Apple Releases Dual Core PowerMac G5s

[nospleen]

Yes, an amazing quad processing machine, Apple's really sticking it to us...


Apple charges a premium for RAM, that's just the way it is. It's not going to change. So basically you're saying you would prefer Apple to include more of their overpriced RAM in their machines without giving customers a choice, which would then result in a higher cost? I would much rather buy the bare minimum amount of RAM possible from Apple (just like they're offering) and then buy my own 3rd party RAM for much cheaper.



First of all, that sentence doesn't make any sense. Secondly, haven't you heard? OS X is available on PC. Everyone's hacking it. Go buy a PC.

I meant a legal way to run OSX on a different machine. I am not into hacking or using software in a manner that is not intended. I LOVE OSX and i LOVE Apple. But, I do have the right to think a 3200 machine should have more ram. I am pretty sure most people would agree with me.

These are brand new Macs with brand new components, how do we know what they cost Apple? I think it has been said before but I'll say it again Apple are in the business of keeping their share holders happy, no one else. Personally I think these machines are great value, it's a whole lot of workstation for not too much cash.

Excellent point! I could be wrong, but I thought one of the benefits of dual core was they are cheaper to produce when compared to two actual chips. But, I could be wrong.

 

[CyberDoberman]

I wouldn't sweat it, for one the top line system now costs $300 more than your dual 2.7.

For another - these initial benchmarks - they are not being looked at very closely.

Once this mania dies down, I think in-depth looks at the performance of these machines will show that the low end and midrange powermacs were not really much of an upgrade (if any). Take a look at the cpu performance of the dual 2.5 vs dual core 2.3, then take a look at the multithreading performance of the dual 2.5 vs dual core 2.3

People are out to 'prove' something right now, and the benchmarks will be presented in such a way as to prove their point, but my experience is that dual processor > dual core, and those benchmarks are acutally whispering that fact for those that want to look. I can about guarantee you that there is no more than a 30% difference in overall performance of the new 2.5Ghz dual dual core (quad) vs the 2.7ghz dual processor. You can already see by the benchmarks that for multitasking, the old dual processor boxes outrun the new single chip dual core boxes...

All that said, the dual processor dual core box is definitely a step up, but not as big as it's being hyped up to be.

I am seriously disappointed in the other two boxes. I would vastly prefer to see a low end dual 2.3 and midrange dual 2.5 than the singe cpu dual core boxes they gave us. I am thinking now is a great time to buy one of the now discontinued dual 2.0 or dual 2.3 boxes.

Don't be. Probably better off buying the discounted $2700 / $2500 with edu. discount Dual 2.7Ghz Machine.

I'm in the middle of all my benchmarks, with an OLD 2.7Ghz G5, and a spanky new 2.3 Dual Core...

Both systems have 2 Gig Ram, 500Gig Bootable RAID setup, and everything else is default.

The OLD 2.7Ghz is D E S T R O Y I N G, I repeat, absolutely D E S T R O Y I N G the Dual Core 2.3.

Just to give you a BIT of an idea...

Just installing OS X 10.4.2 from the SAME INSTALL DVD gave these install times (timed from the LAST press of the button, to the screen that says "reboot in x seconds")

NEW G5 2.3Ghz DUAL CORE Install Time: 11 Minutes, 20.5 Seconds $2499
OLD G5 2.7Ghz SINGLE CORE Install Time: 7 Minutes, 15.6 Seconds $2799

More to come. What a lame upgrade so far

$300 seems to buy a HELL of a lot of MACHINE.

I would have REALLY loved to have seen a Dual Core DUAL CPU 2.7Ghz Watercooled model, instead of the DOWNGRADE to 2.5 Dual Core DUAL.

ARGH!

 

[nospleen]

Price out a comparable system from Dell. Looks like you'll pay a lot more than Apple's price.

(But don't overlook their displays... those are Mac-ready and priced nicely!)

But I do not want a Dell!!! Damn guys and gals, take it easy on me. I just wanted a little price drop and more ram. It is not like I am running XP or something.

 

[oskar]

Interesting how these specs are compared to the previous top of the line G5 and the 3-or more-year-old G4. No more comparisons to Intel processors?

No way Apple will go to 32-bit processors after these PowerMacs. Not that I really care for now. I think the top of the line G5 is awesome. I want one now.

