Will there be another Power Mac G5?

[corbin_a2]

Do you guys think that we will see one last Power Mac G5 upgrade before we go to intel? Possiblly the elusive 3GHz?

[Arcus]

No

[iGary]

Nope.

[WildCowboy]

Absolutely not...Intel across the board in all next revisions.

And corbin, can you please shrink your signature? The max is 6 lines, and yours is 15...please don't make us scroll any more than we have to.

[notjustjay]

I can't believe people are still in such denial.

[robbieduncan]

I'll say perhaps.

I understand why the people above say no with such conviction and deep down I agree with them. But the Mac Pro will probably be waiting for Conroe. That's quite a bit off. We might see on last minor, barely publicised bump to keep the Photoshop monkeys running till '07...

[Glenn Wolsey]

No.

[~Shard~]

I'd say possibly.

Initially I didn't think we would be seeing the Intel PowerMac until MWSF 2007, due to the Intel timeline surrounding Conroe/Woodcrest. Now that they appear to be ~6 months ahead (appear to be for now that is ;)) I have faith that Jobs's promise of "all machines being Intel by the end of 2006" will hold.
Ah, but does that include the eMac?
Still though, I do not realistically see an Intel PowerMac until late in the fall, so the question would be, will Apple go an entire year without touching its Power machine? I say doubtful. Sure, they're not going to release something mind-blowing and have another major update to the line - after all, the PPC is the past, Intel is the future - no need to shine the spotlight on PPC. That being said, they will probably need to refresh the line in some manner, so I would say look for a slight speed bump to the bottom 2 machines and/or a price drop across the line, along with refreshed video cards, etc. But nothing more. After all, Pro users want the latest and greatest, and are not going to shell out a ton of money for a machine they know is going to get replaced by new Intel technology only 6 months later. Then of course there is the whole compatibility issue for Pro apps.

And the reason I say they won't touch the quad is, well, it's pretty frickin' powerful. To make themselves look good, Apple will need to release an Intel PowerMac which can compete with that, so they wouldn't want to make it even faster. ;) I have every confidence that the Conroe and Woodcrest chipsets will be up to the task. :cool:

Speaking of the quad though, perhaps that will indeed by Apple's swan song for the G5 PowerMac - send the line out with a bang. Who knows. All I know is I think Apple needs to do something to the line before October/November rolls around when the Intel PowerMacs will finally be out. And if that's only a price drop, so be it.

Then again I could be wrong - it has actually hapened in the past, believe it or not. :cool:

[macgeek2005]

I'm praying to dear god, that the next Power Mac revision will be in the spring, and it will be Intel. Is there ANY chance of this?

[robbieduncan]

I'm praying to dear god, that the next Power Mac revision will be in the spring, and it will be Intel. Is there ANY chance of this?

I'd say no. If Apple want to release an Intel PowerMac in the next 2-3 months they have to either: use Yonah (like the iMac). This will limit them to a single dual-core (they will not run in dual dual mode like the current top of range PowerMac) and 32-bit (not so important to me, but still not great).

Or go Pentium-D or Xeon (Xeon for dual/dual operation). These are much much hotter than the current G5, expensive and not really all that fast. Not a good move.

[BornAgainMac]

No. The reason is to show a huge jump in performance with the Intel based Mac Pro vs the current Powermac G5. The Powermac G5 typically only gets updated once a year anyways.

[~Shard~]

I'm praying to dear god, that the next Power Mac revision will be in the spring, and it will be Intel. Is there ANY chance of this?

No. None whatsoever. Merom will not even be availble by spring, let alone Conroe or Woodcrest. Intel's timelines are ~6 months ahead of schedule as it is, what more do you want? :p ;) :cool:

[bousozoku]

I think that there will be one more update.

Considering the news from Adobe and the general state of applications that would probably be running on PowerMacs, I think they'll wait longer. It's not as if the quad machine is exactly slow anyway but I think they'll have another speedbump--maybe to--ummm, no, I'm not going to say it. :D

Considering their history, they've kept a Mac OS 9-bootable machine available longer than expected and a dual processor machine available, even after the dual core machines arrived, they'll have something PowerPC still available for a while, even after the PowerMacs go Intel.

