No 3GHz Soon and No G5 Laptop

jsw · Jun 9, 2004

jiggie2g said:
i bid you all a very fond fare well. atleast till apple wakes up again.

If you're anything like Don't Hurt Me, you'll be bidding us a fond farewell for months.

I've had a dual-2 since September 28. I love it. Can't get enough of it. And it's got the "crappy" 9600. I don't see how you'd want a PC, but to each his or her own. Best of luck. If, in fact, you're actually going away.

shawnce · Jun 9, 2004

BeigeUser said:
So you are saying that the 9 fan system used by the old dual 2GHz is not sufficient to run the dual 2.5GHz quietly. Hence, liquid cooling is needed to get the 2.5Ghz to the same level of quietness as the old dual 2GHz.

No I would suspect the old cool system would work just fine but their is not question it would likely be a little louder then current systems since two 2.5 GHz CPUs and the faster U3 chip (it is running a faster FSB after all) are likely to produce at least a little bit more heat then the prior systems (regardless of switch to 90nm). How much I cannot say at the moment... I don't have the number to get a solid answer.

BeigeUser said:
From another perspective, the maximum speed that a 970FX can run without liquid cooling is dual 2GHz which happens to be the same max speed that the regular PPC 970 can run without liquid cooling.

I don't follow this perspective. A PPC 970 FX can run at 2.5GHz without liquid cooling. I am 100% sure that the die heat transfer can be made to work just fine with traditional air cooling. It is just that Apple decided to bring in liquid cooling at this time (they could have done this with prior product line, etc.). Using it will help insure the system is easier to cool and hence quiet. I bet it is quieter then the Dual 2.0GHz system on average as a result using liquid cooling (but who knows at the moment just how efficient this liquid heat pump is).

Anyway I was trying to point out that the liquid cooling is more for future growth then needed for current systems. It likely is an artifact of Apple planning to have 3 GHz systems around this time or in the near future. They obviously have been working on this for a while so that it would be ready when needed, it is just that the CPUs aren't their yet.

Apple didn't likely roll back the liquid cooling to the low end systems because the are using existing product parts and manufacturing abilities for what are essentially the same systems as before (the 2GHz and 1.8GHz). The new system likely have a modified U3 and mother board (should know more about that soon...).

BeigeUser said:
So my point was: Is this really an improvement? I understand your point about better power consumption but if it's too hot to put in a laptop, what's the point of having better power consumption?

Well power is power, it cost money to buy it and to cool it after it is dissipated. So regardless of it being cool enough for a laptop any power saving is a gain and the process switch has brought savings, how much I cannot say at the moment but based on what docs one can currently find some had to be realized.

Also we are talking about a 25% increase in clock rate and front side bus speed without a core change (at least none have been reported that I know of). In other words a 25% increase in performance.

As a side note it took AMD about 5 months to go from a 2.2GHz part to a 2.4GHz part which is about a 9% increase. Now they could jump to 3GHz (exact specs not yet released that I can find some are saying it will be 2.6GHz) come October or so which could be around a 36% increase in one year. I believe Intel is improving, in terms of clock rate (which people always seem to focus on), slower then that but I am to tired to look up those numbers at the moment.

bishopduke · Jun 9, 2004

pjkelnhofer · Jun 9, 2004

Capt Underpants said:
Yes, I do say that one should get an AMD. Why? Simple. They have been proven (in benchmarks) to be faster than the dual 2.0 Ghz. We will see how well the new AMDs and the new 2.5 GHz G5's do when comparing one to the other. Al I'm saying is that the G5 probably isn't the fastest processor in the world right now. that's just my guess, though, as we will both have to wait for benchmarks to come out. You are right, you can't get FCP, shake, motion, etc. on a PC. How many people actually need these programs? Do you own them? I certainly don't because I am a consmer, not a professional. I know that for gaming, a $1,500 PC gaming rig will out perform a Dual 2.0 GHz (and maybe a 2.5 GHz) G5. Gaming+mac=slow.

