Apple Clearing Out 20'' G5 iMacs

[AidenShaw]

But does it really matter if the core solo is a little bit slower than a single G5. It is not like the mac mini or ibook would have received a G5 update. I think the core solo should be compared to the G4, that is what it is replacing, right?

Yes.

But, also think about the people trying to decide whter to buy an iMacIntel vs a MiniMacIntel.

 

[powerbook911]

You are right, nobody would normally run an iMacIntel with only one core.

But, people wonder about what a "Core Solo" would do in an iBookIntel or a MiniMacIntel.

Turning off one core of a Duo in an iMac is the best way to answer that question today.

So the "solo" stats aren't for the people who are looking at the iMacIntel today - the stats are for the rumourmongers thinking about the next Apple consumer systems....

True, and a Core Solo being "tiny bit faster than G5" is still a positive! Why? Because the Core Solo is going to be in things like iBook and Mac Mini, which would *never* get a G5. They had G4s, which means going from G4 to Core Solo will still be a BIG leap for iBooks and Mac Minis. JMHO.

The iMac leap was maybe not quite so huge because the iMac did have a G5 already, but it was still a big step forward.

 

[BenRoethig]

I with you on this. It makes a lot of sense. But it would seriously cut into the sales of iWorks. My feeling is that iLife comes with all mac purchases so should iWork. The synergy makes sense.

How many people are going to buy iWork if it doesn't do what you need it do it. I try to think of it as another type of application entirely. It can make cool documents and presentations, but when it comes to the basic stuff it's severely lacking.

 

[nospleen]

Yes.

But, also think about the people trying to decide whter to buy an iMacIntel vs a MiniMacIntel.

Okay, now that is a great point. A single core 1.83 or 2.0 would make a nice little macbook or macmini!

 

[ImAlwaysRight]

Okay, now that is a great point. A single core 1.83 or 2.0 would make a nice little macbook or macmini!

Yeah, but according to this chart there is only a 1.66GHz single core or a 1.3GHz ultra low voltage single. So how that would compare to the current G4 1.42 iBooks and 1.5GHz Mini's would be an interesting comparison.

 

[nospleen]

Yeah, but according to this chart there is only a 1.66GHz single core or a 1.3GHz ultra low voltage single. So how that would compare to the current G4 1.42 iBooks and 1.5GHz Mini's would be an interesting comparison.

Well that kind of stinks, but I would assume the 1.66 would be fairly snappy. But, at least I do not have to worry about that. However, I do have to worry about when my MBP will ship.

 

[peharri]

They turned OFF a core!! Who is going to do that when running daily tasks? The bottom line is they would have never been able to put a dual G5 in an imac or a powerbook. So who cares that one intel core is slower than a single G5 if the intel chips are duo cores?!?!

I think it's useful because it helps answer the question as to whether the Intel switch was a good move or not, which appears to be a resounding "No". The iMac G5 never got the dual-core G5s that started to appear in the PowerMac G5.

It appears that the single core G5 is considerably faster than the single core "Duo". Had Apple put in the dual-core G5, the iMac released this last month would have almost certainly been substantially faster than the Intel-based version that was released instead.

It's a way around the RDF. Not much we can do but batch and moin, but...

 

[MacinDoc]

Yeah, but according to this chart there is only a 1.66GHz single core or a 1.3GHz ultra low voltage single. So how that would compare to the current G4 1.42 iBooks and 1.5GHz Mini's would be an interesting comparison.

If you look at the Anandtech review of the Core Duo iMac (which includes benchmarks with one core turned off), the Core Solo will not be significantly faster than a 1.5 GHz G4, and in the case of Rosetta apps, it will be significantly slower. Performance of 1 core of the 1.83 GHz Core chip in the new iMac was 10-40 (average about 25) per cent SLOWER than a 1.9 GHz G5 (which is, in turn, a bit slower per clock cycle than the G4) for UNIVERSAL BINARY apps. The ULV Core chip will be nowhere near the performance of the G4s in current iBooks and Mac Minis, so I can't see it going in them.

The Core Duo can only compete with today's G5s with both cores turned on, so I can't see any reason for Apple to use the Core Solo chip, or the ULV chip (except maybe in a subnotebook).

 

[aegisdesign]

If you fully understand how OS X's graphics subsystem works (Hint) it becomes even cooler. Once Quartz 2D Extreme becomes fully implemented + PCI-E + a larger amount of V-RAM = OMG performance. Graphics cards have always been taken for granted as being most important for games and 3D rendering. OS X Tiger and Vista are two OS’s where the GPU becomes almost critical for the OS to perform at an acceptable level. You have to keep in mind that there was a HECK of a lot implemented in Tiger behind the scenes. A MacBook or an iMac with PCI-E and 256MB of V-RAM sound like overkill but wait until Leopard. Its going to be a must have, but not necessarily a minimum requirement, feature.

