Apple Releases New PowerMacs

[bathysphere]

the 2.5 isn't that bad of a speed bump, but definitely not great (due to it taking a year, and still falling significantly short of the guaranteed 3ghz mark). like everyone else says, the machine as a whole is sub par, it was pretty decent last year, but this year it's a bit embarassing. no pci-express, no more internal expansion, year old graphic card for a disgustingly large price. i also can't believe that the 2.5 is liquid cooled and still has all those fans. i realize that a fan is needed to cool off the actual liquid and whatnot, but wow they couldn't even reduce the number a little.
also, as a whole, this g5 lineup sucks. one sub-par new machine, and then two old machines that aren't even as good as they were a year ago, for only a marginal discount. this is looking like the introduction of the g4 powermacs all over again.

 

[dex22]

Why only one FW 800 port? Same Hard Drive space, Last years graphics cards. What about a dual layer DVD burner option? I want this for HD video editing and I bet if I fork out for this now, the new 3Ghz with slick graphics card for the 30" screen will be out in September. I can't win. Think I may as well hold off until a real upgrade.

Any other editors feel the same?

I feel the same way. I'm looking to update my Quicksilver editing system. A basic thing I'm looking for is RAID inside the box - I don't want external drives banging about. Since video needs to be separate from the boot drive and I can only install one other drive, how do I do RAID?

How much would it cost them to put a row of four drive bays in that dead space at the bottom of the case?

I'm also not impressed by the graphics card choices. Motion requires dual 2GHz processors - I would like to team that up with a card I know I can use for the life of the machine - one with component video for us they so depend upon that they refer to us as the "artistic class".

 

[HiRez]

I feel the same way. I'm looking to update my Quicksilver editing system. A basic thing I'm looking for is RAID inside the box - I don't want external drives banging about. Since video needs to be separate from the boot drive and I can only install one other drive, how do I do RAID?

Wiebetech makes the G5Jam, which makes a total of 4 internal drives, but TransIntl makes something called the Swift, which adds 3 internal drives to your PowerMac G5, for a total of 5. You use one for the boot drive, then the additional 4 for your media RAID array, in whatever configuration you wish. Check it out, it's way cool:

http://www.barefeats.com/swift.html

 

[Little Endian]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

hold on a sec


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Not everyone needs a powerhouse $400 video card. Just because you might be a graphics professional doesn't mean everyone is. Sure, it would be nice to see it as an option but let's not get carried away.

No the point is here is that really the Geforce FX 5200 is a joke for a machine that costs over $2K. The nearly 3 year old Geforce Ti 4600 that Apple used to offer in the Highend is actually faster than a Geforce FX 5200. Three Years ago Mind you!!! The Radeon 9600XT is also a Joke as well, as the Newest Radeon X800 is nearly 2-4 times Faster than the 9600XT!!!. Now at the high end Apple offers us the Radeon 9800XT which is allready a year old in the PC world and is nearly an EOL product. Too add insult Apple Charges a $300 upgrade fee with no credit given for your 9600XT that you are swapping out with a 9800XT. In the PC world the Radeon 9800XT can be found as low as $249. To be even more difficult the Radeon 9800XT that apple offers as a BTO takes up an extra PCI slot leaving you with only two open slots!!! I need more than two open slots!! The Radeon 9600XT just won't cut it!! and the 9800XT is not worth the Price to upgrade especially when I lose a PCI slot. Did I mention too that even the Radeon 9800XT pales in comaprison to the new Radeon X800 XT, the X800 XT is about 50%-100% faster!!! when compared to the 9800XT and 2-4 times faster than the 9600XT.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=2044&p=1

 

[bathysphere]

I feel the same way. I'm looking to update my Quicksilver editing system. A basic thing I'm looking for is RAID inside the box - I don't want external drives banging about. Since video needs to be separate from the boot drive and I can only install one other drive, how do I do RAID?

How much would it cost them to put a row of four drive bays in that dead space at the bottom of the case?

I'm also not impressed by the graphics card choices. Motion requires dual 2GHz processors - I would like to team that up with a card I know I can use for the life of the machine - one with component video for us they so depend upon that they refer to us as the "artistic class".

there is no dead space at the bottom of the case, you're probably referring to the 'leaked' images from a couple of days ago, but they were either fake or scrapped designs.
and agreed about crappy graphics cards. the 9800 is the recommended card for motion for christsakes.

