Apple Releases New PowerMacs

[Asapin]

IBM underdelivered. They were most likely unable to produce a working 3ghz part or produced a 3ghz part, but it would have taken 10 extra fans + watercooling to operate. There are limitations in the current manufacturing technology. Apple can't do anything about that.

 

[Frobozz]

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.

This is actually a 25% speed increase in 11 months.

 

[brykken]

Got mine this morning at 9:00EST. Too bad about the July ship date.. it actually says it will ship on or before 8/02. I hope it's much sooner. 😀

 

[littlejim]

My question is -

Being a worrier, I've waited for 'Rev B' machines so problems can be sorted out, and now I really want to get the 2.5 machine.

However, should I be worried about this 'Rev A' water cooling system? How prone to teething troubles is this going to be ... am I going to wake up one morning with my new G5 looking like the the volcano outside the Las Vegas Mirage?
🙂

 

[rog]

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...

Huh? If you say a 50% increase in a year, and you deliver 25%, that by definition is underdelivering.

 

[MhzDoesMatter]

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 before 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.

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.

What's apparent is that you're more than willing to take your superficial observations and create the most assanine assumptions and post them to an internet message board like you're the voice of truth. You have not actually made a case for you statements and instead are overflowing with the same h alf-with imflamatory rhetoric that everyone else is. However, it's clear we should just let you all complain this one off. Hopefully, if you all continue this trend of "not buying" each revision, you'll forget why you liked macs and stop coming around these boards. So right on, my friend. Hunger strike until 4Ghz!!!


-Hertz

 

[ij3ffy]

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.

Well... sure photoshop will run fine. But what about apps like Maya? From alias' web site:
At a minimum, Maya requires a system with:
Intel® Pentium® II or higher,
AMD Athlon™ processor,
Macintosh® G4 or G5
512 MB RAM
CD-ROM Drive
<b>Hardware-Accelerated OpenGL® graphics card</b>
3-button mouse with mouse driver software
450 MB of hard disk space

Or Apple's new "Motion" app. Its requirements;
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

<b>Recommended system</b>
Dual 2GHz Power Mac G5
2GB of RAM or more
Mac OS X v10.3.3 or later
</b>ATI Radeon 9800 Pro graphics card or better</b>

As you can see, Better graphic cards in these applications will perform much better, expecially at higher resolutions. A G5 system released this month, should not have what now is "Bare minimum" hardware to run these applications.

 

[afields]

Same ol' apple

I guess I can some this up in one word....meh.

Not horrible, not very good either. I feel bad for the people following the rumors since january, to find a speed bump only at the top end and 8x superdrive. Hell, emac has 8x superdrive, thats a given. No one is bothered that bluetooth isn't standard? As far as the video card complaints, yeah the standard cards are probably fine for 90% of the people. The point is, you expect more from a high end machine. especially with almost a year since the announcement, I was at least expecting a price drop.

As for the people saying "quit whining", I believe most of this is constructive criticism, and apple deserves it.

All I can say is tiger better be the sh*t, I hope to be blown away by a new Imac g5. 🙁

 

[ratspg]

crap haha

i just bought the old dual 1.8 instead for the same price, its better..... thanks for the announcment, created a nice discount 🙂

 

[jocknerd]

What's apparent is that you're more than willing to take your superficial observations and create the most assanine assumptions and post them to an internet message board like you're the voice of truth. You have not actually made a case for you statements and instead are overflowing with the same h alf-with imflamatory rhetoric that everyone else is. However, it's clear we should just let you all complain this one off. Hopefully, if you all continue this trend of "not buying" each revision, you'll forget why you liked macs and stop coming around these boards. So right on, my friend. Hunger strike until 4Ghz!!!


-Hertz

I guess we are all wrong and you are right then. Let me make my case then.

November 2003
Dual 1.8ghz processor G5. Maximum memory = 8 GB
Standard memory = 512 MB
Standard hard drive = 160 GB

June 2004
Dual 1.8ghz processor G5. Maximum memory = 4 GB
Standard memory = 256 MB
Standard hard drive = 80 GB

Sounds like a downgrade to me.

June 2003
Dual 2.0ghz processor G5. Standard video = ATI 9600

June 2004
Dual 2.0ghz processor G5. Standard vidoe = Nvidia fx5200

Sounds like a downgrade to me.

There. The truth has spoken.

 

[jasonbw]

I don't see the point for dual layer at this point when, media won't be aviable till at the earliest late 3rd quarter, there will prolly be a update around christmas and then we may see dual layer and actually be able to use them.

-neal

i was at best buy yesterday, they had dvd-dl+r discs on the shelves. You had to buy then in multipacs with 6 single layer discs, but they were there.

