Apple Releases New PowerMacs

[delete]

From what I can tell only the increase in the CD/DVD writer. Faster unit. Maybe fan noises/chirping that I read about have been addressed?

With the MacMall promotion how do the give you the gig? 2-512's? If they broke it up into smaller units it would really start to take up slots quickly.

Ignoring the issue of how good the new update is...

I need a machine now. Period. The question is which one? The 2.0 seems to be in the sweet spot.

Which is better? The new 2.0 or the old 2.0? They both now cost the same... But you can get a bunch of freebies with the old one (+1gb ram from macmall, etc.)

The new one has a slightly lesser video card (5200) vs. the old ones 9600.
The new one has an 8x superdrive.

What other differences are there?

Thanks!

 

[senseibiz]

I've been s-o-o-o patient for such a long time and now it's here, finally. I placed my order for a G5 2.5ghz model this morning shortly after the Apple dealer opened his doors.

It'll be July before I see it, but what's a month compared to what we've been going through?

Anyone who thinks this upgrade is "nothing", well that's OK. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I am going to enjoy my new Mac!

Congratulations. This is a great machine........

 

[Titian]

That's a rather silly statement. The overwhelming majority of Apple's revenues are still from computer sales.

And much of what they sell outside of computers (iPod, iTunes) isn't very profitable, anyway.

I just want to remember that revenues is not the important figure. Earning is much more important. Strange enough Apple has presented great unexpected quater results after the introduction of the ipods. Do you think that comes from the computer sales? Since the prices of computers fell down the companies and also the dealers do not earn much with the computer sales. A dealer near Los Angeles told me that he earns more when selling 6 cables then selling one powermac.

I believe the margin that Apple has on iPods is much higher than with a imac or powermac otherwise such quater results can not be explained.
Of course they will go on with the computer business but they are realizing that to diversify can have a lot of advantages if well done.

 

[rog]

These new 2.5DP machines aren't even shipping till Mid july.

Which of course for Apple means the end of October in volume. I expect even at the end of the year, 2.5GHz will still be the top of the line, a whopping 16% speed increase 18 months after the 2.0 was announced.

 

[invaLPsion]

To All those who are whining

1. Apple is a company, and they are trying to put forth the best product they can muster to the consumers.

2. Apple takes no pride in not making the 3GHz promise.

3. Apple is not in business to impress whiners like you, they are in business to sell computers.

 

[ltgator333]

Pmacs

I am disappointed. The big thing that really gets me though is a Radeon 9600?????? hello what about a 9800??? As for 2.5Ghz, that's really not too bad, I think the performance at this point hinges upon whether or not Apple has rectified the issues with their chipset, such as the 1394b controller, and all-around lackluster performance of the various busses and interconnects on the board. I suppose the way to look at that is hey- AMD's top chip is at 2.4Ghz right now....
As for IBM, being I am really pulling for them being a Mac performance enthusiast, and also loving it when AMD chips kick the crap out of Intel chips and IBM is fabbing Apple's and AMD's chips, I have lost some confidence in IBM. When this all got started with the G5 I was quite interested and when IBM was talking about 65nm fabs I believed we'd probably be looking at those in late 2005 from IBM.. now I think it's more likely that early 2005 is when they'll finally have acceptable yeilds off they're 90nm process.....

 

[adamjay]

i dont know if anyone has mentioned it, but i noticed that downgrading to a Combo Drive on these machines only deducts $100 instead of the $200 it used to.



weak.


i'll be looking for G5 iMac's now (though its unlikely), i'd rather have a single CPU and a 20" LCD built on, than pay $$ for these crap-ass updates.

 

[Lancetx]

Which of course for Apple means the end of October in volume. I expect even at the end of the year, 2.5GHz will still be the top of the line, a whopping 16% speed increase 18 months after the 2.0 was announced.

That would be a 25% increase in less than 12 months since the Dual 2.0 didn't ship till late September last year and this one is shipping in July. I don't see Intel having done that in the past year either...

 

[rog]

For me, this is a nice update - I should be able to afford a dual 1.8, which will carry me and my photography well into 3 years.

The video card bump for the 1.8 is only 100.00 - nice.

I'm not sure why people are having such an issue with the dual 2.5

- The thing is liquid freaking cooled - how awesome is that?

- It's a nice 25% bump with a 1.25 GHz FSB

Basically, we're back in the thick with AMD and Intel again. For most consumers (and prosumers), the 2.5 will do things beyond what they can throw at it.

When is this thing going to support storage like the G4 Tower? Still only two ATA bays.

I think anyone who has been waiting for a revision B and continues to wait around is insane. Go buy something else.

