[Lateralus]

Originally Posted by Link

No, the "quagmire" 200mhz speedbump, which was heavily rumored, got insane negative ratings on a few rumor sites, picked up lots of attention, and somehow even fooled amazon into putting it up..

Then suddenly, oh wait no g5s yet! Hrmm...

*later that week* Still no G5s, what the heck is going on here? Apple?

Give it a few days, I wouldn't be surprised if suddenly the g5 dual 2.7 came out in the morning as expected, but I wouldn't be surprised if they held it off a few days, or even a few weeks, to surprise everyone with some dual dualcore madness of some sort, or at least a 3ghz machine.

...what?

[Superchicken]

This is pretty sad... last year we got 500Mhz that wasn't so bad despite being promised a whole Ghz, this year I was hoping we'd get to a whole 3Ghz, now we're only gaining 200Mhz! That's just sad.

[gururafiki]

Originally Posted by AssassyN

Guys, don't be so sad.

The absolute BEST part about this is this: the liquid cooled Dual 2.5Ghz G5s are gonna be MAD cheap in the "Sale" section on Apple.com....nab one of those if you're upgrading!

Tell me about it. Plus, I have a 2.5 and I am nowhere near envious of this update because a 200mhz bump will hardly show a blip in benchmarks. The 2.5's seem they will be the best deal.

[Lateralus]

Yeah, I'm not exactly feeling worried about the impending update even though I have only had my G5 for a few weeks. A 200MHz speed boost and no price drop isn't gonna kill the value of my Dual 1.8GHz.

[OtisWild]

Originally Posted by jamil5454

Nor have we had the option of a FX5900.

Yah, my bad typo, I meant 5200.

Which is an even bigger and sadder piece of jokey junk.

[Macpilot]

I don't get all the disappointment. These systems are all faster. What do people expect? Who gives a rat's ass whether you have 2.7 or 3.0 ghz? Both would seem to do anything anybody could currently ask of a computer.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Superchicken

This is pretty sad... last year we got 500Mhz that wasn't so bad despite being promised a whole Ghz, this year I was hoping we'd get to a whole 3Ghz, now we're only gaining 200Mhz! That's just sad.

Life's a bitch.

[sworthy]

The reason I'm sad is because the powermac is the machine that dictates the rest of the product mix. It's features migrate to lower end systems eventually, so everyone has a stake in what the next powermac specs are. They are still great systems, but the faster they get newer tech, the faster an iMac will have better specs.

[Link]

Originally Posted by Macpilot

I don't get all the disappointment. These systems are all faster. What do people expect? Who gives a rat's ass whether you have 2.7 or 3.0 ghz? Both would seem to do anything anybody could currently ask of a computer.

A 200mhz speedbump vs a 500mhz speedbump? Most people aren't even upset about the lack of a 500mhz speedbump, rather that the updates indicate apple's ENTIRELY ignoring all these new technologies (PCIe, SLI (just to throw it in there), all sorts of new video cards (especially in the mid-range), faster RAM tech (which would be good to relieve that bottleneck), and even those 10,000RPM hard drives (JUST as an option that'd be awesome).

Not to mention there's a plethora of things apple could do to refine the powermac line, like add optical or HD bays, more PCIe or PCI-x slots, and a better firewire/USB bus system, perhaps even fix any outstanding audio issues while they're at it.

Believe me, there's a LOT of room for improvement, especially after almost 2 years, which is just about the working lifetime of most computers, by the first owner at least. And believe me, there are many people out there who would be ecstatic to trade their dual 2.5ghz for a dual 3ghz or even a quad 2.7ghz, to whom each bit of performance they can creak out of their machines means money made in less time.

The idea is, just because the current powermacs are perfectly fine for your needs, does not mean that they're perfectly fine for everybody.

Originally Posted by sworthy

The reason I'm sad is because the powermac is the machine that dictates the rest of the product mix. It's features migrate to lower end systems eventually, so everyone has a stake in what the next powermac specs are. They are still great systems, but the faster they get newer tech, the faster an iMac will have better specs.