That's all fine. But it doesn't require an Intel CPU. The iMac G5 uses PCI-Express as does the G5 PowerMac.

 

[aegisdesign]

How many people are going to buy iWork if it doesn't do what you need it do it. I try to think of it as another type of application entirely. It can make cool documents and presentations, but when it comes to the basic stuff it's severely lacking.

It's not. Really. Try it.

 

[aegisdesign]

This is another person that hit the nail square on the head, especially with the half off part. I LOVE Apple, but I could not buy the PPC versions of the iMac or even the PowerBook for that matter and still go to sleep at night. Like I said earlier in this thread, it is now all about Intel from now on.

Unless you've a significant investment in PowerPC only software.

It's great having the fastest hardware and all that but without software you're doing nothing. We're still a year away from intel native versions of Adobe's software and quite probably Microsoft's too, and then you've got a significant outlay on upgrading - $400? $900 even. The fastest computer for the next year is still going to be PowerPC based if you spend most of your time in those apps.

Most pros I've spoken to are sitting out this year with the fastest G5s they can get and riding out the storm with dependable existing software packages. They can save their cash up for when all the crash test dummies have sorted out the bugs in the Intel systems and software.

 

[aegisdesign]

A spreadsheet would a little more difficult, but if Apple could manage to create something like a cleaned-up version of Mesa (The only currently available Cocoa spreadsheet), that would do. Of course, it's nothing flashy or spectacular, so knowing Apple, it's unlikely.

There's also Quantrix which is more Lotus Improv-like than Excel-like and was originally also a NeXT application. Quantrix is different enough from Excel that I imagine most users will get scared of the different way it models, in the same way some people can't see past Pages' exemplary layout abilities to see the good word processor underneath.

http://www.quantrix.com/

 

[milo]

hrm... i wonder when they G5 Dual and Quads will get discounted then?

If they follow the same pattern, it would be after the intel equivalents of those ship, right?

No surprise here...
http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2006/01/23/intel_macs_25pc_faster/

Single core Intel barely faster than the G5... Even with the faster video card, RAM and 65nm fabrication process...

Yeah Apple should have stuck with PowerPC and not waste development time on X86

Hope you're being sarcastic. That's a pretty stupid article. Since the Core single hasn't shipped yet, it's a comparison to vaporware. We have no idea if apple will even use it, and if so in which machines. And benchmarks have varied all over the place, the key factors are having universal software and optimizing software for multiple processors. Assuming you do both, the Duo generally beats the G5, sometimes by a little, sometimes by a lot.

Okay, now that is a great point. A single core 1.83 or 2.0 would make a nice little macbook or macmini!

But a dual would make a much better one. I'm OK with apple using the single as an option, but it would be a bummer if all macbooks and minis have singles. There's not much advantage to a single, it's not much cheaper, doesn't run much cooler and doesn't use much less power. I hope to see it in just one version of each machine, the barebones cheapest one aimed at people who only care about getting the lowest price.

I think it's useful because it helps answer the question as to whether the Intel switch was a good move or not, which appears to be a resounding "No". The iMac G5 never got the dual-core G5s that started to appear in the PowerMac G5.

It appears that the single core G5 is considerably faster than the single core "Duo". Had Apple put in the dual-core G5, the iMac released this last month would have almost certainly been substantially faster than the Intel-based version that was released instead.

You make a LOT of assumptions. Does the dual core G5 run as cool as the single G5 or the core duo? Could apple build a dual core G5 imac for the same price as before? (I doubt it) Sounds like you have a RDF of your own, you're completely ignoring the laptops. What would you propose as the PPC alternative to the macbook? The dog slow G4 version they were already shipping? Or a dual G5 version that weighs 20 pounds and has a 15 minute battery life? You're also assuming that G5 speeds will ramp up to keep pace with future Duo speeds.

Sure there are bumps in the road, but based on benchmarks across the whole product line, I see the intel switch as a success so far.

 

[mkaake]

I think it's useful because it helps answer the question as to whether the Intel switch was a good move or not, which appears to be a resounding "No". The iMac G5 never got the dual-core G5s that started to appear in the PowerMac G5.

It appears that the single core G5 is considerably faster than the single core "Duo". Had Apple put in the dual-core G5, the iMac released this last month would have almost certainly been substantially faster than the Intel-based version that was released instead.

It's a way around the RDF. Not much we can do but batch and moin, but...

I don't know if I see your logic here - the dual core G5's weren't going to make it into the iMac... so your comparison is a single core G5 to a dual core coreduo. Running with two cores, the coreduo is using some 23 watts fewer than a single core G5, while operating faster. I don't see the RDF... because all this means is that for the same price as the G5 model (until they dropped the price on the 20 inch), you get more performance. It also means that there's future room for slimming down the iMac because of lower cooling requirements...