$100 to go from one junky outdated when it came out a year ago video card to another is not "nice"

Liquid cooling is not cool. It means the 90nm G5 has serious heat problems and won't be in a portable. And it still has the 9 fans and a case that is essenitally one big vent.

It's a 25% clock speed jump. Overall system performance will be on the scale of 10%, with pure processor function up about 16%. In other words, slower % increases than even the G4 for the first 18 months they were in Powermacs, and those were dark days. These days are even darker.

 

[rog]

1. Apple is a company, and they are trying to put forth the best product they can muster to the consumers.

2. Apple takes no pride in not making the 3GHz promise.

3. Apple is not in business to impress whiners like you, they are in business to sell computers.

Yes, but in business you underpromise and overdeliver to keep people happy. Instead, Apple always does the reverse!

 

[eazyway]

wrong

Well I guess if you bought a Dual 2.0GHz last year there's no reason for you to feel the slightest bit outdated today!

So they just added one new model, wow...that took a year?

Not quite correct as the new 2.0 2GHz is better chip than the old 2.0 2GHz machine because of the new chip.

They should have added the comparison to the old 2GHz machine.

 

[rog]

That would be a 25% increase in less than 12 months since the Dual 2.0 didn't ship till late September last year and this one is shipping in July. I don't see Intel having done that in the past year either...

I am talking about processor performance which is what Apple's own benchmarks show. I'm not talking about Intel. They had many years of huge gains and have slowed down in the past 18 months. Apple had minimal gains for years, has actually increased tower prices, and this update does nothing to make up the gap. For a pro who depends on maxing out the processors, the new high is still a great machine, but just not good enough to blow away the competition, which is becoming more about AMD rather than intel.

 

[iGary]

$100 to go from one junky outdated when it came out a year ago video card to another is not "nice"

Liquid cooling is not cool. It means the 90nm G5 has serious heat problems and won't be in a portable. And it still has the 9 fans and a case that is essenitally one big vent.

It's a 25% clock speed jump. Overall system performance will be on the scale of 10%, with pure processor function up about 16%. In other words, slower % increases than even the G4 for the first 18 months they were in Powermacs, and those were dark days. These days are even darker.

So don't buy one - it's that easy!

 

[DGFan]

I know the Anandtech benchmarks only pay attention to games but I think the numbers would scale in a simialar fashion when comparing to something like Cinebench

My point is that Apple should simply offer more in the stock configurations. All models could have been equiped with the 9600XT 128MB as stock with the 9800XT 256MB available as BTO. but a NV 5200? the same card that the imac has been equiped with for the past 9 months? Even the PowerBooks have it better.

I'll never trust benchmarks from NVidia and ATI. There's been too much hanky-panky there lately. I know it sucks but for the last 3+ years it's simply been a fact of life that video cards take a while to get to the Mac. For that reason it's just not fair to compare the low end Mac to the high end PC when it comes to video cards.

Stock configurations only matter for people walking into an Apple store and buying a computer there. And I would be willing to bet that most of those people aren't pro graphics users. Everyone else can order one online and get whatever card is offered via BTO. I mean, if you *can* order a particular card, why do you care whether it shows up on the first screen or not? That's just such a prima donna attitude IMO.

 

[DGFan]

Which of course for Apple means the end of October in volume. I expect even at the end of the year, 2.5GHz will still be the top of the line, a whopping 16% speed increase 18 months after the 2.0 was announced.

Nothing like a good whine based on what you *think* will happen, eh?

 

[rog]

So don't buy one - it's that easy!

I agree, and I won't be. But many others will reach the same conclusion, and market share will continue to slide. That's the real reason I'm so upset. Other than the DP 2.5, nothing in the entire Apple lineup is particularly impressive. The $800 emac is not a horrible deal I guess. Everything else, overpriced and too slow to draw in new customers.

 

[Borg3of5]

Quite interesting

Judging from the posts and threads that have appeared in the past 6 months on Macrumors, it seems to me that a lot of people got a huge wake-up call this morning/afternoon. Sure, SJ said 3.0 GHz within a year, BUT things happen; we just have to be adults about it, no need to whine: 3.0 will come eventually.

As for the "sweet spot", it's become a little difficult to decide. Hmm...:

• Dual 1.8 $1,999 ($1,799 Educational discount)
• Dual 2.0 $2,499 ($2,299 Educational discount)

2 x 1.8 GHz max. RAM = 4 GB + Std. 80 GB HD (<80 than first iteration)
2 x 2.0 GHz max. RAM = 8 GB + Std 160 GB HD (same as first iteration)

If we order a custom-ordered a Dual 1.8 adding:

• Upgrade to 1 GB of RAM ($202)
• Upgrade to 160 GB HD ($90)
• Subtract 56K modem (-$26)
• Possibility of upgrading vid. card to ATI 9600 ($+45)

Total price should be, AFTER educational discount $2,110.

