Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Amazon Listing for Dual 2.7 Ghz PowerMac
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Is it still possible to release them today, even though it later in the day? What about ibook updates, are they possible?
LOL
This makes the G4 Powermac's jump from 1.25 to 1.42 look like a worthy and front page headline. Oh well, I was hoping for something special. I went and fitted a DL 16x burner to my G5 a few months back so the only exciting thing about these updates is the larger standard hard drive... wow
This makes the G4 Powermac's jump from 1.25 to 1.42 look like a worthy and front page headline. Oh well, I was hoping for something special. I went and fitted a DL 16x burner to my G5 a few months back so the only exciting thing about these updates is the larger standard hard drive... wow
Yvan256 said:
The most ignorant thing I've heard all day. AMD isn't somehow barred from ever making anything other than x86 processors. I would like to know why AMD would be unable to produce a suitable POWER CPU, when you think about it IBM was really kind of a bad partner to supply the actual chips in the first place. IBM is great at producing cutting edge technology, but not so great in implementing it like in the case of the G5. I think it would be wiser for companies like FreeScale and AMD to get the technology from IBM but to do the actual implementing themselve's.
I only wish Apple would see it this way, having IBM supply the technology and have an actual chip maker design and build the chips.
BlueDjinn said:
The Dual 2.0 ghz actually dropped 500 dollars as far as I can see...
So 500 dollars less plus a better superdrive and maybe a better gpu.And for the price of the old Dual 2.0 ghz you now get a Dual 2.3 with an even bigger disk, a better superdrive and maybe a better gpu. Not too bad in my opinion. Still dissapointed there is no DualCoreDual...
With all this talk of dual-core CPUs, I thought I'd add my two cents. I think Intel's dual-core solution is over-hyped at this point.
Quoting Maximum PC magazine:
"The first [Intel] dual-core CPUs will have two cores within a single die...will use the same front-side bus. Intel says it had to clock the CPU cores down from the current 3.8GHz Prescott to 3.2GHz because of thermal and power restrictions. Intel also says dual-core chips will use an 800MHz front-side bus rather than a 1066MHz bus to compensate for power, frequency, and other issues."
I'm curious to see what AMD has on tap.
Quoting Maximum PC magazine:
"The first [Intel] dual-core CPUs will have two cores within a single die...will use the same front-side bus. Intel says it had to clock the CPU cores down from the current 3.8GHz Prescott to 3.2GHz because of thermal and power restrictions. Intel also says dual-core chips will use an 800MHz front-side bus rather than a 1066MHz bus to compensate for power, frequency, and other issues."
I'm curious to see what AMD has on tap.
I'm liking the upgrades. Yes, they're not as good as they could be, but I don't need the power. I just want it. For the same price (hopefully a little cheaper), I now get 400+ MHz (200 per processor - marketing ), a bigger hard drive, and a 16x DL DVD burner. I've been wanting a DVD burner forever and now I get one with some good speed as well.
I was going to buy the 2.5 at the same price point about 6-8 months ago but I was waiting on reports of problems with the cooling system. So, I don't lose here.
), a bigger hard drive, and a 16x DL DVD burner. I've been wanting a DVD burner forever and now I get one with some good speed as well.I was going to buy the 2.5 at the same price point about 6-8 months ago but I was waiting on reports of problems with the cooling system. So, I don't lose here.
ALoveSupreme said:
Oh, come on, you know what I meant; they're keeping the same *price points* for the new models:
Old: $1,500 / $2,000 / $2,500 / $3,000
New: n/a / $2,000 / $2,500 / $3,000
When they come out with a revamp after this much time, the revision should either be *considerably* better at the *same* prices, OR, if it's only going to be *marginally* better, should really be accompanied by a price *point* drop to "make up for it". In this case, it appears to be a marginal improvement but at the same price points.
Caveat: I'm speaking purely from a marketing/PR point of view. In my own case, I'm planning on buying the Rev B iMac when it comes out anyway, NOT a PowerMac, and these PMac revisions are certainly a LOT better compared with my current single-processor 867MHz G4 QuickSilver model! It's all relative to how much time has passed and how much better it is than the *current* models, however.
joeboy_45101 said:
That makes sense the problem is I can't see IBM wanting to license the technology. Some of the technologies that the future G5's are supposed to be using will be compatible with any chip (SOI etc), this could help AMD develop faster x86/x64 chips.