 

[iGary]

I am not saying the machine isn't nice. My main gripe is not even that it only comes with 512 ram, but that is just pathetic. If you can afford a Lexus, you expect Leather!! But, my point is to not put in an extra chip on the bottom two? Why not?? Because they want to continue to make a premium at our expense. If they only want one quad, I can understand. But, wouldn't you agree a little price cut would have been nice? After all, they are saving money. I just think it is a little greedy. The new imacs on the other hand, are an AWESOME deal. Apple could of charged more, but did not. I certainly do recognize that, but I just think they are really asking a premium for a single chip dual 2.0.

I'm with you, if that makes you feel any better.

A sub-1,000-dollar iBook has better wireless and equal RAM stats than a $3,300.00 PM.

 

[nospleen]

I'm with you, if that makes you feel any better.

A sub-1,000-dollar iBook has better wireless and equal RAM stats than a $3,300.00 PM.

Thank goodness!!! It sucks when you like reading someones posts and they drop the hammer on you.

 

[horace]

can i just ask the guy whose church had a dual 2.7 stolen... what does a church do with a top of the line dual G5??

SETI?

 

[CyberDoberman]

SETI?

Process a TON of donations

 

[nagromme]

But, I do have the right to think a 3200 machine should have more ram. I am pretty sure most people would agree with me.

I definitely agree that it's silly. But not so much because it increases the price (it does, but Apple's price is still competitive). Rather, it's silly to make you have to THINK about it and DO something. It's an inconvenience.

And I know you don't want a Dell I'm just saying Apple's price isn't unfair. And I don't necessarily think Apple should just eat the cost of more RAM.

 

[iIra]

Anyone else miss the Quicksilver G4s or the fruity iMacs? I'm literally drooling over the performance of these new G5s, but Apple's case designs lately just seem sort of cold and unemotional.

 

[nospleen]

Maybe for their Video Ministry. I have a friend and he is a Graphics Designer for a big Church. I know they use G5's.

 

[slick316]

The upgrades are not bad and are a good step up feature wise to something more future proof. I'm not going to upgrade any of my stuff for it, but I would think about buying one of these machines if I didn't already have one.
On a side note, anyone think that the AGP video cards made for G5's will shoot up in price before dissappearing? I want to get a X800 or 6800GT but $400+ is a lot right now, considering I have seen 7800GT cards for PC for less than $350.

 

[nospleen]

I definitely agree that it's silly. But not so much because it increases the price (it does, but Apple's price is still competitive). Rather, it's silly to make you have to THINK about it and DO something. It's an inconvenience.

And I know you don't want a Dell I'm just saying Apple's price isn't unfair. And I don't necessarily think Apple should just eat the cost of more RAM.

It is like a nice 7 button suit with sneakers!

 

[nagromme]

The OLD 2.7Ghz is D E S T R O Y I N G, I repeat, absolutely D E S T R O Y I N G the Dual Core 2.3.

Just to give you a BIT of an idea...

Just installing OS X 10.4.2 from the SAME INSTALL DVD gave these install times (timed from the LAST press of the button, to the screen that says "reboot in x seconds")

NEW G5 2.3Ghz DUAL CORE Install Time: 11 Minutes, 20.5 Seconds $2499
OLD G5 2.7Ghz SINGLE CORE Install Time: 7 Minutes, 15.6 Seconds $2799

More to come. What a lame upgrade so far

Speaking for myself, OS install time is of no importance. I am not upset by a machine that costs less taking 4 minutes longer to install OS X. But your tests are appreciated--do share other results!

 

[iIra]

On a side note, anyone think that the AGP video cards made for G5's will shoot up in price before dissappearing? I want to get a X800 or 6800GT but $400+ is a lot right now, considering I have seen 7800GT cards for PC for less than $350.

It seems like outdated technology should get cheaper as it fades out. It doesn't make much sense to charge a premium for an obsolete video card.

 

[CyberDoberman]

Speaking for myself, OS install time is of no importance. I am not upset by a machine that costs less taking 4 minutes longer to install OS X. But your tests are appreciated--do share other results!

Thanks! I will

The issue is not that it takes 4 minutes longer...

The issue is that the *Old* out of date machine is over 40% Faster at a task that might be slightly representative of overall machine feel (disk writing, dvd reading, cpu usage (think unzipping packages) and the like)... yet only 400Mhz Faster?