 

[pjkelnhofer]

Yes. the SAME exceptionally powered desktop systems we had a YEAR ago.
(Except for 1 model). Plus the guy you quoted said they would be consumer grade if they were SINGLE processor which I would have to agree with (again with the exception of the 2.5)

With the exception of a total processor change (ie G4 to G5), please tell when Apple upgrade the entire PowerMac line-up at once.

 

[pjkelnhofer]

I'm also not impressed by the graphics card choices. Motion requires dual 2GHz processors - I would like to team that up with a card I know I can use for the life of the machine - one with component video for us they so depend upon that they refer to us as the "artistic class".

I am constantly amazed that people post things without having any idea if they are true.

Apple Motion Specs
Minimum System Requirements
Macintosh computer with 867MHz or faster PowerPC G4 or G5 processor
512MB of RAM (2GB or more recommended)
Mac OS X v10.3.3 or later
QuickTime 6.5 or later
Display with 1024-by-768 resolution or higher (1280-by-1024 resolution recommended)
One of the following graphics cards:
— NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra
— NVIDIA GeForce FX Go5200
— ATI Mobility Radeon 9600
— ATI Radeon 9600 Pro
— ATI Radeon 9700 Pro
— ATI Mobility Radeon 9700
— ATI Radeon 9800 Pro
10GB of disk space for application, templates, and tutorial
DVD drive for installation

There is a world of difference between "recommend system" and "required system"!!!

 

[Spades]

I'll throw a little twist into the graphics card debate and state that I would pay extra to avoid the "latest and greatest" cards. Why? Their requirements are completely ridiculous. They require two slots? They have molex connectors on the card? Two connectors for nvidia's card? And for what? So you can run games that will come out three years from now? With the huge power requirements for these cards, it seems downright wasteful to use them.

Professonals might need them, but how large of a group are we talking about here? The newest cards will only be useful for professional 3D work. Even as applications start to use OpenGL for 2D work, they are not going to be pushing any recent card that hard. For professional 3D work, what do you need? Polygon throughput is a big thing. The newest cards might be faster than the last generation ones, but hasn't the focus lately been on shaders? Just how much do you need real time 3D shaders for professional work?

I think people need to look at more than just what's the "fastest" card. What does "fastest" mean? Is the performance of these cards increasing in ways that matter to professionals, or are they just adding gamer eye candy? Also look at the costs for the increases you get. Using these newer cards is like adding another processor to your computer. That's no small increase in power requirements. Do the new cards give you an improvement that is worth the cost in power, space, heat, and noise?

For me, I will gladly take smaller, cooler, less expensive, and "good enough" over these beasts.

 

[Shagrat]

The X800 is available for Macs? Really? I thought it wasn't yet. ATI just announced a new 9800 Pro for Mac today.

You sure? Think this has been there for a while.

 

[sabbath999]

I've been holding off for 6 months to get a G5, as I have been burned on my last 2 mac purchases. Bought a 15" iMac and 2 weeks later the 17" came out. Then a 15" powerbook one month later a 17 incher comes out.
So finally I think I'm playing my cards right and for once I wouldn't have been any worse off than if I bought the dual 2Ghz a year ago!

This revision is totally sh*te. Not because of the speeds, but the lack of other features. Why only one FW 800 port? Same Hard Drive space, Last years graphics cards. What about a dual layer DVD burner option? I want this for HD video editing and I bet if I fork out for this now, the new 3Ghz with slick graphics card for the 30" screen will be out in September. I can't win. Think I may as well hold off until a real upgrade.

Any other editors feel the same?

In one sense I do... but I can't wait. I am losing too much productivity.

I just ordered the Big Dog.

 

[benpatient]

I'm not going to read through 300 posts just to say this, so sorry if I'm repeating everyone else when i say "huh?"

By apple's own inflated (we all know it) performance numbers, the dual 2.5 is only 16% faster than the dual 2.0. The price difference between the two is reasonable, for sure, but the scaling of that processor is not exactly "impressive." the Athlon 64 actually gains momentum when the bus speed is raised, but it looks like the dual 2.5, by the most optimistic estimates (apple's) slows down. Which makes it look like they're playing the Intel game and running things towards the theoretical limits already (each new P4 has gained less and less real performance as its bus and clock speeds were increased).