Right, it goes kinda like this: Powermac -> iMac -> Powerbook -> ibook -> emac -> mac mini, unbelievably it seems apple's afraid to let the powerbook compete with the imac, maybe they think it'll cannibalize the imac's sales?!

Besides, even those who bought a shiny new dual 2.5 recently should be cheering bigger and better updates on, because that means when they go to buy a new machine whenever that may be, the new stuff will be even better than it would be if it was barley updated, do you think someone who bought a dual 2ghz in 2003 is going to want to turn around and buy a machine that looks virtually identical in 2006?

[Macpilot]

Originally Posted by Link

A 200mhz speedbump vs a 500mhz speedbump? Most people aren't even upset about the lack of a 500mhz speedbump, rather that the updates indicate apple's ENTIRELY ignoring all these new technologies (PCIe, SLI (just to throw it in there), all sorts of new video cards (especially in the mid-range), faster RAM tech (which would be good to relieve that bottleneck), and even those 10,000RPM hard drives (JUST as an option that'd be awesome).

Not to mention there's a plethora of things apple could do to refine the powermac line, like add optical or HD bays, more PCIe or PCI-x slots, and a better firewire/USB bus system, perhaps even fix any outstanding audio issues while they're at it.

Believe me, there's a LOT of room for improvement, especially after almost 2 years, which is just about the working lifetime of most computers, by the first owner at least. And believe me, there are many people out there who would be ecstatic to trade their dual 2.5ghz for a dual 3ghz or even a quad 2.7ghz, to whom each bit of performance they can creak out of their machines means money made in less time.

The idea is, just because the current powermacs are perfectly fine for your needs, does not mean that they're perfectly fine for everybody.



Right, it goes kinda like this: Powermac -> iMac -> Powerbook -> ibook -> emac -> mac mini, unbelievably it seems apple's afraid to let the powerbook compete with the imac, maybe they think it'll cannibalize the imac's sales?!

Besides, even those who bought a shiny new dual 2.5 recently should be cheering bigger and better updates on, because that means when they go to buy a new machine whenever that may be, the new stuff will be even better than it would be if it was barley updated, do you think someone who bought a dual 2ghz in 2003 is going to want to turn around and buy a machine that looks virtually identical in 2006?

The current Power Macs are far more than I need.

What could anyone possible require out of a computer today, with the current crop of apps that run on these systems, that would make a dual 2.7 machine unusable or "slow" two, or even three years down the road.

When did the "looks" of the machine dictate it's capabilities? A good form factor and design should be used as long as possible, don't you think? Are these not some amazingly well-designed towers? Changing the design for the sake of change is unnecessary.

No, I don't think someone who bought a 2.0 in 2003, which was not delivered until LATE 2003, is going to care about this new system, as he shouldn't. They already have a capable system and we all know Macs last a long time. If a 600mhz G3 runs Tiger or Panther well, that is pretty amazing.

Apple has innovated quite well with software and hardware. Just because these new systems don't sport all that bleeding-edge stuff you speak of does not mean they are obsolete or not worth the upgrade. What about people who are still using a 5 year old Power Mac G4 and are looking at a new Power Mac? Is this system inadequate for them? Hardly.

So I ask again, what can you do on a 3.0 machine that one cannot do on a 2.7 machine? I just think that assuming your business is going to save gobs of time because of 300mhz is silly. I cannot honestly tell the difference between my 1.5 Powerbook and my previous 1.0 Powerbook.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Link

A 200mhz speedbump vs a 500mhz speedbump? Most people aren't even upset about the lack of a 500mhz speedbump, rather that the updates indicate apple's ENTIRELY ignoring all these new technologies (PCIe, SLI (just to throw it in there), all sorts of new video cards (especially in the mid-range), faster RAM tech (which would be good to relieve that bottleneck), and even those 10,000RPM hard drives (JUST as an option that'd be awesome).

Not to mention there's a plethora of things apple could do to refine the powermac line, like add optical or HD bays, more PCIe or PCI-x slots, and a better firewire/USB bus system, perhaps even fix any outstanding audio issues while they're at it.