I know no one will never win. I really do like macs, though. Debating PC vs. Mac is rather amusing.

I own FCP myself. We have Shake at my work. I have no idea if they are upgrading AfterEffects to motion there has been some debate about that.

I love my Mac because I simply prefer the OS to Windows. I use both at home and at work and consistently have more problems with the PC's. I never play games (or at least the ones that require fast graphics). If I could afford a G5 I would buy one in a second, but right now I am trying to buy house and that is a little more important....
...now maybe if a G5 iMac came out, I could budget.

mpopkin · Jun 9, 2004

expect a g5 imac before a g5 powerbook

I would actually expect a g5 imac at WWDC as well as new Displays 🙂 which is a pity since i bought my studio display in January, but i love it so no qualms here, but i believe the g5 imac and new displays will be announced at WWDC and then ship in august, with a possible announcement of a hopefully improved pmac in August with a oct/nov ship date( 3ghz?) but they have been working on a g5 imac for a while and it will probably be done by wwdc, dont forget the rumors regarding that quanta was making a new device/computer for apple that was due to be shipped in june(laptop style, not desktop)

Over Achiever said:
The iMac was quoted without a timeframe, was with the same cooling issues as the powerbook. So don't expect a G5 iMac anytime soon as well.

shawnce · Jun 9, 2004

shawnce said:
Anyway I was trying to point out that the liquid cooling is more for future growth then needed for current systems. It likely is an artifact of Apple planning to have 3 GHz systems around this time or in the near future. They obviously have been working on this for a while so that it would be ready when needed, it is just that the CPUs aren't their yet.

Actually to modify what I said... I was just reminded that the switch to 90nm has likely resulted in an increase in static power dissipation (reality of feature shrink, ploywires, gates, etc. can leak current more easily). In other words when the CPU is sitting around doing nothing (however in a ready state) it is actually burning more power then a matching 130nm part likely would. This mean the average power dissipation of a Power Mac G5 with a PPC 970 FC could be higher (depending on your usage, but most of the time the CPU isn't doing much). So the switch to liquid cooling would assist by offsetting this increase in the need for cooling when the system is idle or near idle. This could be one of the factors on why we are seeing the liquid cooling system now (since in reality the peak power dissipation shouldn't be much worse then the older systems at this time).

thatwendigo · Jun 9, 2004

tortoise said:
So forget whatever the nominal architecture specs say. When you actually test the real limits of the systems, you find that AMDs memory controller is the only one capable of delivering performance that looks remotely like whatever the architecture theoretically supports. It is the Achilles Heel of the current crop of PPC970.

Well, yeah... When you buy your memory controller from Cray, you get crazy fast throughput because that's always been one of Cray's strengths. The Opteron has the full controller, and the Athlon FX has a more limited and simplified versions, but both outperform the current G5s on latency.

Nobody who knows the technology will deny that, but the point's kind of moot. The G5 is using a controller offf-die. The Opteron is faster on memory operations. Well... Duh. 🙄

jiggie2g said:
at the end of the day the thing that secured my purchase was overall value something that Apple has totally forgotten. the iMac line is a Freakin joke now , PB's are getting killed by Pentium M's , and G5's though very fast are priced at a Premium that most good hardworking people cannot afford or are just unwilling to pay .....that value no longer exist.

To put it bluntly, show 'em or shut up. Where are these mythical "killer" platforms, and does the company turn a profit on them? I won't accept anyone who props their computers on basically no margin by having an electronics company to soak the loss (Sony, HP, etc.). Likewise, I'd sure love to see all these amazing PC notebooks that beat the PowerBook on overall features.

A hint; The processor isn't always everything.

things like 512-1gig Ram , 160gb HD , higher Mid range video cards, Dual Layer/8x DVD+/-RW. .......not 256 ram , 80 gig drives , and crappy -R only super drives that will be a $200 option on lower end models(8X DVD-/+R/RW's go for $79 at New Egg) but that's Apple always trying to make an extra buck then a few extra more on top of that.

