would at least double by late 2007 (CPUs faster, faster RAM, faster disks, faster card busses, faster FibreChannel, etc.)

In March/April of 2004 when I spec'd the clusters people were still hoping Apple would make the 3 GHz mark in the desktops. Most were expecting Apple to fall short but make it up in the next year (this year).

I was a bit disappointed with the increase from 2.0 GHz to 2.3 GHz in the Xserves in the last speed bump. But if Apple made the 3 GHz mark in the summer of 2005 in their desktops then I felt there was still hope that the Xserves would double in capability from early 2004 to late 2007.

With this paultry speed bump in the G5 this does not bode well for a doubling of processing capability by 2007. I don't expect the Xserves to hit anything higher than 2.5 GHz in the next revision and probably not before late fall or even next MWSF.

What does this mean to me? Well, if I stick with Apple Xserve clusters this means more Xserves, more interconnects, more online spares (each cluster must be a high availability system), more power, more cooling, more floor space, etc., etc. How much more? Well, if each cluster has to go from 200 Xserves to 300 Xserves then that is 700 more Xserves we need to purchase. At $3,000 a node (not including FibreChannel cards, cabling, rack space, cooling, etc.) that's $2.1 million more in cost. And before anyone says that we should just process it more slowly... These are truly real-time systems. There is no option to process the data more slowly.

If Apple does not come out with significantly faster machines over the next year we may have to rethink our choice of sytem vendor.
We're talking consumer systems here. So your alternative would be... AMD?
( Last edited by riotge@r; Apr 30, 2005 at 03:26 PM. )
MacBook Pro 15" 2.4Ghz
     
shadowself
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 30, 2005, 03:12 PM
 
Please notice the "may" in the last sentence. It all depends upon what comes out in the next 12-18 months from Apple/IBM or AMD or Intel. We will have to make commitments by then. Some software in development by then will start to become platform specific. While early development of massively parallel software can be platform generic there comes a point where optimizations are very platform specific.

At this point we can take a "wait and see" attitude, but will eventually have to choose.

If AMD or Intel comes out with much faster systems than Apple/IBM then we may switch the focus. The only thing I know for 100% certain is that it will not be Itanium. I spent a while using the Very Long Instructin Word (VLIW) systems of the late 80s. None of them lived up to the hype in real world performance. I don't expect Itanium to ever live up to it's hype.

I'm just waiting and hoping. However, this last small speed bump does not give me much reason to hope for Apple systems to be there when I need them.
     
riotge@r
Forum Regular
Join Date: Apr 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 30, 2005, 03:29 PM
 
AMD and Intel processors are getting incremental 200mhz speed bumps as well. This isn't unprecedented.
MacBook Pro 15" 2.4Ghz
     
ReggieX
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, ON
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 30, 2005, 03:48 PM
 
Just ordered a new Dual 2.0, what the heck. Should be here in a week or so. If something seriously better comes out before end of the year, I'll just sell it.

Current Mac is over 5 years old, so the jump is going to be seriously noticeable. Might just keep the Sawtooth as a fileserver/movie box with it's S-Video out and TV card.
The Lord said 'Peter, I can see your house from here.'
     
Laurence
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Portland, Oregon, United States
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 30, 2005, 04:21 PM
 
I think everyone is far too concerned with processor speed. I would be satisfied if the dual 2.5 was still the top end.

The G5 tower is bigger than any of the Dells/Vaios/HPs we have at work and all of the others have internal expansion that far exceeds the G5s.

I will not purchase a new mac until it has room internally for four HDs & PCIe video. I would certainly like a dedicate audio controller on the motherboard as well as dual optical drives. It would also be nice to have a 3.5" bay not for a floppy, but a "12 in 1" smart card reader on an internal USB bus. I hate the fact that I have a nice looking computer sitting by my desk but there are multiple firewire HDs, memory card readers, etc cluttering up my workspace. Having a dedicated audio controller (Even if it was something low-end) would free up processor performance for other things.

I realize that some of these things are mainly associated with gaming machines, but that doesn't really matter, they cost next to nothing to implement and would make the entire package more attractive to would-be "switchers"
--Laurence
     
riotge@r
Forum Regular
Join Date: Apr 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 30, 2005, 04:45 PM
 
Most people aren't going to need 4 HD bays (even hardcore gamers) and PCIe on the Mac is useless right now and will be for the next couple of years.