I'm glad that something finally came out...but let's look at it this way:

last summer apple announced and supposedly released a dual 2.0 with an ATI 9600P, a 4x super drive, 512mb of ram and a 160GB drive. for $3000.

Now, a year later, drop the price to the next bracket (2500) and lower the graphics card to a dumpy 5200U. bump up the super drive a notch. That's all.

I don't suppose there is any point in discussing what has changed in the PC world in the last YEAR, is there?

The day the G5 was announced, there was jubilation and celebration and expectation. Then we found out it only had 1 optical drive bay and 2 HDD bays, and a lot of us were irked. Nobody really complains about the speed of the G5...it is fast enough. But a lot of people complained about having a built-in SATA RAID array that could only handle 500GB tops, and not mirrored.

That, and the chinsy graphics cards, were the big problems with the original G5, aside from build quality problems.

So what does apple do? goes backwards on the graphics card in the dual 2, releases a LIQUID COOLED dual 2.5, and ignores the real shortcomings.

Liquid cooling seems a lot more extreme, and expensive, than shelling out the goods for a decent 9800 regular across the spectrum.

Let it be said that, (from experience) liquid cooling has lots of potential problems. I hope apple got the bugs worked out better this time, because if the liquid cooling system has the slightest hiccup, your entire machine is effectively dead. (and by dead i mean on fire).

OK, well, it's not all bad. At least they got a superdrive to match the iBook finally.

I'm willing to bet that sales of dual 1.8s are going to go even higher after this...and sales of retail box 9800 pro mac editions, too.

 

[crumbz]

nothing to read but b*tching here

Why doesn't someone write:

Hooray for Apple! A dual 2.5GHz PPC machine running Unix for $3k. Beats a UltraSPARC, MIPS R16K or any other dedicated*nix box under $10k (x86 excluded). So it is not 3 GHz. So what. It is a damn impressive piece of hardware compared to what was available 12 years ago when I bought a Quadra 700. 4MB RAM and a 160MB HDD for $4,200. I used that computer until 1998 and I wish I had not sold it.

My two cents.....

 

[Little Endian]

I'll throw a little twist into the graphics card debate and state that I would pay extra to avoid the "latest and greatest" cards. Why? Their requirements are completely ridiculous. They require two slots? They have molex connectors on the card? Two connectors for nvidia's card? And for what? So you can run games that will come out three years from now? With the huge power requirements for these cards, it seems downright wasteful to use them.

Professonals might need them, but how large of a group are we talking about here? The newest cards will only be useful for professional 3D work. Even as applications start to use OpenGL for 2D work, they are not going to be pushing any recent card that hard. For professional 3D work, what do you need? Polygon throughput is a big thing. The newest cards might be faster than the last generation ones, but hasn't the focus lately been on shaders? Just how much do you need real time 3D shaders for professional work?

I think people need to look at more than just what's the "fastest" card. What does "fastest" mean? Is the performance of these cards increasing in ways that matter to professionals, or are they just adding gamer eye candy? Also look at the costs for the increases you get. Using these newer cards is like adding another processor to your computer. That's no small increase in power requirements. Do the new cards give you an improvement that is worth the cost in power, space, heat, and noise?

For me, I will gladly take smaller, cooler, less expensive, and "good enough" over these beasts.

No the point is here is that really the Geforce FX 5200 is a joke for a machine that costs over $2K. The nearly 3 year old Geforce Ti 4600 that Apple used to offer in the Highend is actually faster than a Geforce FX 5200. Three Years ago Mind you!!! The Radeon 9600XT is also a Joke as well, as the Newest Radeon X800 is nearly 2-4 times Faster than the 9600XT!!!. Now at the high end Apple offers us the Radeon 9800XT which is allready a year old in the PC world and is nearly an EOL product. Too add insult Apple Charges a $300 upgrade fee with no credit given for your 9600XT that you are swapping out with a 9800XT. In the PC world the Radeon 9800XT can be found as low as $249. To be even more difficult the Radeon 9800XT that apple offers as a BTO takes up an extra PCI slot leaving you with only two open slots!!! I need more than two open slots!! The Radeon 9600XT just won't cut it!! and the 9800XT is not worth the Price to upgrade especially when I lose a PCI slot. Did I mention too that even the Radeon 9800XT pales in comaprison to the new Radeon X800 XT, the X800 XT is about 50%-100% faster!!! when compared to the 9800XT and 2-4 times faster than the 9600XT.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=2044&p=1

