Apple Releases Dual Core PowerMac G5s

[nagromme]

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, ?

Yes, real-world is the BEST kind of test. (Those you mention aren't especially CPU-intensive, but still put other parts of the system through their paces.)

The install process, though, involves looking at the hardware and making choices and tests. I don't know how much of that goes on, but it means that installing on two different systems might actually be DOING two different things--and thus not a fair performance test. Also, hardware tests are sometimes done during a reboot, and further installation steps (wish I knew what) are completed then too. So that phase might vary too.

 

[alien]

I'm in the market for a new Powermac but I'm not a pro and therefore don't have the projects to pay for a high end machine. My budget is tight and that's why I've decided to get the discontinued dual 2.3. It's probably still noticably faster than the dual core 2, but should be a bit cheaper. PCIe and DDR2 is nice, but coming from a G4 667 tower... i'm sure that the speed increases will be amazing enough.

 

[~Shard~]

I'm in the market for a new Powermac but I'm not a pro and therefore don't have the projects to pay for a high end machine. My budget is tight and that's why I've decided to get the discontinued dual 2.3. It's probably still noticably fast than the dual core 2, but should be a bit cheaper. PCIe and DDR2 is nice, but coming from a G4 667 tower... i'm sure that the speed increases will be amazing enough.

I agree with you. And although all that technology the new PowerMacs sport is nice, if you are not a Pro user some of it would undoubtedly go underutilized and would not be made the most of. Sounds like you've made a solid decision.

 

[nagromme]

That's because the Dell dual Xeon is actually 8 logical processors because of the hyperthreading.

Yes, but 8 "logical processors" is something of an illusion to the OS--it's not at all the same as having 8 actual processors or cores. It does sometimes offer SOME benefit, running two threads at once on each CPU (or core)--but nothing that puts it in a different league from a 4-CPU non-HT machine.

HT experts, please chime in

 

[alien]

Thanks ~Shard~. I do like to use 3D applications, Photoshop, and Final Cut Pro, but because time isn't of the essence and expandability isn't as important of a reason to buy a computer, I think that the older models will be just fine. While my needs aren't that of a "true" pro, I definitely don't look at myself as a consumer ("a la" the iMac). I sure am jealous of anyone that is able to afford some of these new 'beasts' though.

 

[wrldwzrd89]

I am unbelievably late to this thread (I'm not on MacRumors that much anymore, and kinda missed this whole thing until now).

Anyway, I like all the updates...they don't do a thing for me, though, since I'm cruising along just fine with this 1.25 GHz 17" iMac G4 I have (I do wish I had opted for the 160 GB internal hard drive option, though - I have to make do with a pair of external drives instead).

My plan to replace this thing in early 2007 hasn't changed...

 

[Mgmax]

Thanks Shard-- I thought PCI Express was PCI-X but I guess it's PCI-E. So what the heck is a PCI-E slot for?

 

[Val-kyrie]

Nice Updates, BUT I still don't understand

why the 6600 is used instead of the 6800 as the base GPU?
Even Dell's new XPS line starts with a 6800 Ultra with an upgrade to the 7800. The 6600 is still only a middle-of-the-road gpu.

why I don't see anything about SLI if the PM can use two gfx cards?
The technology may be a bit premature, but still.

why the PCI-express slots are 2-4x, 1-8x, and only 1-16x?
Wouldn't it have been better to have two 16x slots? Perhaps gfx cards don't require 16x--does anyone know?

how a user will benefit from the dual chip, dual core PM?
Won't this require a better compiler to effectively utilize all four cores? Obviously, I am not a PM user, but I am curious if this top-of-the-line PM will really yield performance that is worth the price, especially with the Intel transition coming. Hey, if Apple is already dismantling their hardware teams to focus on the coming Intel shift, it only makes sense to me that they are also shifting their software resources. Sure they will support PPC through Leopard, but where will the real optimization be seen? I'm betting Intel. I'm also betting there will be no OS support beyond Leopard.

 

[stephenli]

my goodness does it really the final final final Power Mac G5 before we move into the dark side?! I really want to press 1-click now..........

 

[bc2610]

Old G5 Ram usable?

Sorry if this was asked... Does new Powermac allow use of olf G5 DDR Ram?