[macgeek2005]

No. None whatsoever. Merom will not even be availble by spring, let alone Conroe or Woodcrest. Intel's timelines are ~6 months ahead of schedule as it is, what more do you want? :p ;) :cool:

So... I should be expecting a 64bit Quad Intel Mac Pro in the fall?

[Jaffa Cake]

I'm with bousozoku and ~Shard~ on this one – I doubt we'll see anything too radical, but I wouldn't be surprised to see a speed-bump before the range moves to Intel.

I wouldn't go holding your breath for a 3GHz G5 Power Mac, though.

[macgeek2005]

I just wanna be sure that the Intel Tower is gonna be worth the wait. I could get a maxed out 20" iMac right now, it's just not ideal for gaming, and that's why i'm waiting for the Intel tower, but it's such a long wait, and i'm beginning to wonder whether it's THAT much better.

[~Shard~]

So... I should be expecting a 64bit Quad Intel Mac Pro in the fall?

Late fall, yes, possibly. ;) All depends on how impressive Conroe is... I'm thinking Woodcrest will be reserved for the Xserve for now, but who knows, maybe Apple will surprise us - it's been known to happen in the past. ;) :cool:

I just wanna be sure that the Intel Tower is gonna be worth the wait. I could get a maxed out 20" iMac right now, it's just not ideal for gaming, and that's why i'm waiting for the Intel tower, but it's such a long wait, and i'm beginning to wonder whether it's THAT much better.

The Merom will kick the snot out of the Yonah (64-bit versus 32-bit for starters) so Conroe/Woodcrest definitely will be superior to Yonah. :cool: Your call though, it sounds like it may be more of an issue of timing than anything. You could always wait until fall and pick up a revised iMac at that point too - they'll probably have Merom in them at that point themselves. :cool:

[macgeek2005]

The Merom will kick the snot out of the Yonah (64-bit versus 32-bit for starters) so Conroe/Woodcrest definitely will be superior to Yonah. :cool: Your call though, it sounds like it may be more of an issue of timing than anything. You could always wait until fall and pick up a revised iMac at that point too - they'll probably have Merom in them at that point themselves. :cool:

I'll wait for the tower. Quake 4 and CoD 2 aren't going anywhere.

[robbieduncan]

The Merom will kick the snot out of the Yonah (64-bit versus 32-bit for starters)

Why do people keep assuming that 64bit is like some sort of magic bullet. All that 64bit is going to bring to the Mac party is more memory. If you do not want more that 4Gb of RAM 64bit give you nothing.

If you are thinking of the extra general purpose registers that you get in x64 mode you are out of luck. The OS needs to be running in 64bit mode. Tiger does not do that.

[MacsRgr8]

Ha.. everyone say no? (EDIT.. not eveyone... but enough)

Wouldn't surprise me if the G5 got just one more speedbump (say 200 MHz across the board) before WWDC where/when I expect the announcement of the first Intel Power Mac.

But no way the 3 GHz will be reached!! :D

Better not be a yonah then though... :rolleyes: Nah.. ofcourse not. No mobilezzzz in a Mac "Pro" (Mac Super.. Mac Top..)

[macgeek2005]

I thought the Quad G5 has 128 bit processors............?

[FireArse]

But no way the 3 GHz will be reached!! :D

I actually think they'll release a 3GHz Quad. The promise for 3GHz was on the 130nm structure for the first batch of G5's. i.e we went to another (was it 'fx' at 90nm?)

I think the dual cores could go faster. We already know that per cycle the G5's are quicker than the Core Duo. i.e The G5 2years ago was infact pretty ******** fast - even by todays standards. I think the best way to compare the Core Duo is against a dual core G5 in a PM - not the iMac G5 comparison's ppl are making.

Any way, enough off topic, 3GHz Quad (will it be the 30th anniversary?!) mac is on its way. Boy would that chomp through H.264 encoding!

F

[bousozoku]

I thought the Quad G5 has 128 bit processors............?

