Question About the New G5 2.0

Discussion in 'Buying Tips, Advice and Discussion (archive)' started by triton, Jun 12, 2004.

  1. triton macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2003
    #1
    Is this a revision B of the dual 2.0 that is now selling side by side with the 2.5. Or is it the same machine, just lowered in price.

    The reason I'm asking is because I was going to buy a dual 3.0 (thinking like everyone else they were going to be released soon), but figured it would be more economical to get the dual 2. This would make even more sense if they patched up anything wrong with the first dual 2.0. Any help on this would be great!
     
  2. yoda13 macrumors 65816

    yoda13

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2003
    Location:
    Texas
    #2
    Though I do not personally recall what the difference between the two machines are, i do recall reading that the machines were different. Sorry, I can't be more helpful, but I remember reading it in the thread about the new powermac releases that has been running for the last few days ;)
     
  3. triton thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2003
    #3
    I think I read that to somewhere. Thank you though for the help, I just want to make 100% sure. ;)
     
  4. JOD8FY macrumors 6502a

    JOD8FY

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2004
    Location:
    United States
    #4
    Yes, they are different. The new PowerMacs use 90nm G5 processors. These PM's are much better. A dual 2 Ghz will suit you for anything that you could humanly have it do :).

    Best wishes,
    JOD8FY

    EDIT: Sorry everyone for the false info.
     
  5. MrSugar macrumors 6502a

    MrSugar

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2003
    #5
    No one has actually confirmed that the new chips being used are 90nm chips.... no one knows for sure.
     
  6. crowdaddy macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Location:
    East Ontario
    #6
    well if anyone has a screwdriver, a hammer and a ruler...
     
  7. cr2sh macrumors 68030

    cr2sh

    Joined:
    May 28, 2002
    Location:
    downtown
    #7
    This document in regards to the "all new all dual lineup" states:
    Using my powers of deduction... I'd say that pretty much clenches it.
     
  8. JOD8FY macrumors 6502a

    JOD8FY

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2004
    Location:
    United States
    #8
    Aside from what cr2sh said, it's also on the Macrumors site.

    JOD8FY
     
  9. QCassidy352 macrumors G3

    QCassidy352

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2003
    Location:
    Bay Area
    #9
    the new one also ships with a worse graphics card standard, but has a faster superdrive. There are no other differences that I know of. Perhaps they don't have the same HD space and RAM standard?
     
  10. alexf macrumors 6502a

    alexf

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2004
    Location:
    Planet Earth
    #10
    I believe that the HD space and RAM standard are the same as the previous model. And yes, I think that the graphics card "downgrade" and faster DVD drive are the only major differences (aside from the newer chip).
     
  11. Bhennies macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2004
    Location:
    NYC & Baltimore
    #11
    They are most likely old stock. This was confirmed by a tech PDF released the day that the new g5's came out. It's somewhere around page 20 on the "powermacs released thread". Anyway, there are many factors pointing to the fact that they are 130 nm chips, including a verification of this fact by the manager on duty at the Apple store when I called. He had just arrived from a product meeting. However, I guess he could be wrong. Apple is really cheating everyone with their deceptive marketing on this topic...they need to fess up and answer whether or not they are all 90nm or not. If the 1.8 and 2.0 are 130nm, I think that the only machine worth buying right now is the 2.5- it's the only REAL update- the price drop on the dual 2.0 after an entire year (8x super...big deal) is not enough.
     
  12. MrSugar macrumors 6502a

    MrSugar

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2003
    #12
    It will be insteresting to see if the new ones have 90nm or not. I just can't imagine for the life of me why the new ones would have 90nm chips and then run them at the old speeds. Also, I don't think they ever say that the other models do use the 90nm, it's just assumed. It's actually not all that big of a deal, I would be curious to know myself.

    I thought they were having enough problems with enough chips just for the Xserves... Plus, think about it, why have such a gap between the top of the line and the bottom 2 unless you could use chips you already had well proven. I dunno... just speaking from my own mind now. Hopefully we get some real evidence soon :rolleyes:
     
  13. Bhennies macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2004
    Location:
    NYC & Baltimore
    #13
    Exactly! Why wouldn't they just clock it back to 2.2 to replace the old dual 1.8 and leave a 2.0 on the low end? Most likely because they had tons of leftover stock of 130 nm chips. I think this update is BS, except for the 2.5 (which is not what I expected either, but I'm buying one). I mean, EDU pricing-wise, the 2.0 dropped from 2699 to 2299. So basically if you waited a whole year for revision B (where hopefully they would fix or change the rev.a chip which may or may not have problems- chirping etc.), you get a 400 dollar price break for the same computer (except for the faster DVD- burner). BS.

    p.s. I can't believe that Bluetooth wasn't built in.

    Sorry...RANT OVER :eek:
     
  14. Abstract macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location Location
    #14
    Not that I've looked closely at the specs page or anything, but is the bus speed faster as well, or is that the same as before as well? Anyway, the harddrive is half the capacity of the previous model, I believe. Its around 80GB or something right now, and it was 160GB on the rev A model. I can't verify this since I don't remember the specifics of the dual 2.0GHz G5 PM, but that's what I think was changed. That, and you get a worse video card.