Believe me, there's a LOT of room for improvement, especially after almost 2 years, which is just about the working lifetime of most computers, by the first owner at least. And believe me, there are many people out there who would be ecstatic to trade their dual 2.5ghz for a dual 3ghz or even a quad 2.7ghz, to whom each bit of performance they can creak out of their machines means money made in less time.

The idea is, just because the current powermacs are perfectly fine for your needs, does not mean that they're perfectly fine for everybody.

Link, if Apple had the ability to deliver dual core Macs with PCIe it would. It apparently does not have the capacity to do so at this point. If Apple could add additional drive bays without wrecking the thermal equation it would. Apple is in the business of making money. Apple is not incompetent. The company evidently could not deliver in the way that people hoped and expected to see. Only Apple's engineers and executives know the constraints and opportunity costs under which they are operating, and few outside the company are in a position to legitimately critique their performance. Such sentiment also accomplishes very little. I imagine Apple is as disappointed as the faithful will be over this update. Anyway, you may actually want to blame me for the lackluster update, since I was praying for Apple not to devalue my recently purchased DP 2.0 too much.

[Link]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Anyway, you may actually want to blame me for the lackluster update, since I was praying for Apple not to devalue my recently purchased DP 2.0 too much.

Oh come now man, I know how you feel on that one lol, we got a g5 1.8ghz here (only a single, but damn nice), last month. Needless to say, it's awesome, but after having gone from top of the line to well, my g4 powermac is somewhere between 3 and 4 years old.. I think I've gotten used to this one Dunno about my mom though (the g5 is hers, muwahha).

I'd trade up my machine for one of those dual 2.7s, if the price was right.. but I don't really have the justification to spend $2500+ on a new machine right now, quad 3ghz or not.

[DeathMan]

it is depressing, but at the same time, I have no need of that kind of hardware. I have a dual 2 right now, and it is more than I ever need. Sometimes photoshop goes slow, but I don't think the cpu is the culprit most of the time.

[Big Mac]

So then why is it so depressing, DeathMan? Or are you just naturally depressed?

[GSixZero]

Originally Posted by Superchicken

This is pretty sad... last year we got 500Mhz that wasn't so bad despite being promised a whole Ghz, this year I was hoping we'd get to a whole 3Ghz, now we're only gaining 200Mhz! That's just sad.

Well if we continue on this road, 2003->2004, we got 50% of the speed bump we wanted. (2->3, 2.5)

Now 2004->2005 we got 40% of the bump we wanted. (2.5->3.0, 2.7)

Does this mean the next bump will bring us a 30% of the bump we want? (2.7->3.0, 2.79)

!!!!

I now know the specs of the Early 2006 powermacs! They're going to be dual 2.79 Ghz!!!!

[jamil5454]

Damn these MacNN forums. They're so addicting . I've got a 6-page research paper due in 3 hours and I've only just begin fixing my annotated bibliography and marking my sources, let alone actually start typing the paper. I'll just take the 10 points off and turn it in tomorrow. This G5 discussion has gotten me all riled up and I can't seem to stay off the boards. Maybe I need to disconnect my internet for a while to get some work done or something.

My view on the subject:
Apple needs to lower its prices FIRST, then worry about releasing 3ghz or quads. All my friends want a Mac, but simply can't afford it and go with a kick-ass $800 PC instead. If the dual 2.0 took the place of the single 1.8, and they moved the other two duals down one notch in the price hierarchy, I think a quad or dual 3ghz machine will all the bells and whistles would fit well at the $3000 or $3500 price mark. Like previously said, this machine would be kinda like a SuperMac, targeted towards the extreme professionals and enthusiasts. When you consider than one can build a dual Opteron box with 4gb of memory and everything you could possibly hope for for $3000-3500, some people might take that road and have an unstoppable Linux workstation. I almost made that choice but then I remembered I was only an entering freshman into UofH and I had no need for all that power. I just liked to pretend I did.

[Pierre B.]

FYI, European Apple Stores are already down.