Also the Radeon X800 XT actually runs Cooler and requires less power than the 9800XT. The Radeon X800 XT is built on a smaller fabrication process and actually uses only one PCI slot as well. The Performance Gap is enormous as well. Another point is the lack of PCI Express in the new PowerMac G5 the industry is clearly taking the PCI Express route and The G5 is still stuck with PCI-X this makes a difference down the Road. PCI Expresss also supports 16X while PCI-X AGP only supports 8X.

 

[iriejedi]

Mac mall may be wrong - but it is there....

The X800 is available for Macs? Really? I thought it wasn't yet. ATI just announced a new 9800 Pro for Mac today.

ATI
RADEON X800XT 256MB 8 AGP
RADEON X800XT 256MB 8 AGP
MacMall Part #434568
Mfg. Part #100-435210
Mac and PC

They also list it at PC only - with deeper investigation... but one can dream...

 

[jsw]

Improvements to an already nice line-up

Forgive me, for I am at work, and although I have tried to read the entire thread before posting, it seems to be growing faster than I can keep up with. So, if this has already been said before I can post this, I'm sorry.

First, I have a dual-2 with the "crappy old" 9600 card. I bought it in September. I've gotten many months of great use out of it, and I expect to continue using it for quite a while, just like all of my other Macs.

I have never had an issue with the dual-2.0 nor the 9600 card in it. I use Photoshop, but not professionally. Primarily, I program in Java, and the Mac is like lightning for that. I play games (Halo, WC III, etc.) and haven't noticed a problem. Would a faster graphics card be nice? Of course. But even the 9600 works fine.

I've never had an audio issue, even though I'm hooked up optically to a nice stereo setup. Not every Rev. A has this problem, or at least it's not annoying in all of them, since mine doesn't have it.

The system is wicked fast.

Now, as far as the updates are concerned:

Big-time gamers should buy PCs and stop complaining about Macs. A $1000 PC will play more games better than a $3000 Mac. That's life.

For the professionals amongst us, the line-up is a tweak to an excellent set of systems.

The dual-1.8 is not crippled. It's a better system than the 1.6 it replaces. "Only" 4GB of RAM? I suspect that 4GB of RAM will be sufficient for some time to come (and I'm not sure that it won't take 2GB sticks when they come out). Crappy video card? Yeah. They should have made the 9600 standard, as well as upped the RAM to 512MB. But then no one would buy the dual-2.0 systems. I'd rather see the dual-1.8 at $1800, but it's still not bad.

The dual-2.0 is, I think, the sweet spot. It's better than mine (albeit marginally), and $500 less than I paid.

The dual-2.5 is a hot system. I think $3k is not too much.

All in all, systems are more than the sum of their parts. The dual-2 I have has been extraordinarily reliable and seems to respond instantly. OS X is a dream. I never feel like I'm bogged down by the computer, and I love sitting in front of it.

It used to be that I always dreamed about the next big speed boost because the system was never fast enough. The dual-2.0 is the first "fast enough" system I've ever owned. It won't be fast enough in a few years, and I realize that, but it is still - at almost a year old - faster than I need it to be. And it's built like a rock.

If any of those who complain about how god-awful horrible the graphics cards are or haw terrible it is to have such a slow lineup or why it's better/cheaper to buy a PC would just (a) buy the friggin' PC and stop posting, or (b) buy one of the G5's and actually use it instead of looking at the specs, I think they would be very happy.

Yeah, dual-layer DVD burning would be nice. I personally don't need it, and I'll buy a firewire burner if I do need it. PCI-Express might be where the world is heading, but, as a minor gamer and Mac professional (when not at "official" work), I don't need a better card. I'd love to have all that stuff in a new Mac. But there's a big difference between saying something is available (and, arguably, better) and saying that it is needed.

The new Macs could be better. But they are very, very nice as they are now.