Many "mid-range" PCs still have integrated graphics in them, and you cen verify that just by looking at Dell, Gateway, and so on. Even the ones that aren't on Intel Extreme chipsets are using the same cards as Apple - the Radeon 9600 and 9800 - and often not in the XT versions that are now in the G5. Many low-to-mid range systems also come with 40GB HDs, PC2700 RAM, and no DVD-R/RW at all.

What you're not really looking at here is the fact that Apple is like IBM in many ways. Both companies sell integrated solutions that cost a bit more than open market prices, and which are largely aimed at certain segments of the population. IBM doesn't even have the same excuse Apple does for higher prices, because most of their systems are x86-derived and can use commodity parts, while the PowerPC is more expensive as a platform.

in this Day 2004 , for $2000 i'd better get top end or near top end componets all around in my PC , and in the PC market i will.

Pony up.

Let see some figures, and I don't mean some build-it-yourslef rig. I want a system from a company that turns a profit, and that limits you to either Alienware or Dell, pretty much.

thatwendigo · Jun 9, 2004

mpopkin said:
dont forget the rumors regarding that quanta was making a new device/computer for apple that was due to be shipped in june(laptop style, not desktop)

*cough* Airport Express *cough*

I know that I'm probably going to sound like an oldster, since I lurked a long time before I started posting, but... Does anyone besides me remember the rumor from last year about a white plastic case being fabbed with a couple of ports down the side?

Does anyone know where that one went?

windowsblowsass · Jun 9, 2004

thatwendigo said:
*cough* Airport Express *cough*

I know that I'm probably going to sound like an oldster, since I lurked a long time before I started posting, but... Does anyone besides me remember the rumor from last year about a white plastic case being fabbed with a couple of ports down the side?

Does anyone know where that one went?

do you mean the white boxes with 970 on the side? there were alot of different case rumors last year around wwdc

again i will post this
i dug up a post seemingly confirming the imac g5 rumors

uncle zeppy said this on the blocked in china thread

It used to blocked here in Shanghai but now it's working again. I thought first maybe the reason is the Apple store; you can check the prices around the world and then go to local Apple store and complain, and end up getting the laptop from Hong Kong or some other country. Then I realized the store is accessible directly (store.apple.com). The blockage was annoying mostly because even the Chinese website has always worked (www.apple.com.cn) there were some things I needed to see in English.

I think in the future things might be the otherway around, the Chinese Apple site will be blocked from outsiders. According to my source all the Apple computers are made in China and there will be cheaper models targeting the local market. The new iMac G5's are made here but production is very slow (lack of CPU's?). They must be just filling the pipeline.

it was in the apple blocked in china thread notice the last three lines

PLEASE READ THE G5 IMAC PaRT no one has so far 🙁

AidenShaw · Jun 9, 2004

what about 4-way and 8-way Xeons and Opterons?

machinehead said:
Still, it might be worthwhile building it [quad] (even if few can afford it) to vaporize the Apple vs. PC speed debate forever. 😎

Perhaps you didn't realize that 4-way Xeons have been around for many years, and 4-way Opterons are also available....

Want more - how about a 32-way Xeon with 128MiB of L3 cache and a whopping 512 MiB of L4 cache ? (http://www.pc.ibm.com/us/eserver/xseries/x445.html) Or a 16-way Itanium?

Sorry, but a 4-way Mac won't "vaporize" the debate 😛

jragosta · Jun 9, 2004

Capt Underpants said:
So you add 89 bucks for the OS. It is available in their configuration pages.
No duh its not as good as OSX.... but its a hell of alot cheaper. Not everyone can afford a mac. They like games, and a thousand dollar machine is much better for them than a 3,000 machine (that still has an inferior cideo card!)
If you can't use a windows computer without getting a virus, you need to stay off any computer. it's not rocket science.
Slower CPU? 3.4 GHz versus 2.5 GHz. Apple has to put 2 of their CPUs into a computer to compete with PC's.
If you really want speed, spend the extra money and get an AMD 64. It's fast as a bat out of you know where.