S W E E T !

 

[invaLPsion]

Yes, but in business you underpromise and overdeliver to keep people happy. Instead, Apple always does the reverse!

It's because they have a monopoly on the best operating system in the world.

And this time, it's not Apple's fault for underdelivering, it's IBMs, and I wouldn't call a dual 2.5 underdelivering...

 

[iPC]

Yes, but in business you underpromise and overdeliver to keep people happy. Instead, Apple always does the reverse!

Here here!

That, and Apple is in the iPod and iTMS business now... not so much the computer business.

 

[KeareB]

Scalability of G5 ???

a 25% clock speed jump. Overall system performance will be on the scale of 10%, with pure processor function up about 16%. In other words, slower % increases than even the G4 for the first 18 months they were in Powermacs, and those were dark days. These days are even darker.

This scalability problem is exactly what puzzles / concerns me most:

2.5 vs. 2.0 = 25%+ clock speed ==> 9%+ performance increase on Photoshop test performed by Apple.

2.0 vs. 1.8 - 11%+ clock speed ==> 10%+ performance increase on same test.

... so what's going on, and what does the future hold? I know this isn't the only test, but it is the first one on Apple's website, and it's a reasonable one.

Does this prove that the 970 is tapped out, and that the next performance increases will require a new processor (Power5 - 975 / 980 / whatever) ????

 

[Mac2004]

Please help me make my final decision!!!

I am very confused here....

I don't want to spend the money for a 2.5 but I'm interested in either the 1.8 or 2.0 system.

Which one should I buy and what are the major changes from the old systems? This is where I'm confused. Is the processor the same?

It sounds to me like the new 2.0 system is the best deal now? Am I correct?

Some posters have stated that the old 2.0 is a better deal than the new one. Is this correct or not?

Do I buy a new sysytem with the old display today or not? I wish they would have release the displays on the same day. I have no idea what to do if I buy today.

Please help me make my decision!!

 

[Rower_CPU]

Yes, but in business you underpromise and overdeliver to keep people happy. Instead, Apple always does the reverse!

I can't think of other times that Apple has overpromised - Steve's infmaous 3GHz quote is an extreme rarity for him, since he almost never divulges future plans.

Yes, they've had issues with getting shipping ramped up and product shortages, but I don't see that as a chronic problem with overpromising/underdelivering.

 

[jocknerd]

It's because they have a monopoly on the best operating system in the world.

And this time, it's not Apple's fault for underdelivering, it's IBMs, and I wouldn't call a dual 2.5 underdelivering...

Actually it is Apple's fault for undelivering. 2.5 ghz is fast. No its not 3.0 but its still fast. Apple has undelivered because the machines are basically the same as one year ago. The dual 1.8 is actually not as good as the 1.8 introduced last November. The dual 2.0 has been downgraded from the dual 2.0 introduced last year because of the weaker video card.

Maybe Apple planned on new PowerMacs with the 3Ghz processors. And since they weren't ready, Apple is stuck with these. But come on Apple, at least give us the ATI 9600 standard and 512 MB of memory.

Its apparent that Apple hasn't spent much time on the PowerMacs since they were introduced last summer. I guess all of their time went into iTunes and the iPod. It's good to see where Apple's priorities have been.

Apple: The greatest software company in the world. Unfortunately, they still think they are a hardware company.

 

[pjkelnhofer]

The problem with video cards in the G5. Okay. Lets pretend you buy a dual 1.8Ghz machine with the 5200ultra with 64MB RAM. Thats fine if you never want to run high end games/graphic applications.

I hate to tell you this but gamers are a nothing but an afterthought to Apple. It is not the market they are going after at all, nor is it a market they are going to win until ATI and nVidia start making products for the Mac platform first again.

I disagree about most graphic applications, FCP and Photoshop do not tax GPU's nearly as much as games do, and will run just fine with 5200.

 

[LaMerVipere]

The Service Manual Photos Seem To Have Been Accurate...

3. The photo was a fake more likely.

4. The processor is a 90nm G5 as stated in the press release and specs on Apple's site.

I don't think that the photos from the service manual was fake. If you look at ultra-close ups from the press shots of the new G5 from the side, you can see that the heatsink for the new liquid cooled dual 2.5GHz G5 is actually one large heatsink/cover, with an indented line going almost all the way across it through the middle, but not dividing it equally into two seperate parts two. (Check the image below for what I mean)

Also, there were what looked to be some sort of metal connector/hole, if you will, in front of the heatsink, which is probably used to hold the remaning fans still needed.

The only thing that was in the service manual photos which aren't in the new high-end G5 is the green motherboard and vertical ram slots.