I honestly can't believe though that a company like IBM with its huge resources cannot manage to develop a chip sufficiently. There must be something that we don't know about going on. I doubt (at least hope) they aren't still having 90nm problems.
I don't mind the speed bump, what do you expect when there is no major event to announce this stuff at right now? Granted, this makes something like dual cores an unlikely announcement in June or July - possibly even August.
I can understand the people who are more ticked off that it was almost two years ago when Steve said the G5 would be at 3.0Ghz in a year.... 2 years later (almost) and still .3Ghz short of the goal.
Can anyone explain why, in a powermac, they would short .3Ghz? I can't imagine the heat generated by that extra .3Ghz would be too much. And why this is so important - 1. Steve made the announcement, 2 years later this looks bad. 2. It is a mental barrier for mac users when comparing to PC users. Esp. when low end PC's come in at 2.8Ghz-3.0Ghz. Granted, the G5 will run faster but again, it is a mental thing to buyers.
I can understand the people who are more ticked off that it was almost two years ago when Steve said the G5 would be at 3.0Ghz in a year.... 2 years later (almost) and still .3Ghz short of the goal.
Can anyone explain why, in a powermac, they would short .3Ghz? I can't imagine the heat generated by that extra .3Ghz would be too much. And why this is so important - 1. Steve made the announcement, 2 years later this looks bad. 2. It is a mental barrier for mac users when comparing to PC users. Esp. when low end PC's come in at 2.8Ghz-3.0Ghz. Granted, the G5 will run faster but again, it is a mental thing to buyers.
jrv3034 said:
I have a REV B, and I couldn't be happier.
Rumor has it the new 2.0's are limited to 4gb of memory. From what it sounds like, it is an overclocked 1.8 GHZ.
gate said:
If history is true, the Powermac IS the pro line of Macintosh.
I am curious to see benchmarks of the new processors, who knows.. the new 2.0 may be faster then the previous model (my model
)
gate said:
I'm not saying it isn't possible, but Steve Jobs' original plan was to keep the product line simple.
The eMac is for schools.
The iMac is for the consumer (prosumer).
The PowerMac is for the PROfessional.
I think adding another line of Macs would cannibalize the PowerMac sales. I know I'd spend another $500-$1000 just to have a dual-core. I'd find the money somehow.
I think another line called ProMacs is wishful thinking at best.
I'll bet those Amazon pictures are stock pictures.
my guess these new powermacs are black with the new black theme from apple.
and some of the specs aren't released, there are new widgets inside, perhaps not dual dualies, but something unique...
and why a 2.3 and not keep the 2.5? There is something else going on here. I realize that 2.5/2.7 wouldn't be a big gap for a price point but I have a feeling that there is a reason for the 2.3/2.7 vs. 2.5/2.7....they're 'different'....
my guess these new powermacs are black with the new black theme from apple.
and some of the specs aren't released, there are new widgets inside, perhaps not dual dualies, but something unique...
and why a 2.3 and not keep the 2.5? There is something else going on here. I realize that 2.5/2.7 wouldn't be a big gap for a price point but I have a feeling that there is a reason for the 2.3/2.7 vs. 2.5/2.7....they're 'different'....
Top dollar for last year's tech?
Understood entirely, but its not about being "good enough". The rationale I've had for not purchasing a powermac yet is that I don't feel I should be paying top dollar for technology that is outdated and already replaced (for example, the lack of PCI-Express is a BIG thing cause that's where everything is moving). Yea, Powermacs are fast fast fast, but if I'm paying $3000+ for a machine, I wanna make sure that investment lasts as long as possible (and again, with only AGP, the first road block to future upgrades has already appeared).
Chaywa said:I'd just like to point out to all the people complaining about modest speed increases that my Rev. A dual 2.0 ghz G5 has been going strong for a year and a half having every kind of processor hungry video thrown at it (dv up to HD).
I understand the desire for apple products to improve and get better and faster but the people who talk about the G5 line as if it is hobbled aren't using one on a daily basis I think. I'm happy for those about to get a dual 2.7, it can only be an improvement on mine which is a stunning machine.
Understood entirely, but its not about being "good enough". The rationale I've had for not purchasing a powermac yet is that I don't feel I should be paying top dollar for technology that is outdated and already replaced (for example, the lack of PCI-Express is a BIG thing cause that's where everything is moving). Yea, Powermacs are fast fast fast, but if I'm paying $3000+ for a machine, I wanna make sure that investment lasts as long as possible (and again, with only AGP, the first road block to future upgrades has already appeared).