I'm comparing a cheaply priced machine (with similar performance, most likely) to a high end machine costing 2,000 more. It's easy to see why Apple doesn't have very much market share.

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't trade my powerbook for anything, I just can't see buying a G5 for speed when there are less expensive, high performance computers out there. I can, however, see myself buying a G5 because of software. NOT hardware.

That's exactly the point. You buy the system that suits your needs. For most Mac buyers, these are fantastic systems.

By the way, why do you keep insist on saying that a single AMD at 2.4 GHz is faster than a dual G5/2.5 - based on nothing more than the fact that AMD labels their 2.4 GHz machine a 3400+?

Oh, and where can you get a dual AMD 64 bit machine comparable to this Mac for $1000 ($2000 less than the Mac)?

yuphorix · Jun 9, 2004

thatwendigo said:
Many "mid-range" PCs still have integrated graphics in them, and you cen verify that just by looking at Dell, Gateway, and so on.

Check out ABS Computers and check out there performance lineup. Each computer costs more or less $1k and every one of them have a 128mb video card by Nvidia and can be upgraded likewise to other card. Each comes with 512mb of memory by Geil (Geil Rules!!!) and it's a single DIMM too so you can upgrade without getting rid of the original piece, unless you're planning to get more than a gig of memory. They also come with 2 optical drives and atleast 80gig of memory.

Also, if you look closely, the reason why Dell and Gateway and big name companies have $1k computers with integrated graphics is because most of the money goes towards the processor. The processors themselves are a step about the performance lineup by ABS but the other components aren't. I personally wouldn't buy a PC from Dell or Gateway because their PC's aren't any more and probably even less reliable than smaller names like ABS or Velocity Micro and likewise.

jragosta · Jun 9, 2004

Supercomputing

tortoise said:
In real world memory and I/O benchmarks e.g. STREAM, the Athlon/Opteron systems get very close to theoretical, but the PPC970 does not even get close. And the memory latency on the PPC970 is attrocious, and without even a large cache to compensate.

In terms of real memory performance, the dual 2.0 GHz G5 gets in the range of 2-3 GB/s depending on the compiler. GCC 2.9x is the fastest, GCC 3.x is the slowest, and IBM XLC splits the difference.

A dual 2.0 GHz Opteron gets 4.5-5.5 GB/s in 32-bit mode depending on the compiler. The Athlon64 memory profiles look very similar to the Opteron profile in practice.

The supercomputing guys have been all over both these systems and benchmarked the crap out of them. Outside of very narrow application spaces, the G5s deliver disappointing real-world system performance compared to the AMD systems. The benchmark with the highest correlation with general application performance for supercomputing and such is generally considered to be STREAM, which as I highlighted above shows the PPC970 series processors giving a very mediocre showing.

So forget whatever the nominal architecture specs say. When you actually test the real limits of the systems, you find that AMDs memory controller is the only one capable of delivering performance that looks remotely like whatever the architecture theoretically supports. It is the Achilles Heel of the current crop of PPC970.

Really? Then please explain why an AMD cluster with more processors has a lower score than the VA Tech supercomputer based on G5s?

Seems like that's about the ultimate benchmark - and the G5 wins handily.

AidenShaw · Jun 9, 2004

who is calling who clueless?

macrumors12345 said:
No, he doesn't realize that. He doesn't even realize that the Athlon's Hypertransport bus is only 32 bits wide, but he tries to compare it to the 64 bit wide Elastic bus on the G5. Another typical clueless troll...

Perhaps you'd better check your PowerMac specs - the "bus" is two unidirectional 32-bit busses, not a 64-bit bus...

