Consumer version of Mac Pro (and G5 question)

Discussion in 'PowerPC Macs' started by oyama, Aug 14, 2006.

  1. oyama macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    #1
    Hi all,

    I'm thinking about buying a mac for the first time in 14 years. I use my home computer for games (Battlefield 2 atm), but want the media capabilities of the mac. Has there been any rumor about a mac pro that's a little less equipped for the average gamer/consumer. The new machine just seems much more than I'll need or can afford any time soon.

    On the G5... do I understand right that this machine cannot run native windows using Boot Camp? That machine seemed to be the right choise price/performance wise, but if it can't run native windows, then I can't use it for games, which means I can't use it.

    I'm buying my wife a Mac Book Pro for her picture/scrap booking stuff, so I really want to change out all of our PCs for Macs. I just need a good gaming machine that's not $2,500.

    Thanks.
    Jeff.
     
  2. Chundles macrumors G4

    Chundles

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2005
    #2
    What do you mean by "the G5"? There are no G5's left in the Mac lineup, all of them are Intel based and can run windows.
     
  3. yellow Moderator emeritus

    yellow

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #3
    Correct, G5s are basd on PPC processors and cannot run Windows natively. If playing PC games are important to you, then you need to go with a Mac that is Intel based, such as the MacPro.
     
  4. gekko513 macrumors 603

    gekko513

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2003
    #4
    The iMac is a decent gaming machine, but it's not a high-end gaming machine by far. It's got a fast processor and a mid-range leaning towards low-end GPU.
     
  5. iMeowbot macrumors G3

    iMeowbot

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2003
    #5
    Apple still have the G5 towers for sale.
     
  6. Sun Baked macrumors G5

    Sun Baked

    Joined:
    May 19, 2002
    #6
    With Apple's limited chipset use, and the Mac Pro using expensive Server/Workstion hardware -- don't expect a consumer Mac Pro, ever.

    Would still be too expensive even if everything on is was chopped in half.

    If anything it'll likely end up a headless iMac, and there is precedent for this -- Apple released a very short-lived headless iMac G5.

    And Apple used to sell actual consumer tower machines, way back in the Perfoma days -- but that is a decade ago.

    A mini Tower could work, but it would be expensive compared to the iMac and the rest of the PCs on the market. Likely 999-1499 without a monitor.
     
  7. LoveMacMini macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2006
    #7
    i just want the Mac Mini to have stupid easy usrr upgradeable ram, and a 3.5 inch hard drive.
     
  8. gekko513 macrumors 603

    gekko513

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2003
    #8
    What? Where?
     
  9. LoveMacMini macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2006
    #9
    i think he meat g4, as in g4 cube, depending on your time zone it's really freaking late or really early in the AM
     
  10. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
  11. amac4me macrumors 65816

    amac4me

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2005
    #11
    Sweet :) Congrats on the decision to come back to Macs.

    PowerPC based systems are no longer available for purchase. You can only use Boot Camp on Intel based Macs.
     
  12. Demon Hunter macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    #12
    It wouldn't be very "mini," then, would it? :p

    Yes, the Performa used to fill this gap, and I don't see that making a comeback.
     
  13. LoveMacMini macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2006
    #13
    it would gain a less than half an inch in height and width. it would still be very mini, and a heck of a lot more powerful as a consumer device.

    slap a 500 gb or 750 gb hd in there and you're golden.
     
  14. gekko513 macrumors 603

    gekko513

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2003
    #14
    [​IMG]
     
  15. LoveMacMini macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2006
  16. oyama thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    #16
    Thanks for all the great replies. I did some more research on the iMac. Seems the vid card on that (X1600) is more robust than I had initially thought. I was looking on the apple site, but couldn't tell if that video card is upgradable or not. The iMac would be a nice change from my terribly loud, overly hot PC if it can handle Battlefield 2 and games like Everquest, plus allow for upgrading when new vid cards are available.

    Anyone have any experience playing these types of games, or am I going to be a lonely gamer amongst programmers and media experts if I join the Mac Minions. =)

    Jeff
     
  17. Sun Baked macrumors G5

    Sun Baked

    Joined:
    May 19, 2002
    #17
  18. yellow Moderator emeritus

    yellow

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #18
    my MBP has the X1600 (the 128MB version) and it runs BF2 pretty darned well on medium settings, along with a host of other games..
    BF2 / SF & AF & EF expansions
    Battle for MiddleEarth2 (med -> high settings)
    Civilization IV (maxed out)
    Titan Quest (medium settings)
    Call of Duty 2 (medium settings)
    Dawn of War / Winter Assault (maxed out)
    Fable - The Lost Chapters (maxed out)
    Galactic Civilizations II (Maxed out)
    Stronghold 2 (maxed out)
    Age of Empires III (medium -> high settings)
    Heroes of Might & Magic V (maxed out)

    Just remember that the video card in the iMac isn't remove/upgradable, so you're stuck with whatever you get (get the best offered).
     
  19. Chundles macrumors G4

    Chundles

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2005
    #19
    The iMac doesn't have a video "card". The components of the x1600 are soldered to the logic board and as such the video components are not upgradeable. Same on the MacBook Pro. The Mac Pro is the only Mac with a replaceable video card, the MacBook and Mac mini have integrated graphics.

    Still runs games pretty well though.
     
  20. LoveMacMini macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2006
    #20
    A Mac Mini and a MacBook share the same guts

    An iMac and a MacBook Pro share the same guts

    The Mac Pro stands alone

    That's it. what's so hard to understand?
     
  21. gekko513 macrumors 603

    gekko513

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2003
    #21
    I don't think many people accept that it's a headless iMac just because it used the same chipset. I certainly don't.
     
  22. Mr. Mister macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2006
    #22
    On that subject, the best thing about Apple's one-configuration deal is we don't end up with the neutered low-end motherboard with slower buses, less RAM, different expansion slots, etc.
     
  23. Sun Baked macrumors G5

    Sun Baked

    Joined:
    May 19, 2002
    #23
    I don't know, but people tend not to read the developer notes to see that the original eMac was really based on a PowerMac instead of the CRT iMac like they thought.

    They go by the package, not the architecture.

    ---

    If the iMac goes with the Intel 965GM (portable) chipset a single x16 video card and a x1 PCI Express slot along with 2 HDs, and a Optical would be the limit of the expansion for a consumer headless Intel iMac.

    Basing a consumer machine on the Mac Pro would be too expensive ... it is a server/workstation architecture -- and not something that would make a $999 tower feasible at the moment.

    >gekko513

    The iMac and that short lived machine were the only Macs to use that chipset.

    The architecture/chipset is very important and sets the limits of what the machine can be or do.

    The headless iMac was limited to a single CPU (with slower FSB multiplier), compare to the dual CPU capability of every other PowerMac G5 chipset made.
     
  24. thegreatluke macrumors 6502a

    thegreatluke

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2005
    Location:
    Earth
    #24
    The Mac mini (notice the capitalization? ;)) and the MacBook don't share the same guts.

    Mac mini: 1.5 GHz Core Solo or 1.66 GHz Core Duo
    MacBook: 1.83 GHz Core Duo or 2.0 GHz Core Duo
     
  25. feelthefire macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2006
    #25
    I'll be sure to let the principal engineer for the Mac mini know your thoughts.
     

Share This Page