 

[Damek]

That's nice.

But I'm waiting for the first Mac Mini that's as fast as the current Intel iMacs, so I can have a screen the size of my choice.

Or for the first Intel iMac with at least a 24" screen.

Not holding my breath for either. Which is good, since I don't have the money for it right now anyway...

 

[BenRoethig]

It's not. Really. Try it.

I have.

 

[powerbook911]

If you look at the Anandtech review of the Core Duo iMac (which includes benchmarks with one core turned off), the Core Solo will not be significantly faster than a 1.5 GHz G4, and in the case of Rosetta apps, it will be significantly slower. Performance of 1 core of the 1.83 GHz Core chip in the new iMac was 10-40 (average about 25) per cent SLOWER than a 1.9 GHz G5 (which is, in turn, a bit slower per clock cycle than the G4) for UNIVERSAL BINARY apps. The ULV Core chip will be nowhere near the performance of the G4s in current iBooks and Mac Minis, so I can't see it going in them.

The Core Duo can only compete with today's G5s with both cores turned on, so I can't see any reason for Apple to use the Core Solo chip, or the ULV chip (except maybe in a subnotebook).

I wish the Aandtech article had been done with more than 512 MB of memory. Yes, I know the G5 had that too, but the Intel machines really need memory. I'm confident the Core Solo is closer, probably ahead of a single G5, if it was given more memory. Compared to a G4, a core solo would be a big step forward.

 

[PlayUltimate]

flashy?

A spreadsheet would a little more difficult, but if Apple could manage to create something like a cleaned-up version of Mesa (The only currently available Cocoa spreadsheet), that would do. Of course, it's nothing flashy or spectacular, so knowing Apple, it's unlikely.

A Flashy spreadsheet....Isn't that an oxymoron?

In any case, I very disappointed at the demise of ClarisWorks...I mean AppleWorks. That program was a part of Apple for a long time. :-(

 

[PlayUltimate]

huh?

I think it's useful because it helps answer the question as to whether the Intel switch was a good move or not, which appears to be a resounding "No". The iMac G5 never got the dual-core G5s that started to appear in the PowerMac G5.

In addition to what others have said, the question is not if the G5 is a good chip that still has life in it. That is affirmative.

The question is what will chip supplier would Apple use next year to stay competitive. Motorola dropped the ball so Apple moved to IBM. IBM dropped the ball so Apple went to Intel. In order for Apple to survive, it must on the leading edge of technology. Apple's Powerbook line would not have survived another year with G4 chips.

It is a painful process, like the switch to the Power Chips and the switch to OSX. But at least the future looks bright.

 

[MacinDoc]

Compared to a G4, a core solo would be a big step forward.

Cycle for cycle, Anandtech's tests suggest it's not. The Core Duo, well, that's another matter completely. And the Core chips (at least the Duos) do clock faster than G4s. I just don't see the advantage of the Core Solo over the current G4s, and I hope it won't find its way into any Apple products.

I think the real benefit of the Intel switch, however, will be seen with the introduction of Merom later this year.

 

[LastLine]

Ahem - no more 17" iMac G5's on the Uk store.


Thanks

 

[gnasher729]

Yeah, but according to this chart there is only a 1.66GHz single core or a 1.3GHz ultra low voltage single. So how that would compare to the current G4 1.42 iBooks and 1.5GHz Mini's would be an interesting comparison.

There are also plenty of Pentium M and Celeron M chips around, that cost substantially less money than a Core Solo. Does anyone really think that Apple would put a Core Solo, costing more than $200 just for the chip, into a Mac Mini that retails for $499? A Mac Mini will get an $80 chip, like a middle of the range Celeron M. Not a $200 chip.

 

[gnasher729]

and comparing two exactly the same, iMac G5 20" models:

US$1399 (Apple US Edu) - (GBP £787)

or

GBP £985 (Apple UK Edu)

now there's a clear £200 difference there. that's not good! in fact, that's really making me angry. i know a lot of people that'd jump at one for £787, but can't afford it otherwise.

The usual rant...

US prices are excluding sales tax.
UK prices are including 17.5 percent sales tax.

 

[BenRoethig]

A Flashy spreadsheet....Isn't that an oxymoron?

In any case, I very disappointed at the demise of ClarisWorks...I mean AppleWorks. That program was a part of Apple for a long time. :-(

It was part of the old not as innovative, but more practical Apple of the 90s.

 

[powerbook911]

The usual rant...

US prices are excluding sales tax.
UK prices are including 17.5 percent sales tax.

Well, its still a good 60 pound difference (after tax), which is over 100 dollars. Still, I'm not surprised. It has been this way forever.