Well, in the widest (no pun intended) interpretation of PowerPC processors with AltiVec, they do, but only because of AltiVec. It can process 128 bits of data at a time.

The rest of the processor has to process 32-bits or 64-bits at a time, depending on the machine instruction and the machine context. It can process less to deal with single bits, nybbles (4 bits), bytes (8 bits), and words/double bytes (16-bits) too.

[simie]

The only way that the G5 Quad will get a speed bump is if IBM releases the processor at a higher speed. So far they only admit to it running at 2.5 Ghz. If it does then I reckon it will be at 2.7 Ghz as we have seen before.

[MacsRgr8]

We have seen Dual 2.7's

[simie]

We have seen Dual 2.7's

It will be a Quad 2.7 Ghz

[MacsRgr8]

Yep, me thinks too.

Hence my 200 MHz speedbump somewhere before WWDC 2006.

[4God]

No, No, No. :D

[MacsRgr8]

Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! :D

[~Shard~]

Why do people keep assuming that 64bit is like some sort of magic bullet. All that 64bit is going to bring to the Mac party is more memory. If you do not want more that 4Gb of RAM 64bit give you nothing.

If you are thinking of the extra general purpose registers that you get in x64 mode you are out of luck. The OS needs to be running in 64bit mode. Tiger does not do that.

You're quite correct - I actually didn't mean to group those two items together and make it look like 64 versus 32 bits was a performance thing - it was just more of a random advantage I threw in there as well. :o

Nonetheless, Merom will still be much better than Yonah. :p ;)

[robbieduncan]

You're quite correct - I actually didn't mean to group those two items together and make it look like 64 versus 32 bits was a performance thing - it was just more of a random advantage I threw in there as well. :o

Nonetheless, Merom will still be much better than Yonah. :p ;)

Merom will kick serious ass. In laptops. And small form factor desktops. Conroe is the true desktop version of Merom. It will release at the same time. Power Mac replacements will use Conroe not Merom.

Intel IDF slides (http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2504).

[eXan]

Do you guys think that we will see one last Power Mac G5 upgrade before we go to intel? Possiblly the elusive 3GHz?

Hope so

[macgeek2005]

Merom will kick serious ass. In laptops. And small form factor desktops. Conroe is the true desktop version of Merom. It will release at the same time. Power Mac replacements will use Conroe not Merom.

Intel IDF slides (http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2504).

What kind of speeds are we looking at in terms of the Conroe chip in the Intel Pro Mac?

[robbieduncan]

What kind of speeds are we looking at in terms of the Conroe chip in the Intel Pro Mac?

That question is difficult to answer at the moment. Clock speed being equal Conroe will be a bit faster than Merom which will be faster than Yonah (the current Intel Mac CPU). Conroe will come in multiple L2 cache sizes, bigger being better.

I believe that Conroe will launch with a top clock speed of around 2.5Ghz rising to around 3Ghz before being replaced by whatever the next core is.

More details will come out in the coming months. I think it's fair to say that running native code these machines will fly.

Edit to add: there is a little bit of detail (speculation, but believable) here (http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2648&p=2)

[MacsRgr8]

L'histoire se répète?

(.... à 3 Ghz....)

[reberto]

No, 不, Nr, Non, Nein, Αριθ., いいえ, 아니다, Não, Нет. Would you like me to spell out "no" in any more languages?

[macgeek2005]

That question is difficult to answer at the moment. Clock speed being equal Conroe will be a bit faster than Merom which will be faster than Yonah (the current Intel Mac CPU). Conroe will come in multiple L2 cache sizes, bigger being better.

I believe that Conroe will launch with a top clock speed of around 2.5Ghz rising to around 3Ghz before being replaced by whatever the next core is.

More details will come out in the coming months. I think it's fair to say that running native code these machines will fly.

Edit to add: there is a little bit of detail (speculation, but believable) here (http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2648&p=2)

So basically, if I buy the top of the line Intel PowerMac, it'll be obsolete within a year of the time I bought it, because they keep changing the type of Intel chip they use..........