[Todd Madson]

I looked at the refurbed section of the Apple store and now the price for a
refurb certified dual 1.8 is a mere $1699 (256 MB with 80 gigs, standard
superdrive sort of anemic) but to get a dual CPU machine that is a great
price point), dual 2.0 (512mb with 160 GB HD and superdrive) is $2099,
and dual 2.5 (same but with 8x superdrive) is $2599. Those would actually
be a good deal for some people. Thought I'd mention it at least. If I had
$2500 I'd seriously consider the top end of those machines.

This was the url:
http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPL....3.1.1.0?79,51

It should be interesting to see how the new ones really stack up against the
refurbs.

A lot of the dissappointment here with the new machines does have a lot
to do with what I'd call the "pissing contest" factor. People want to be able
to brag up their new machines.

Most of us are browsing the web, reading/writing email, using word processing
and spreadsheets. Some of us are desktop publishing, some of us are doing
pro audio, some of us are doing HD video. You could do all of that faster than
any other Mac around on a dual 2.7. What couldn't you do on that machine?
What process requires more than dual 2.7? Web authoring? No. Scientific
computing and 3d rendering perhaps. But with Tiger and the xGrid capabilities
it could make for a badass grid machine. If you had a rackful of 2.7s it could
really scream in quantity.

How much you want to bet people find a way to overclock that machine the
remaining 300 mhz? I bet it happens and sooner rather than later.

[Pierre B.]

Originally Posted by Todd Madson

A lot of the dissappointment here with the new machines does have a lot
to do with what I'd call the "pissing contest" factor. People want to be able
to brag up their new machines.

Partially true. There are others that care about what they get for their money.

[Thain Esh Kelch]

Applestore is down.

[P]

Take a look at this page:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...oc.aspx?i=2397

It's an early "review" of the dual core Athlon64s/Opterons. Note a couple of things there:

* The dualcores come in at one or two MHz ratings below the highest clocked singlecore part.
* The duals are expensive...

When Apple comes out with a dualcore machine, it will either be as a low-cost alternative to a dual CPU (because the motherboard is cheaper that way, it could be done. Dualcore high-end iMac...) or as a very expensive 2x2 high-end machine that is clocked lower than the highest 2x1 machine. There is no way that the 2.7 GHzer is a dualcore.

My old theory was that the 2.3 GHzer was the real dualcore, and that it would be the most expensive version. With the current prices revelaed by Amazon, that looks unlikely, but there could still be a dualcore at say 2.4 GHz launched inbetween updates.

[Simon]

It's finally here.

I just started a new thread here.

[deboerjo]

No updates to the iMac, eMac, or mini yet, though...

[denim]

Originally Posted by Link

do you think someone who bought a dual 2ghz in 2003 is going to want to turn around and buy a machine that looks virtually identical in 2006?

Well, I certainly don't expect to. My dual 2.0GHz from 2003 still blows me away. Consider all the people with older boxes, after all.

[OtisWild]

Originally Posted by Macpilot

I don't get all the disappointment. These systems are all faster. What do people expect? Who gives a rat's ass whether you have 2.7 or 3.0 ghz? Both would seem to do anything anybody could currently ask of a computer.

Where's the machine that buries x86 in _everything_?

Not just Photoshop filters, but Doom3.

Games, man, games!!!

Without ownage of gaming benchmarks, Apple claims to power will ring hollow. Gaming is the benchmark of 95% of the population.

And all Apple has to do is use non-crappy GPUs to be credible. Mini barely gets away with it because the competition in that pricerange uses onboard video which is even more pathetic, but if you are going to pay over $2000 for the computer _alone_, it needs to have kickass current-gen video to not be scoffable.

And this new 'refresh'?

Eminently scoffable. Scoff, I say!

[workerbee]

Originally Posted by Link

Right, it goes kinda like this: Powermac -> iMac -> Powerbook -> ibook -> emac -> mac mini

Actually, I think this should read Powermac -> PowerBook -> iMac -> iBook/Mac mini.
The PowerBook should always be faster than the iMac, because a) it is a pro machine b) it therefore is a high margin product for Apple (i.e: expensive) and also because c) I use one myself.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by workerbee

Actually, I think this should read Powermac -> PowerBook -> iMac -> iBook/Mac mini.
The PowerBook should always be faster than the iMac, because a) it is a pro machine b) it therefore is a high margin product for Apple (i.e: expensive) and also because c) I use one myself.