"The Xserve G5 features two high-speed unidirectional 32-bit data paths "

http://www.apple.com.sg/xserve/architecture.html

Also, AMD is using a 16-bit HT, just like Apple. (http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/TechnicalResources/0,,30_182_739_7203,00.html)

Apple, however, seems to be ashamed that they have a 16-bit bus. Today's Google search for "g5 hypertransport 16-bit" returns the link:

Apple - Power Mac G5 - Architecture
... two bidirectional 16-bit, 800MHz HyperTransport interconnects for a maximum throughput
of 3.2GB per second. Serial ATA storage The Power Mac G5 can hold two ...
http://www.apple.com/powermac/architecture.html - 27k - Cached -

But in today's update that page has been re-written to drop the "16-bit" from the HT paragraph.... It now says

Serial ATA, Gigabit Ethernet, FireWire, USB 2.0 and optical digital and analog audio are all integrated through two bidirectional 800MHz HyperTransport interconnects for a maximum throughput of 1.6GB per second.

So, this must be a typo - otherwise they've shifted to 8-bit I/O busses with the new PM mobos. 😉

Mav451 · Jun 9, 2004

jragosta said:
Really? Then please explain why an AMD cluster with more processors has a lower score than the VA Tech supercomputer based on G5s?

Seems like that's about the ultimate benchmark - and the G5 wins handily.

I hope you realize that FLOPs is just ANOTHER way to measure performance. Simply another form of a benchmark. Don't assume that its the "end all" benchmark, b/c that would be an utter lie. A benchmark, like any other, can and will favor different platforms, depending on the benchmark.

I can find other benchmarks where a dual G5 is beaten by a single Athlon64 chip. But that proves NOTHING. All it says is the dual G5 is not AS STRONG in that area. But certainly, it does not say that the Athlon 64 is "better" or worse than the G5.

yuphorix · Jun 9, 2004

Not to mention IBM chips have always been very good at calculating floating point numbers. I don't think businesses really need that sort of speed which is probably why AMD did not focus on FP calculations.

Travis Novak · Jun 9, 2004

This all sounds a little fishy. As we all remember Steve Jobs never said the word "promise" in his speech. I would think that Apple would downplay not being able to hit their goal, seeing as the 3ghz was never set in stone in the first place. Besides with better cooling I think the chip could be overclocked to 3ghz. it's currently @ 2.5 with liquid cooling. I would think that Apple would rather realese a super-cooled super-expensive pm than go back on Steve's "promise". I think all this hype is just to get people to buy the 2.5ghz machines. And I seriously doubt there will be a G5 imac. They would not go to a G5 in the imac line before first putting it into a pb. The order of prosseecor updates is pm pb imac ibook. The imacs have always had a lower clock than the pbs and I don't know why they would change now.

drewedit · Jun 9, 2004

😕 It doesn't seem to me that anybody has noticed that what's really missing is a seat for PCI express and not AGP 8X. Are we supposed to just sit and watch PC's get better cards for the next six months while we wait for ATI or NVIDIA to make a gfx card for us. And then how long will it take for Apple to put that in with the next line of G5's. In essence, as soon as this upgrade came out, apple dated it's PM's.

G3-Pwnz-G4 · Jun 9, 2004

aussiemac86 said:
He says
" but what we are announcing today is a very significant upgrade in performance and its something that are customers will be very happy with. "

Im not that happy.
Firstly the proc speed i am happy with ( not their fault and it is a decent speed anyway) and the upgraded bus is nice.After almost a year though i would have expected better gfx cards, and maybe even a slightly new case, something....anything, and with him saying no 3GHz soon that means no more upgrades until when? January at the eariliest, next June?....

I just hope we get something special with new displays soon.

uhm, maybe i'm wrong but apple did upgrade the gfx cards. now they have ATI 9600XT and 9800XT cards in the lineup, with 128 and 256MB vram respectively.

but yeah...i was kinda looking forwards to 6ghz of macness. maybe he will suprise us at wwdc? *crosses fingers*

Sun Baked · Jun 9, 2004

AidenShaw said:
But in today's update that page has been re-written to drop the "16-bit" from the HT paragraph.... It now says

Serial ATA, Gigabit Ethernet, FireWire, USB 2.0 and optical digital and analog audio are all integrated through two bidirectional 800MHz HyperTransport interconnects for a maximum throughput of 1.6GB per second.Perhaps you'd better check your PowerMac specs - the "bus" is two unidirectional 32-bit busses, not a 64-bit bus...