 

[Val-kyrie]

Honestly, if it wasn't for OS X, would you buy a Powerbook? I'm seriously curious.

No.

 

[carlos700]

Most SLI systems use two 8X slots. Only recently did NVIDIA release a dual 16X chipset. The NVIDIA GeForce 6600 is available for $199 at the Apple Store.

I don't understand why they put the NVIDIA GeForce 6600 LE in a $2000 computer. It is a basic $80 card.... Anyway the Quad 2.5 GHz is great.

 

[bodeh6]

Sorry if this was asked... Does new Powermac allow use of olf G5 DDR Ram?

No. DDR and DDR2 RAM is not interchangable.

 

[Val-kyrie]

I think the real secret to Apple's success are the BLUE motherboards.

Anyway, does the Powerbook memory spec of PC2-4200 DDR help any, performance wise?

Not really. According to other tech sites (see www.anandtech.com and www.tomshardware.com, among others), the best (= lowest timings) DDR2 533MHz has a slightly higher latency than the best DDR 400, but the DDR2 memory has a wider bandwidth. The performance is about the same, though DDR2 533 is still slightly slower. Memory performance won't improve much until DDR2 667MHz RAM arrives. This is partly why AMD has not transitioned to DDR2 RAM yet.

 

[turtlebud]

i haven't read all of this thread but quite a bit. it seems some sort of consensus comes up along the line of what you said: most people are happy with the dual dual monster. therefore the positive ratings.

many people are happy with the dual core 2.3 ghz but think it's way to expensive. therefore the negative ratings.

so when people think it's a great update then they usually go for a dual dual monster. when people complain then they were in the market for a midrange model.

i wonder how that will play out.
are people not going to buy the midrange models?
and will apple react at some point and make a mini update or a price drop?
or will most people buy the midrange models anyway?

You're pretty much right on the money for me. I was always planning on getting the mid range 2.3 model, but was waiting for dual core. That being said, I was disappointed that they didn't do dual dual-core across the board and maybe add in an entry level 2.0 single dual-core, especially since they kept the price point the same for the 2.0 and 2.3 single dual-cores. At first I was excited cause they went dual-core (FINALLY!), but then as I read different things about the performance of the current dual-core vs. the same speed single dual processor, my excitement was tempered. The single dual-core 2.3 really doesn't seem like a good value at $2500. Maybe at $2000, I'd consider it, but that's lame that apple is trying to make it seem that it's pretty much the same as the dual processor 2.3 with enhancements by pricing it at the same price point. I'd even consider spending an extra $100-200 if they made it a dual dual-core 2.3, but as is, I'm going to wait.

 

[MacNemesis]

No, this is not the point of dual Ethernet ports. Dual Gigabit Ethernet is ideal for users in an Xsan environment that requires independent networks for metadata and general networking. In other words, you can simultaneously connect to private and public networks (i.e. Xsan and the Internet).

Yes indeed, but you COULD use it for link aggregation (if the switch supports it) to have either a) double the speed or b) redundant network access. The other point, as you mentioned is multi-homing (accessing multiple separate networks). OS X supports any of these options provided you have the proper networking infrastructure.

 

[daveL]

Not

Sun Microsystems.

Sun does not have quad core processors on the market.

 

[~Shard~]

Thanks Shard-- I thought PCI Express was PCI-X but I guess it's PCI-E. So what the heck is a PCI-E slot for?

Nope, the too are very different in fact. To save myself some time in explaining it further, feel free to read up on it here. It has huge advantages over AGP.

 

[artifex]

All of the new Power Macs are likely better then prior Power Macs because the have faster memory, PCIe, and the option for more advanced video adapters.

The extra cores in the Quad system likely won't help much with most games but the fact that they run at 2.5GHz would make them potentially better then 2.0GHz and 2.3GHz dual core systems.

For CPU heavy games the old Power Mac 2.7 GHz may also be better but likely other factors, in particular PCIe and better adapters, could balance the raw single threaded performance difference.

I suggest folks look forward to Mac OS X 10.4.3, it should bring some nice stuff to OpenGL support on Mac (even for existing systems).