<edited to fix spelling mistakes>

 

[Mausabiest]

For the first time the low end model has 2 processors for the same price like one processor one year ago. Of course the graphic cards are poor. But did Apple ever had great graphic cards? I don´t think so. Did Apple ever had a lot of RAM? I don´t think so. And still people bought the computer because still I think they are very good deals.
A year ago in July the best computer you could have bought for 2699 bucks was a dual G4 1,42GHz. Now you get a dual G5 2,5 GHz Computer for 2999 $. And the low end model with a dual G5 1,8 GHz will surely do for most of the applications running on a mac.
Sure the graphic-card is poor, RAM is poor, but still I think they did a pretty good job.

 

[Finiksa]

Another solution for me would be to buy an inexpensive eMac for daily use and rely on the upcoming Phantom gaming console ($200, to be released in November by Infimium Labs) to play PC games such as Couter Strike.

The Phantom is Vaporware™.

Infinium have never demonstrated a single working unit or a single game. It's just a crappy overpriced PC that requires special ported versions of PC/console games, none of which they've ever announced… and it'll probably never be sold.

Just get an eMac and a PC/Xbox/Gamecube if you want to do some gaming.

 

[VeloDrax]

We waited a year for this?

We waited a year for this? Just goes to show that you shouldn't wait around for updates if you're planning to replace your current machine in the near future.

The 9600 XT should be the base graphics option. The 5200 is quite pathetic at this point.

Question: Does the retail ATI 9800 SE block an open PCI slot as the CTO 9800 XT does? If it does I'll go with the 9800 XT, but if it doesn't I'm buying the retail 9800 SE. (I'm sorry if this has already been answered.)

I'm not terribly upset by the lack of 3GHz but I'm steamed about the measly RAM, last year's graphics, and the single-sided DVD burner.

 

[ClimbingTheLog]

I doubt that ADC is the reason for video card lag. It is a heck of a lot more expensive and labor intensive to rewrite the video card's ROM to talk to Open Firmware than it is to run a few extra leads on the card.

Do you have some inside info on this? Retooling a factory and manufacturing new PCB designs tends to be expensive; software tends to be relatively cheap, that why we use general purpose computers today.

 

[Elan0204]

This is the first time I've voted negative for a story. After 1 year all Apple can mange is to release 1 new model? No wonder they didn't wait until WWDC to release this, they knew it was an embarrassment. Plus, Apple decided to change the motherboard on the Dual 1.8GHz to make it worse?! So basically, the old dual 1.8s are better, we have the same dual 2GHz computer we had a year ago, and we have one new model that is way to big of a leap over the other 2. So you either get a crippled computer with 3.6GHz total, a one year old computer with 4GHz total (at least you can save $500 versus buying 1 year ago), or you buy a new computer with 5GHz total which completely blows the others away. I think everyone who wanted a powermac better come up with another $500-$1000, because I don't see how you could justify purchasing anything but the dual 2.5GHz model.

 

[hiltmon]

Timeout

Quit whining you lot.....

Those of you who have been saying for almost a year now that you are waiting for the 3Ghz - WAKE UP! You have just wasted a year of your life waiting when you could have had a nice 2Ghz machine, happiness, joy and top productivity. If you need it, and have the money, buy it (and its cheaper than the similarly equipped Dell so don't give me that "Apple is more expansive" crap for pro machines). Computers will always be better in six months, but I prefer to HAVE the computer!

If you are complaining about the video card, the nVidia is more than enough for all Pro work (video editing, audio editing, photoshop etc do NOT use the GPU that much - even Motion works quite happily). Or get the ATI (which will only become 'slow' in 5 years time!)

If you are complaining about the number of drive bays, get a external storage solution. Its not easy to backup 1/2 a terabyte already (you do backup your video don't you?).

If you think 2.5Ghz with a FSB of 1.25 is too slow, sigh.... you can't get a Dell, SUN, IBM or anything close for under $20,000.

So quit whining, put your money where your mouths are and start buying... Apple is doing their best... and its better than anyone else. Go to http://store.apple.com and place an order today.

 

[Hattig]

Also the Radeon X800 XT actually runs Cooler and requires less power than the 9800XT. The Radeon X800 XT is built on a smaller fabrication process and actually uses only one PCI slot as well. The Performance Gap is enormous as well. Another point is the lack of PCI Express in the new PowerMac G5 the industry is clearly taking the PCI Express route and The G5 is still stuck with PCI-X this makes a difference down the Road. PCI Expresss also supports 16X while PCI-X AGP only supports 8X.