[~Shard~]

Merom will kick serious ass. In laptops. And small form factor desktops. Conroe is the true desktop version of Merom. It will release at the same time. Power Mac replacements will use Conroe not Merom.


Yep, agreed - Merom = MacBooks (and I would bet the iMac too eventually), and Conroe = PowerMacs, with Woodcrest going into the Xserves (but ultimately going into the PowerMac as well ;))

[macgeek2005]

Yep, agreed - Merom = MacBooks (and I would bet the iMac too eventually), and Conroe = PowerMacs, with Woodcrest going into the Xserves (but ultimately going into the PowerMac as well ;))

When will Conroe be available?

[CoMpX]

I really don't think so. The PPC chips are done IMO, and they are just waiting to be phased out by Intel. It doesn't make sense to come out with a new G5.

Then again, word is that the Intel PM won't come out until 2007, so there is the question of what they will do within the next year. I think a possibility is MAYBE a small speed/RAM/HDD bump. Also, maybe there will be a case redesign before they switch the PM to Intel to help blur the transition line.

Just my $1.00 after spending $.98. ;)

[macgeek2005]

The Intel PM CANNOT be in 2007. Steve Jobs said in the 2006 CALENDER year, ALL macs would be converted to intel. What in that do you not comprehend?

Sorry for being crabby, but i'm already upset that I have to wait until fall for the Intel Tower, and now you say not until 2007. HUMPH.

[~Shard~]

When will Conroe be available?

Tough to put an exact date on it for sure. Initially it wasn't supposed to be until later in 06, however Intel has said they're about 6 months ahead of schedule, so that could mean in a few months the chip will be ready. Now, how quickly Apple could turn around and implement that chip in a system successfully, is another question...

[jhu]

now that apple is intel's showboat, maybe they'll put an itanium (fanwood or the dual-core montecito) in the successor to the power mac g5. well, we can dream. despite what people say, itanium is still intel's fastest processor.

[bousozoku]

The Intel PM CANNOT be in 2007. Steve Jobs said in the 2006 CALENDER year, ALL macs would be converted to intel. What in that do you not comprehend?

Sorry for being crabby, but i'm already upset that I have to wait until fall for the Intel Tower, and now you say not until 2007. HUMPH.

He's said a couple of different things about the conversion and they conflict. (It's a good thing this is the only issue like that. :p) I'm not betting on either situation, after all, it was absolutely certain that the consumer Macs would be converted first.

[~Shard~]

now that apple is intel's showboat, maybe they'll put an itanium (fanwood or the dual-core montecito) in the successor to the power mac g5. well, we can dream.

Nah, this transition is all about Intel's new brands. I don't think we'll be seeing any P4s, Xeons or Itaniums of any iteration in a Mac, whether they be new, old, dual core, or what have you. This transition is about Merom, Conroe, Woodcrest and beyond. :cool:

Not saying it wouldn't be cool, but it just won't happen. ;)

[cube]

So... I should be expecting a 64bit Quad Intel Mac Pro in the fall?

There won't be "Quad" Intel at least until Q1 2006, with Dempsey, which is still very hot (90W).

[jhu]

Nah, this transition is all about Intel's new brands. I don't think we'll be seeing any P4s, Xeons or Itaniums of any iteration in a Mac, whether they be new, old, dual core, or what have you. This transition is about Merom, Conroe, Woodcrest and beyond. :cool:

Not saying it wouldn't be cool, but it just won't happen. ;)

it's not as silly as it sounds. intel's plan for itanium was to replace x86 entirely at some point in the future. looks like they're still waiting. however, now that they've had their big coup of putting their chips in apple's computers, itanium might finally get some consumer appeal. the most logical place would be high-end power macs and xserves.

[horace]

I wouldn't say there's nothing they can do until the intel switch. Firstly, they can overclock the chips a little to 2.7, and they could also do something *crazy* like putting PCI slots back in their "pro" machines for pro AUDIO people with powercores, UADs, RME cards etc.

I can't get a new G5 because I can't afford the extra few £k on getting firewire versions of what I already have. I'm sure I'm not alone in that I'm waiting for a machine to come out that I can actually use.