I think the "Quadro" that nagromme was talking about is the Quadro FX, which is one video option on the new machines. While it's no slouch for speed, the Quadro line is more about professional quality display and advanced effects for production work, not raw framerates. So they're not always the fastest chips Nvidia makes. Most games would probably not take full advantage of the extra effects, either.

 

[~Shard~]

Yes indeed, but you COULD use it for link aggregation (if the switch supports it) to have either a) double the speed or b) redundant network access. The other point, as you mentioned is multi-homing (accessing multiple separate networks). OS X supports any of these options provided you have the proper networking infrastructure.

Yes, you are correct - thanks for providing the additional clarification.

Thanks ~Shard~. I do like to use 3D applications, Photoshop, and Final Cut Pro, but because time isn't of the essence and expandability isn't as important of a reason to buy a computer, I think that the older models will be just fine. While my needs aren't that of a "true" pro, I definitely don't look at myself as a consumer ("a la" the iMac). I sure am jealous of anyone that is able to afford some of these new 'beasts' though.

I think you're bang on - not a consumer, but not a hardcore Pro. A lower-end PowerMac should be more than adequate for you.

As for affording these new beasts, I think for many people it might be more of a issue of justification rather than cash - I could afford one, but could I justify it for my needs? No, unfortunately not...

 

[nagromme]

I think the "Quadro" that nagromme was talking about is the Quadro FX, which is one video option on the new machines. While it's no slouch for speed, the Quadro line is more about professional quality display and advanced effects for production work, not raw framerates. So they're not always the fastest chips Nvidia makes. Most games would probably not take full advantage of the extra effects, either.

Yes--that's what I was wondering. Thanks to those who replied

Sounds like the 7800 is the choice for gamers.

 

[~Shard~]

I think the "Quadro" that nagromme was talking about is the Quadro FX, which is one video option on the new machines. While it's no slouch for speed, the Quadro line is more about professional quality display and advanced effects for production work, not raw framerates. So they're not always the fastest chips Nvidia makes. Most games would probably not take full advantage of the extra effects, either.

That's correct, the Quadra is the first workstation graphic card for the Mac. From Apple's site:

Bring detailed worlds to life with the NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500. One of the most advanced graphics cards available, it has an integrated stereo 3D port, so scientists can use stereo goggles for stereo-in-a-window visualization applications.(2)

The Quadro FX 4500 includes hardware support for anti-aliased points and lines, accelerated clip planes, and two-sided lighting, making it an ideal choice for the most advanced design and visualization applications. And since it has two dual-link DVI ports, you can connect two 30-inch Apple Cinema HD Displays for the largest workspace with a single graphics card.

Yes--that's what I was wondering. Thanks to those who replied

Sounds like the 7800 is the choice for gamers.

Yes, I'd agree with that - the Quadra is not exactly optimized for games from the looks of it, and gamers would be better off with, as you say, the 7800, I'm thinking. But man that Quadra looks amazing....

 

[artifex]

Sorry, just a pet peeve of mine, it's "double layer", not "dual layer".

Yup.

p.s. CompUSA and Buy.com seem to have the best deals on the 25 pack Memorexes. Sure wish Verbatims were that cheap, though, because they're rated faster in my Plextor, and they're just better, anyway

 

[devman]

You're pretty much right on the money for me. I was always planning on getting the mid range 2.3 model, but was waiting for dual core. That being said, I was disappointed that they didn't do dual dual-core across the board and maybe add in an entry level 2.0 single dual-core, especially since they kept the price point the same for the 2.0 and 2.3 single dual-cores. At first I was excited cause they went dual-core (FINALLY!), but then as I read different things about the performance of the current dual-core vs. the same speed single dual processor, my excitement was tempered. The single dual-core 2.3 really doesn't seem like a good value at $2500. Maybe at $2000, I'd consider it, but that's lame that apple is trying to make it seem that it's pretty much the same as the dual processor 2.3 with enhancements by pricing it at the same price point. I'd even consider spending an extra $100-200 if they made it a dual dual-core 2.3, but as is, I'm going to wait.

I'm confused. Didn't someone just post benchmark results that shows the new dual core 2.3 as fast or faster than the (old) dual 2.5?

 

[~Shard~]

Yup.

So how much does a box of those run nowadays? Is the price finally coming down on double layer media? Still was quite pricey last time I checked...