Reggie, congrats on the purchase.
MacBook Pro 15" 2.4Ghz
     
MilkmanDan
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: My Powerbook, in Japan!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 30, 2005, 05:37 PM
 
Honestly, things are looking really good on the Mac side. Apple is increasing market share, the G5 is a really sweet computer and it does keep up with the competition when looking at overall processor speed increases in the past one year. Heck, at least Apple has a 64 bit OS out to use with its 64 bit processors.

While some of you have been saying that Apple has been forgetting its pro line, just look at the pro applications they're releasing and ask yourself, would they be releasing programs with such massive system requirements if they didn't care about their pro line? They just opened up a preview section of Quicktime HD, and the requirements are for a G5. Be sure that if Apple could, Apple would release a G5 Powerbook. Lord knows I'd replace my 1.33 12in powerbook in a year if there was a G5 Powerbook out.

But for the most part the G4 chip does a good job for most people. Being on a college campus, both students and schools see that the G4 chip is a speed for price computer. Why else would the eMac still be selling well, or the Mac mini.

So anyhow, as a long time hard core Mac fanboy I must say that this is the best I've felt about Apple in the past 8 years. Seriously. Think about it.
     
d.fine
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2004
Location: on 650 cc's
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2005, 05:10 AM
 
They provide less bays because the HD's are getting bigger...

stuffing feathers up your b*tt doesn't make you a chicken.
     
David Thompson
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Valley Village, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2005, 11:53 AM
 
Originally Posted by d.fine
They provide less bays because the HD's are getting bigger...
It's nice to have multiple hds for disaster recovery. I have OS clones on different hds as well as a dedicated drive for backups. My /Users is not on an OS partition as well as third-party apps and all my data. (Three hds.) The idea being to keep the OS partitions as virgin as possible. I rarely have problems with them.

I'd like to get a new G5 but that would mean having my backup drive be firewire. I suppose that COULD be considered an advantage in some respects ...
     
macmissionary
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: May 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2005, 12:01 PM
 
What's the chance there will be another update in June?
     
Severed Hand of Skywalker
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: The bottom of Cloud City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2005, 01:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by macmissionary
What's the chance there will be another update in June?
Less than ZERO.

"Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh"
     
Severed Hand of Skywalker
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: The bottom of Cloud City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2005, 01:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by JeffHarris
Y'know, eFax works great!
You don't have to have a fax machine OR even a phone line.
All you need is broadband and a scanner.

I haven't had a "real" phone for two years!
For the cost of the service for one month you could by the real modem.

"Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh"
     
SalBaker
Junior Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2005, 01:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by booboo
I need a new G5.

I need one now.

I need one with a revised motherboard which doesn't have the audio ground issues.

Sorry, I don't fit your model.
I use a 2ghz G5 and have no audio chirps. But for my pro work, I render the mix-down. I can guarantee the audio is clean on these files!
     
riotge@r
Forum Regular
Join Date: Apr 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2005, 03:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by macmissionary
What's the chance there will be another update in June?
I don't expect to see another update until Fall at the earliest. It would make sense for Apple to announce PowerBook G5s with revamped PowerMacs. Perhaps they come at the same time in Jan 06.
MacBook Pro 15" 2.4Ghz
     
booboo
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2005, 04:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by SalBaker
I use a 2ghz G5 and have no audio chirps. But for my pro work, I render the mix-down. I can guarantee the audio is clean on these files!
'rendering' the mixdown is fine, if that workaround solves it for you. If you've ever ended up with unwanted chirps on a vocal take, you might consider the problem unacceptable.

My experiences are not based solely on the Rev B G5 I owned for 10 days, but two other G5's as well.

2 drive bays only? Fine for a prosumer computer. For a flagship G5 with a price-tag to match, aimed at the 'pro' market, 2 HD's and one optical is insufficient, especially when there's room for more . . . and offering the excuse that drives are getting bigger is really reaching . . .
     