I don't agree with this. Evidently, Apple doesn't either. I think it makes perfect sense for an iMac to be faster than a PowerBook. The iMac is a desktop after all.

BTW, I'm a PowerBook user too, and I plan on buying an iMac.

Originally Posted by Simon

It's finally here.

I just started a new thread here.

Why?

[rhombus]

What a lame update. For some inexplicable there's reason no PCIe, so after 2006 no new graphic cards will be compatible. And I just noticed on the Apple store that a modem is now not included (�20 extra). I use broadband, but a 56k modem is still a useful back up. I expect Apple to add functionality, not take it away (especially if the price is unchanged).

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Why?

Because I felt like it. This thread is sooo yesterday.

[workerbee]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

I don't agree with this. Evidently, Apple doesn't either.

Well, methinks that if Apple had low powered G5 or dual core G4 CPUs, they would be more than happy for the PowerBook to be faster than the iMac.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by workerbee

Well, methinks that if Apple had low powered G5 or dual core G4 CPUs, they would be more than happy for the PowerBook to be faster than the iMac.

If they had low-powered G5s, they'd probably run about the same speed as the iMac.

The dual-core e600 chips are a pipe dream for 2005.

[surferboy]

Apple has been pretty quiet about this announcement. Is that unusual? Do they save the fanfare for more significant upgrades?

[Demonhood]

dual 2.3 ordered. 1GB RAM, 400GB HD, Radeon 9650.
so, this 1ghz+ thing is nice eh? (home machine is a G4/500DP. work machine is a G4/733)

[moodymonster]

Originally Posted by surferboy

Apple has been pretty quiet about this announcement. Is that unusual? Do they save the fanfare for more significant upgrades?

yup, spot on

[SierraDragon]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

The current Power Mac supports 16 GB DDR already, using 2 GB sticks. Cooling is not an issue.

I'm not convinced 2 GB DDR400 sticks will ever become mainstream however. I suspect that people requiring 2 GB sticks will be using another type of memory, such as DDR2 or something.

Anyways, I see very little benefit for 99.99% of users to have a Power Mac with more than 8 slots for RAM.

The Apple site states "512MB PC3200 (400MHz) Supports up to 8GB" for the high end of the new Powermacs and 4GB for the low end. Please advise if the specs are incorrect (it has happened before).

Accessible RAM is a HUGE issue for the graphics world now that OSX and apps like Photoshop are facilitating the use of more RAM. We can already exceed the 4GB of the just-announced low end Powermacs, and certainly within a year we will likely have use for more than 8 GB. New Powermacs must handle FUTURE needs, not yesterday's! To purchase a box for the next 3-4 years that is limited to 4 GB would be absurd, and IMO even 8 GB will be limiting.

Especially with RAM getting cheaper and cheaper more and more apps will create the capability of taking advantage of increasing amounts of RAM. New boxes are for the _future_.

The pro Mac user world does not rate boxes by their gaming benchmarks like someone claimed. Photoshop performance is way more relevant, and RAM is essential to optimize PS.

[borgobello]

http://www.intel.com/personal/deskto...p_feat_05ww17&

[E's Lil Theorem]

Originally Posted by Demonhood

dual 2.3 ordered. 1GB RAM, 400GB HD, Radeon 9650.
so, this 1ghz+ thing is nice eh? (home machine is a G4/500DP. work machine is a G4/733)

Congrats on the new machine! And the 1GHz+ machines are mucho nice. You'll really feel the difference. (I went from a dual G4 450 to a dual G5 2GHz myself a few months ago.)

[OtisWild]

Originally Posted by borgobello

http://www.intel.com/personal/deskto...p_feat_05ww17&

Never fear, Intel's dual core is teh suck. Both cores suck off a 800mhz FSB, which is asinine. Plus, those cores can't clock past 3.2GHz yet, and they're useless in gaming and single-threaded software.