Click to expand...

So, this must be a typo - otherwise they've shifted to 8-bit I/O busses with the new PM mobos. 😉

No change, the KeyLargo2 (K2) I/O chip is on a 8-bit HT bus.

The PCI/PCI-X HT Tunnel chip has 16-bit HT to the System Controller and 8-bit HT to the K2.

http://developer.apple.com/document...h_CPUs-G5/PowerMacG5/art/03107301P1724_01.gif

thogs_cave · Jun 9, 2004

Travis Novak said:
This all sounds a little fishy. As we all remember Steve Jobs never said the word "promise" in his speech. I would think that Apple would downplay not being able to hit their goal, seeing as the 3ghz was never set in stone in the first place. Besides with better cooling I think the chip could be overclocked to 3ghz.

Either way, I'm having a good chuckle right now. I bought a Dual 2.0 with my developer discount almost 9 months ago. Friends thought I was crazy, they all said I'd regret not wating for the first update.

Heh. So now I've had almost 9 months of wonderful G5 goodness, and my system is still kicking butt. 😀

thatwendigo · Jun 9, 2004

AidenShaw said:
Want more - how about a 32-way Xeon with 128MiB of L3 cache and a whopping 512 MiB of L4 cache ? (http://www.pc.ibm.com/us/eserver/xseries/x445.html) Or a 16-way Itanium?

Good to see that those Longhorn systems will be out for the release, after all. 😉

Sorry, but a 4-way Mac won't "vaporize" the debate 😛

It would at the consumer and professional price point, where you're not buying a 4U rack chassis from IBM that they don't even give a price quote for. Even the marketing blurb mentions that those machines are intended to "turbocharge your datacenter."

So, yeah... The debate isn't as simple as either of you are trying to make it.

yuphorix said:
Check out ABS Computers and check out there performance lineup.

Hmmm... GeForce 5200, no DVD-R, Athlon 64 2800+, 512B RAM, 80GB SATA, no 802.11, Realtek onboard audio (no SPDIF), no productivity software, no OS X or comparable features.

Wonderful comparison... 🙄

Let's try that more realistically:
ABS Awesome 6300
CoolerMAster WaverMaster Case
Allied 500W PSU
AMD Athlon FX-53
1GB PC3200 (Kingston HYPER-X is default)
2x 120GB SATA
Sapphire ATI Radeon 9800 Pro 128MB
Plextor 8x DVD+/-RW
Sony 16x DVD-ROM
D-Link 802.11g
Sound Blaster Audigy 2 ZS
Microsoft Keyboard and Optical Mouse
MS Works Suite 2004
McAfee Virus Scan 8.0 with 1 Year Enrollment
Cost: Well, I'm not setting cookies for them, but it roughs out to about $2800-2900

In other words, it's still not a better deal than Apple, or not by much. The graphics card is a lamentable two generations behind, there was no standard DVD-R drive, and the security is abysmal. The feature set is sparse and has no software options to improve it, and you're still paying almost as much as that new top of the line G5.

Also, if you look closely, the reason why Dell and Gateway and big name companies have $1k computers with integrated graphics is because most of the money goes towards the processor. The processors themselves are a step about the performance lineup by ABS but the other components aren't. I personally wouldn't buy a PC from Dell or Gateway because their PC's aren't any more and probably even less reliable than smaller names like ABS or Velocity Micro and likewise.

You're completely missing my point, though. Apple can't compete with the whole PC industry, and the only fair comparison is to point your scrutiny at large companies that succeed without a secondary electronics business. That severely limits the field, but gives you a far better idea of what it's like.