Somehow, I sincerely doubt that a 2.8Ghz P4 would be 40% Slower at installing Windows than a 3.2Ghz P4 would be.

It's that 40% slower that scares the bejeezus out of me for my other tests

By the way, I ONLY do real world tests...

I.e., startup, shutdown, cd-rip, dvd-rip, file duplication, firewire transfer, etc etc etc etc etc

Should be cool anyway, ?

 

[andrewag]

I like that dual cores have finally been implemented into the PowerMac. Pitty about no speed bumps (Apple would have done em if they were avail).

An alright update considering the PM has been updated quite reguarly.

My dual 2ghz still seems resonable so i'm happy Buy now to miss a bad generation of intel rev a problems.

 

[MacNemesis]

Also, what's not workstation-like about Hitachi's 250GB and 500GB drives? These are the same drives in the xServe RAID.
Granted, I like the Maxtor 300GB with 16MB cache but those aren't terrible drives (I run the MaxLineIIIs in my XServe and Dell 1U and they smoke).
So, they don't have incredibly overprices SCSI drives or way overpriced Raptors.. they have fast, reliable, large SATA drives.

Actually the Xserve raids DO NOT use SATA drives, however the Xserve G5 systems do. Xraids still use Ultra ATA drives. Which stinks because it means you have to have extra drive modules for both systems that are incompatible. I do wonder what having SATA drives in the Xraids would do for performance. It would likely be faster, but would obviously require a rework of the controller. FWIW The drives in the Xraids are compatible with G4 xserves.

 

[nospleen]

I like that dual cores have finally been implemented into the PowerMac. Pitty about no speed bumps (Apple would have done em if they were avail).

An alright update considering the PM has been updated quite reguarly.

My dual 2ghz still seems resonable so i'm happy Buy now to miss a bad generation of intel rev a problems.

But Apple could have bumped the speed. They COULD have released a Quad 2.0. But, maybe the cost would have been too high...

 

[iIra]

I'm holding out for a quad 3.0 iMac.

But Apple could have bumped the speed. They COULD have released a Quad 2.0. But, maybe the cost would have been too high...

I wonder how a quad 2.0 would have fared against a dual 2.7...

 

[DaftUnion]

I'm holding out for a quad 3.0 iMac.

LOL, then you'll never by buying an iMac I guess.

 

[slick316]

It seems like outdated technology should get cheaper as it fades out. It doesn't make much sense to charge a premium for an obsolete video card.

Maybe because they will be the last AGP cards made for Apple's or some dumb reason like that, I can see some sort of stupid reasoning for the price to not drop. ATI 9800 Pro's are still $300 new, a little high imho.

And another thing, why aren't cards like the 9650, 9800XT, X850XT, 6800 Ultra DDL, etc. available for purchase? Would be nice to have a variety of choices, but an X800 or 6800GT @ less then $300 would be fine

 

[MacNemesis]

The video folks....

... are salivating. A dual dual cored G5 with enhanced RAM for faster editing and rendering, esp. HD. Dual NICs so they don't have to spend the extra little bit for the NIC needed for Xsan (pennies considering, but it's still a nice touch). PCIe for motion/maya performance and PCIe available Fibre Channel card (although I wonder if that will affect throughput..) all at the same price. Plus those folks who don't think those extra pixels and battery power on the PBs don't mean anything, ask any graphics pro. This is not insignificant. Just because these updates don't matter to you doesn't mean they don't matter to someone. Too bad we deployed our editing lab in August.

 

[ksz]

Despite the new PMs and PBs, it's nice to see that the new iMac is still on center stage at apple.com. Now that we've seen the full complement of hardware updates (for the time being...I think), the new iMac seems to deserve the spotlight.

As for me, I will wait 4 weeks, drool over everyone's pictures and benchmarks, then order a Quad G5. It's almost hard to believe that it's here and it's exactly what we expected (even the price).

 

[iIra]

Despite the new PMs and PBs, it's nice to see that the new iMac is still on center stage at apple.com. Now that we've seen the full complement of hardware updates (for the time being...I think), the new iMac seems to deserve the spotlight.

Well the new PM/PB are intended as professional machines, and Apple doesn't really need to work too hard to convince professionals to use macs. It's the consumers that Apple has to convince, and that's the purpose of the iMac.