Ph33r AMD's dual core, which interconnects the cores via hypertransport. The Opteron nomenclature XYZ, where X= number of CPUs SMP means that the 8XX series could be run as 8-CPU SMP systems. However, no mobo makers made 8-cpu mobos, so you had to pay for the ability to do 8-CPU crossbar HT SMP, and only be able to put 4 cpus in a box. With dual core, you can max out your 8-cpu architecture in existing 4-cpu mobos (with a mere BIOS update) and have full-speed memory to each core. Also, so far AMD's dual core systems haven't suffered as badly as the Intel's re: GHz..

The Opteron is really breathtaking, and so are its 8xx-series prices...

And Apple could keep PCIe, they could keep dual cores, they could keep it all.. iff they went with NVidia boards of the current generation, at reasonable BTO prices.

[Goldfinger]

Originally Posted by borgobello

http://www.intel.com/personal/deskto...p_feat_05ww17&

The Intel Pentium processor Extreme Edition combines HT Technology with two full processing cores, for an unprecedented four threads and new multitasking power, increasing realism and richness in next-generation games. That means gaming enthusiasts can play the latest titles and experience ultra-realistic effects and gameplay. And multimedia enthusiasts can create, edit, and encode graphically intensive files while running a virus scan in the background.

This sums up the wintel world. Gaming and runnig virus scanners.

[sideus]

From what I've read about AMD's and Intel's dual cores is that there were pretty much just thrown together without much thought. Kinda like throwing two car engines together, but each engine share the same transmission and fuel line. It is more marketing than anything.

[krove]

Muhahaha!

"PCs is the suck!"

[OtisWild]

Originally Posted by sideus

From what I've read about AMD's and Intel's dual cores is that there were pretty much just thrown together without much thought. Kinda like throwing two car engines together, but each engine share the same transmission and fuel line. It is more marketing than anything.

Naah, the AMD isn't that bad. The 8xx series was designed with 3 HT buses for crossbar SMP (instead of junky shared bus like Intel) so adding an extra core should just mean using one of them internally. The 8xx Opteron multicore is really impressive, and impressively priced (like $2500 a pop!). The Intels? Not so much.

[deboerjo]

Originally Posted by sideus

From what I've read about AMD's and Intel's dual cores is that there were pretty much just thrown together without much thought. Kinda like throwing two car engines together, but each engine share the same transmission and fuel line. It is more marketing than anything.

That's the case with Intel, but not AMD. The Opteron/Athlon64 was designed specifically for multicore from the beginning.

[ReggieX]

These bumps are what I've been waiting for, and will most likely order a new one within a week or two. I'm just miffed the 9800XT is gone from the choices of video cards, now I have to get the 9800 Pro from elsewhere.

Going to be nice to have a new machine after 5 years with my Sawtooth. 900Mhz and a gig of RAM can do a lot, but I'm looking forward to doing even more.

[anakone]

Haha!

I just scored a previous gen Dual 2 GHz for $1699 with educational discount. This computer is arguably better than the "new" 2 GHz. Sweet.

[Link]

Originally Posted by anakone

Haha!

I just scored a previous gen Dual 2 GHz for $1699 with educational discount. This computer is arguably better than the "new" 2 GHz. Sweet.

From apple?! WOW.

[Eriamjh]

Did anyone notice that $3000 does NOT include a 56K modem?

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Eriamjh

Did anyone notice that $3000 does NOT include a 56K modem?

Yeah of course. Only the single CPU 1.8GHz model still has the modem default. The others get it through a $30 BTO option. I think that makes quite some sense. The pros that use a dual 2.7GHz G5 aren't likely going to use a 56k dial-up. And if they do, what's $30 of BTO'ing on a $3k machine? Peanuts.

[Agent69]

Originally Posted by Demonhood

dual 2.3 ordered. 1GB RAM, 400GB HD, Radeon 9650.
so, this 1ghz+ thing is nice eh? (home machine is a G4/500DP. work machine is a G4/733)

I think that we will have our machines pretty quickly. I ordered yesterday immediately following the Apple Store coming back up and my machine is already preparing to ship.

[gkorsgard]

I went to the Apple store yesterday and picked up my new dual 2.0 and they said they had all of the new machines in stock. I was suprised they sold it to me since Tiger was pre-installed. Like the machine though. Had the 1.6 G5 previously.