To support PCI Express Apple would need a system controller that supported PCI Express! As Apple is using the IBM CPC925 (IIRC) as the northbridge, Apple will be waiting on an upgraded controller from IBM, if they aren't making their own.

PCI Express x16 (NOT 16X) is a 16 lane wide PCI Express that runs at 4GB/s in each direction (AGP 32x speed overall).

I imagine that the next PowerMac update (January 2005?) will include PCI Express, more SATA ports, 3GHz dual processors and so on.

 

[aldo]

These cards were more than capable when they were the latest and greatest - in fact I bet the very same people who are complaining about them now are the ones who lauded them when they first appeared. Do pros - yes you know, people who use their Macs for work, not playing games, need uber-schnitz 3D cards ? Probably not. They are mostly just pushing pixels around just like they were last year...

And if you are really considering spending 3K on a Mac for gaming - well, you need head surgery. I've got an XBox - it cost me £150, sits under the TV, plays games online and has a wider selection of games available than the Mac. One hundred and fifty quid - that's less than one of these video cards alone.

Well nice work dip****, but a lot of desktop computer gamers like RTS games and others, which don't work on a games console. A lot of us also don't like console games.

Also, for 3K you expect the best.

 

[hayesk]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but why are all the whiners saying "one year later and this is all we get"?

Did not the first G5s only start shipping in late September? That's only nine months by my count. Ten if you count the expected July ship date.

 

[Spades]

Looks to me like you just agreed with me...

To be even more difficult the Radeon 9800XT that apple offers as a BTO takes up an extra PCI slot leaving you with only two open slots!!! I need more than two open slots!!

And like I said, is the extra speed worth the cost in space? If it's not, then the "faster" card is probably not right for you.

The nearly 3 year old Geforce Ti 4600 that Apple used to offer in the Highend is actually faster than a Geforce FX 5200. Three Years ago Mind you!!!

On my PC, my "ancient" Ti 4400 still works fine. The Ti 4600 was also one of those monstrously wasteful cards. Not as bad as newer stuff, but still...

It would be nice if Apple used a 9600 instead of the FX 5200 though.

The Radeon 9600XT is also a Joke as well, as the Newest Radeon X800 is nearly 2-4 times Faster than the 9600XT!!!. Now at the high end Apple offers us the Radeon 9800XT which is allready a year old in the PC world and is nearly an EOL product.

Again, define "faster" and see if you can justify the cost. If so, then go buy it. Also, something a year old is not an EOL product. Just because something newer comes out does not mean the older product is obsolete.

Too add insult Apple Charges a $300 upgrade fee with no credit given for your 9600XT that you are swapping out with a 9800XT. In the PC world the Radeon 9800XT can be found as low as $249.

Apple costs more. It stinks. It's OK to whine about. But it's also an old complaint.

Now that we're past the copy and paste stuff...

Also the Radeon X800 XT actually runs Cooler and requires less power than the 9800XT. The Radeon X800 XT is built on a smaller fabrication process and actually uses only one PCI slot as well. The Performance Gap is enormous as well.

So getting a 9800XT probably doesn't make sense. It might be better to skip the 9800 and get the X800 if you need to. The question is, how does it compare to the 9600?

Another point is the lack of PCI Express in the new PowerMac G5 the industry is clearly taking the PCI Express route and The G5 is still stuck with PCI-X this makes a difference down the Road. PCI Expresss also supports 16X while PCI-X AGP only supports 8X.

I don't think there is such a thing as PCI-X AGP. AGP is a different kind of bus than PCI, PCI-X, and PCI Express. PCI Express might be nice, but support for it is still minimal. I don't see any reason to say more than "would have been nice, but I'll live".

The issue with newer cards is basically this; These cards are the SUVs of video cards. They're big. They're bad. They're "cool". And they're resource hogs. They're at a point that most people really need to step back and ask themselves, "Why do I need this?" I think most people will find they don't. The 9600 is still good. It's not a Ford Explorer. It's more like a Chevy Prism. But you know what, there's plenty of people that can't reasonably justify buying more than a Prism, so they don't buy more than that. These new video cards are the same way. Can you reasonably justify buying them? I can't.