    This is the first downgrade in computer history. Arguably, the price is lower, but it should be lower --- you get less than before, after all. And even if they kept all components the same, it should still be lower because generally, one year old HDD and video card components drop in price.
     
  15. cr2sh macrumors 68030

    cr2sh

    Joined:
    May 28, 2002
    Location:
    downtown
    #15
    Yeh and its not like they'd want those chips.. I mean its not like they'd use them for anything!

    [cough]imac[/cough]

    You guys are allowing your paranoia to over come you... every piece of documentation has stated (very clearly might I add) that these chips are 90nm. Yielding stable at 2.5, 2.0, and 1.8... I'm fine with that.

    My argument still follows that there was nothing wrong with a 1st gen, so why not wait a week and get one of those at a bargain basement clearance sale?
     
  16. triton thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2003
    #16
    Now, I'm thinking of just getting the 2.5 or the 3.0. :rolleyes:
     
  17. photohead macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2003
    Location:
    Pasadena, CA
    #17

    this is what I found on the g5 processor white papers on the apple web site

    ???/ I don't know but it says 90nm/? who really knows though...I'm not really an expert in this area/??
     
  18. BrianKonarsMac macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2004
    #18
    if you aren't sure what you're talking about, maybe you shouldn't bother posting, unless of course it was a typo (since 9 and 7 are so close to 1 and 3...)? a 970 nm chip? ahahaha thats hilarious. the chips are actually REFERRED to as 970's by IBM i think the new 90nm ones are 970fx?. the 970s were 130nm's i believe. the new ones are 90nm which is whyIBM has been having so much trouble kicking up the speed, the process of shrinking the chip's was far more difficult than anyone had anticipated, they thought it'd be a breeze, but were way off target. I personally believe the 2.5 G5's are OC'd, meaning they are not designed to run at that speed, but Apple needed SOMETHING. My main reasoning behind this is the liquid cooling, its not on any other G5's and the tremendous amout of heat introduced by OC'n it would need to be stabilized otherwise theyd just fry, and the speed jump is huge (2, to 2.5, it used to be jumps of 67 mhz, before it was jumps of 200 mhz, now it's 500 mhz? wow). IBM is obviously having trouble with heat issues, i believe their problem so far has been the silicon insulation actually MELTING off the chip. also if nobody noticed how low key the introduction of the new G5's was, Apple is obviously embarrased by this 3Ghz fiasco, Airport Express overshadowed the new G5s.

    Can't wait for WWDC, i see some exciting new gadgets in the future, I also see no G5 notebooks and a more organic User Interface in 10.4 (Codename: my computer is one big puss).
     
  19. sambo. macrumors regular

    sambo.

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2004
    Location:
    outback, far from the surf
    #19
    good q'

    as one waiting to buy a new G5 system, this is a good q.

    i would be a little peeved if the only benefit i have gained from waiting for the upgrade is a cheaper 2.0.

    i may just hunt around a bit, get third party monitors (30" notwithstanding) and go the 2.5's. i live in a climate that is stupid hot for four months of the year (45+ for weeks on end and a top score this summer of three days of 50+), so the you beaut cooling system appeals. but the 2.0 will do all i need, but if it still runs a 130nm architecture, i'm wondering about the benefits........

    would love some clarification. :confused:
     
  20. BornAgainMac macrumors 603

    BornAgainMac

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Location:
    Florida Resident
    #20
    Memory for the G5 is still really expensive. Apple want's almost 5K for 8 GB. It's cheaper to get quality memory from another vendor but still way to much. I wanted to get 2 GB added on my own and it would cost around $700. I can see why Apple doesn't install much ram.

    SATA Hard drives are much cheaper this year. I purchased a SATA 250 GB hard drive at retail for $199 at CompUSA. I have seem them online OEM for $180. For $199, I didn't have to deal with rebates too and the drive was cheaper than the regular ATA drive at the same capacity. The same drive cost around $340 last year.

    It's nice to have 2 hard drives for DV video and have one drive just for temporary video. I have seen a huge difference in performance.
     
  21. Skiniftz macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2004
    #21
    ...and do you think this makes the probability that it is true higher or lower? :rolleyes:
     
  22. sambo. macrumors regular

    sambo.

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2004
    Location:
    outback, far from the surf
    #22
    hehehe, well, thinksecret was only one day out on the update.

    i wouldn't bet against the announcement being at wwdc tho......

    two week to go.... two weeks to go.....
     
  23. Skiniftz macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2004
    #23
    But that's ThinkSecret - they are normally quite reliable. MacRumors on the other hand... :eek:
     
  24. triton thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2003
    #24
    Now I think I'm going to just wait for the dual 3ghz. I have a 2.5 ghz PC right now, with 1gig of ram. I think this will suffice for a while. I can imagine that when Apple does reach 3ghz, it will be a big deal. That system will be blazing fast, no matter what you do. ;)
     

Share This Page