It's interesting that Logic is now out for Intel without any pro hardware to run it on.

[robbieduncan]

There won't be "Quad" Intel at least until Q1 2006, with Dempsey, which is still very hot (90W).

You mean Q1 2007 right? It's Q1 2006 right now :D

But I disagree with the wait for Dempsey. Woodcrest (the server version of Conroe) would enable Apple to ship a Quad (or more) Mac Pro in the second half of this year (probably Q4).

[~Shard~]

it's not as silly as it sounds. intel's plan for itanium was to replace x86 entirely at some point in the future. looks like they're still waiting. however, now that they've had their big coup of putting their chips in apple's computers, itanium might finally get some consumer appeal. the most logical place would be high-end power macs and xserves.

Quite true - I definitely wouldn't complain if this was the case, but as I said, I just don't see it happening. ;) :)

It will depend exactly what the specs/benchmarks on Woodcrest come out as, as well. :cool:

[jhu]

Quite true - I definitely wouldn't complain if this was the case, but as I said, I just don't see it happening. ;) :)

It will depend exactly what the specs/benchmarks on Woodcrest come out as, as well. :cool:

i agree, and unfortunately it's probably true. but then, hell's already a frozen tundra with apple introducing a multi-button mouse and switching to intel...

[cube]

You mean Q1 2007 right? It's Q1 2006 right now :D

But I disagree with the wait for Dempsey. Woodcrest (the server version of Conroe) would enable Apple to ship a Quad (or more) Mac Pro in the second half of this year (probably Q4).

Oops. Dempsey is actually Q1 2006. I haven't adapted to the year change yet.

Sossaman (H1 2006), while cooler, will probably not be fast enough.

I think it will be Woodcrest in Q3 2006, not the LV version that should appear in Q4.

[~Shard~]

i agree, and unfortunately it's probably true. but then, hell's already a frozen tundra with apple introducing a multi-button mouse and switching to intel...

Good point. ;) :D

[macgeek2005]

i agree, and unfortunately it's probably true. but then, hell's already a frozen tundra with apple introducing a multi-button mouse and switching to intel...

Apple has a multi button mouse?

[-hh]

I'm with bousozoku and ~Shard~ on this one – I doubt we'll see anything too radical, but I wouldn't be surprised to see a speed-bump before the range moves to Intel.


I'll add a "me too", with a twist: I think it will depend on how soon Adobe updates Photoshop, and how the actual benchmarks perform.

Specifically, if a 'double-double' Intel with a recompiled Photoshop isn't going to be 25% faster than the current top PowerMac, then it wouldn't be accepted as a performance upgrade.

With no reason for top of the line customers to switch to the Intel, there's no reason to sell it...so you retain sales by speed-bumping the G5.

Besides, it wouldn't be surprising if Apple has some sort of contract agreement in place with IBM that commits them to some quantity of units at 3GHz.

And to that end, a "30th Anniversary" unit might be a good way to both use any contract obligations as well as to 'plug a hole' without the appearance of going backwards on their CPU roadmap.


-hh

[Glenn Wolsey]

Apple has a multi button mouse?

The Mighty Mouse

[Jaffa Cake]

I'll add a "me too", with a twist: I think it will depend on how soon Adobe updates Photoshop, and how the actual benchmarks perform.I won't disagree with you on that – Apple will want to be sure that key apps like the Adobe suite are running well before they leap in with both feet.

Of course, they could always have Intel and PowerPC Power Macs in their line up while the transition takes place – after all, they have both versions of the iMac and essentially the Powerbook currently on offer. And hopefully Adobe will be quicker updating the Creative Suite to Intel than Quark was updating XPress to OS X... :D

[corbin_a2]

Besides, it wouldn't be surprising if Apple has some sort of contract agreement in place with IBM that commits them to some quantity of units at 3GHz.

And to that end, a "30th Anniversary" unit might be a good way to both use any contract obligations as well as to 'plug a hole' without the appearance of going backwards on their CPU roadmap.


-hh

I like this idea!

[themacman]

i would highly doubt it