ABS uses a massive slew of commodity parts and Apple doesn't, just to name one difference. A lot of those prices would go up if they only used ATI-branded cards and not board partners' offerings, for just a single example.

yuphorix · Jun 9, 2004

thatwendigo said:
Wonderful comparison... 🙄

Let's try that more realistically:
ABS Awesome 6300
CoolerMAster WaverMaster Case
Allied 500W PSU
AMD Athlon FX-53
1GB PC3200 (Kingston HYPER-X is default)
2x 120GB SATA
Sapphire ATI Radeon 9800 Pro 128MB
Plextor 8x DVD+/-RW
Sony 16x DVD-ROM
D-Link 802.11g
Sound Blaster Audigy 2 ZS
Microsoft Keyboard and Optical Mouse
MS Works Suite 2004
McAfee Virus Scan 8.0 with 1 Year Enrollment
Cost: Well, I'm not setting cookies for them, but it roughs out to about $2800-2900

In other words, it's still not a better deal than Apple, or not by much. The graphics card is a lamentable two generations behind, there was no standard DVD-R drive, and the security is abysmal. The feature set is sparse and has no software options to improve it, and you're still paying almost as much as that new top of the line G5.

You're completely missing my point, though. Apple can't compete with the whole PC industry, and the only fair comparison is to point your scrutiny at large companies that succeed without a secondary electronics business. That severely limits the field, but gives you a far better idea of what it's like.

ABS uses a massive slew of commodity parts and Apple doesn't, just to name one difference. A lot of those prices would go up if they only used ATI-branded cards and not board partners' offerings, for just a single example.

First off... I was trying to prove that you can get quality performance at a $1k level... I'm not even trying to compare it to apple... Also, you state that the 6300 machine you configured has an outdated graphics card. Well just like everyones been saying about the G5's, you can have the system custom built with a different card, and in this case a X800 is only $172 more. Compare that to the $300 extra you need to spend for the 9800xt on the high end G5. And DVD-R is standard. Hacking at windows is another debate which I won't get into because it's almost useless to argue... and don't forget the Linux also runs on wintel boxes.

I never hacked at apple, I nearly brought in the fact that midrange PC's still pack a punch in components such as HD and memory and video memory... something apple can learn to include in their systems without charging an arm and a leg.

~Shard~ · Jun 9, 2004

Well, I'm not reading through 16 pages of posts, so let me just say that in general there are far to many picky people out there who are whining now about no 3 GHz anytime soon. You have a DP 2.5 GHz G5 which is an amazing machine, so quit complaining and always wanting the next best thing - the 3 GHz will arrive when it arrives.

I'm glad the news about the G5 PowerBooks was released officially as well - I was getting tired of typing post after post and reply after reply to naive people who thought that G5 PowerBooks would be coming this year - some even thought at WWDC! I'm glad that my reasoning has proved right, and I'm glad I won't have to explain things anymore to people saying G5 PowerBooks are coming soon. Not until 2005...

thatwendigo · Jun 9, 2004

yuphorix said:
Also, you state that the 6300 machine you configured has an outdated graphics card. Well just like everyones been saying about the G5's, you can have the system custom built with a different card, and in this case a X800 is only $172 more.

No, you can't. There isn't a single card that could be slotted into that machine that's also higher than the 9800 Pro, because they're out of stock. Apple offers their cards outright.

Compare that to the $300 extra you need to spend for the 9800xt on the high end G5.

Compare DVI to ADC, and the value's a little more apparent.

And DVD-R is standard.

No, it's not. Their machines are DVD-ROMS almost across the board.

No 3GHz Soon and No G5 Laptop

Moderator emeritus

macrumors 65816

macrumors member

macrumors 6502a

macrumors 6502

macrumors 65816

macrumors 6502a

macrumors 6502a

macrumors 6502a

macrumors P6

macrumors 6502a

macrumors member

macrumors 6502a

macrumors P6

macrumors 68000

macrumors member

macrumors newbie

macrumors newbie

macrumors regular

macrumors G5

macrumors regular

macrumors 6502a

macrumors member

macrumors P6

macrumors 6502a

Our Staff