Laurence
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Portland, Oregon, United States
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2005, 07:24 PM
 
The drives are necessary as more and more people are storing movies on their computer. I have around 650GB of storage on my G4 in total and it is no where near enough. I've always had two 120GB drives for the system. (CCC backs up once a week from one to the other) and then I have a couple of 200GB drives for storage. Now that H.264 is here I can see getting a G5, but I would want more internal storage space. The biggest drive I can get right now is 400GB and with two of those in the G5 It wouldn't be much better than what I have now if I continues to mirror the system for safety. The G4 I have can hold 5 3.5" drives (without modifying the inernals) The G5 is probably 50-60% bigger. I really don't see what the harm would be to have a few extra controllers on the motherboard and a few more drive bays so that people wouldn't have to void their warrantee to use some aftermarket drive rack that is jammed in a place where it could harm the airflow of the entire machine. The optical drive I could do without, but not the HDs.
--Laurence
     
Cadaver
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: ~/
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2005, 09:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laurence
The drives are necessary as more and more people are storing movies on their computer. I have around 650GB of storage on my G4 in total and it is no where near enough. I've always had two 120GB drives for the system. (CCC backs up once a week from one to the other) and then I have a couple of 200GB drives for storage. Now that H.264 is here I can see getting a G5, but I would want more internal storage space. The biggest drive I can get right now is 400GB and with two of those in the G5 It wouldn't be much better than what I have now if I continues to mirror the system for safety. The G4 I have can hold 5 3.5" drives (without modifying the inernals) The G5 is probably 50-60% bigger. I really don't see what the harm would be to have a few extra controllers on the motherboard and a few more drive bays so that people wouldn't have to void their warrantee to use some aftermarket drive rack that is jammed in a place where it could harm the airflow of the entire machine. The optical drive I could do without, but not the HDs.
External SATA enclosures are reasonably priced these days, fortunately. Add a card with a 4-port external SATA bloc and you're all set. But not internal.
     
SalBaker
Junior Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2005, 10:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by booboo
My experiences are not based solely on the Rev B G5 I owned for 10 days, but two other G5's as well.
How bad are the audio chirps on the new 2.7 G5? Are they as bad as your other G5's?
     
deboerjo
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jul 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2005, 10:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by shadowself
I'm just waiting and hoping. However, this last small speed bump does not give me much reason to hope for Apple systems to be there when I need them.
The Xserve will likely be using dual-core processors within a year, which should cut your CPU needs in half. And if you hadn't noticed, AMD/Intel aren't doing any better than IBM with clock speed bumps recently. The new 2.7s currently have AMD outclocked, and Intel's cancelled plans for a 4.0GHz Pentium 4 indefinitly.
     
d.fine
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2004
Location: on 650 cc's
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 2, 2005, 06:05 AM
 
Ok, so maybe thev've gotten a little out of focus on the Pro line. But my guess is they had to make some choices. The G5's are much quiter than G4's, I'd think with 4 or 5 HD's in there you'd need more cooling, specially for rendering and so where the HD's can get pretty hot. The G5's sure are bigger then G4's, 50 to 60% seems a little much, but ok. Working with those huge heatsinks, again to minimize the db level, you need space.
Don't get me wrong, I agree with most that the G5's layout should be reviewed for better expandability, more space for HD's and all that, but seems like right now we can't get both the silence and the HD space, maybe the next rev...
There's a lot of space in the PCI/AGP area, maybe the can work in some possibilities there, or maybe re-place the PSU, the long narrow bottom tunnel could hold about 4 HD's... with an easy install system

stuffing feathers up your b*tt doesn't make you a chicken.
     
sheer
Forum Regular
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 2, 2005, 07:44 AM
 
People seem to blame Apple when it's IBM who manufacture the chips and they're the one's having difficulty scaling past certain speeds in numbers which make it profitable to do so. Add to that a heat dissapation and power consumption brick wall. I'm sure we could have 3.5ghz dual G5s right now, but you'd need a gargantuan psu along with a dozen 120mm fans at 4000rpm to keep it cool. Not good when you want a quiet creative environment (an MDD dual 867 is bad enough).

See this update as the best that can be done given the circumstances and if you really need a G5 now, then buy as the performance will not disappoint you. If you can wait, the next update will more than likely be dual core + pci-e and if IBM can get anywhere near AMDs dual cores in performance (which look pretty stellar considering much of the tests Anand ran were not mp aware, and they certainly gave Intel a kicking) then the Mac community will be happy bunnies. Tho I wouldn't be expecting this next update until late '05/early '06.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:42 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,