I'm disappointed, but honestly rev b's are supposed to be speed bumps only anyway. seeing an all dual lineup is great, but the fact that the cheapest a non-educational customer can get a new g5 is $2k just seems a big mistake. Apple really needs a $1500 entry level expandable g5.

heres my thought. the 1.6 single g5 was $1800? slap a 2.0 chip and a radeon 9600 in there and sell it for about the same price, im thinking even less (1600-1700). that would sell. next step up is the dual 1.8, then they should have a 2.1 and then the 2.5. it'd be a nice even slope and wouldn't leave anyone out of the market that would consider a pro mac in the first place.

 

[jragosta]

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) ????

No - it simply shows what most people already know - CPU speed isn't everything. For a slower CPU, the memory and video systems can keep up easily, so you're measuring CPU performance. As the CPU becomes faster, things like hard disk access, video card, and so on become more of a bottleneck.

 

[ErikT]

Suggestion

I purchased a refurb. DUAL2.0 Monday... like an idiot. I figured if the prices dropped, than it would be a little easier to swallow if I didn't pay full price. I didn't expect prices to drop two days after I ordered! I wish I had found these forums earlier!

Cost to me was $2399.00 - 75$ -> 2324.00

Now duals are $2499 with crappier video, $2599 with ATI Pro.

I should be getting the boxes delivered sometime Friday.

I can RMA this back and do one of the following:

1) New 2.0 DUAL -> $2499
2) New 2.5 DUAL -> $2999
3) Wait for a new refurb.

I've heard that 2.5s will take up to a month to get once ordered... is this true? If so, I really don't want to wait that long.

I've heard that refurbs are pretty much indistinquishable from a new machine.

The apple store is no longer selling refurbs at the moment, just old stock for the same price as the current machines. They won't give me price protection either... they don't offer refurb 2.0 rev. A's or are just saying that they now cost $2499 as well.

I wonder what refurb prices will really be on 2.0 duals, 2.5 duals in the next few months, probably something like 2399 2.5 dual, 1999 2.0 dual?

Can I hear suggestions please? What would you do?

Time to bail?

 

[ratspg]

im soo happy

why would someone buy a dual 1.8 g5? with 1/2 the hard drive space(80gb instead of 160), 1/2 the ram capacity (4gb instead of 8gb), 1/2 the actual ram it comes with (256mb), and crappier PCI's (PCI, instead of PCI-X) , and what do u get in exchange of all that? oooh la la an 8x superdrive... thats crap.. im soo happy i bought the older dual 1.8 g5

 

[jragosta]

95% of consumer applications are not even MP aware save a few Quake3 engine games. There just isn't a need for dual processor P4s or A64s since the pros, whose programs are MP aware, generally use Opterons or Xenons.

Yet another Mac advantage.

The overwhelming majority of Mac apps are MP-aware. The entire MS Office suite, VPC, almost every graphics application, and a number of key games come to mind right away.

Then, add in the way that OS X handles threads and virtually any multithreaded app gets a speed gain (like MT newswatcher).

 

[iGary]

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.

I don't think you can really gauge the conclusions of a consumer or prosumer market as easy as that. You have to keep in mind that most of the folks who use this and other rumor sites are tech geeks (me included).

I agree the lineup has some "weak" spots:

The iMac line is stale - We all believe these will receive G5 chips soon. That will make for an impressive consumer desktop.

Powerbooks are still using the G4 chip (and will for some time). seems like an expensive machine for such a "low tech" processor.

With that said:

The emac is a freaking bargain - an all in one with a 1.25 G4

The iBooks are an awesome consumer laptop - you can't beat the price for what you get proc wise.

The G5 is right up there with Intel and AMD now - the main gripe seems to be from people who aren't even in the market for one. I don't hear many top-end pros bitching about the dual 2.5 aside from the video card side.

So, once the iMac goes G5, I only see a couple of weak spots. I will most likely be purchasing the Dual 1.8 in a month or two - it is perfect for my post processing work in Photoshop. I cannot imagine there are not more people out there like me.

If someone (all the people who have been screaming for revision B's) needs a machine, why not buy it now? If Apple doesn't make that machine (or you don't want a Wintel machine) keep sitting on your hands.


My two cents. Can't wait to get my G5. They will sell a TON of the Dual 1.8 configuration.

I wasn't even considering a revision B and here I am buying one now...I can't be the only one.

 

[jragosta]

why would someone buy a dual 1.8 g5? with 1/2 the hard drive space(80gb instead of 160), 1/2 the ram capacity (4gb instead of 8gb), 1/2 the actual ram it comes with (256mb), and crappier PCI's (PCI, instead of PCI-X) , and what do u get in exchange of all that? oooh la la an 8x superdrive... thats crap.. im soo happy i bought the older dual 1.8 g5

And a $500 cost savings. Even after you increase the RAM and hard disk to the same size as the dual 2.0, it's still $350 less. So, for $350 less, you get 90% of the CPU speed (and probably 95% of the real world performance).

PCI vs PCI-X is a complete non-issue for most consumers.

 

[jsw]

Do not be so Condenscending to Gamers!! It is the Gaming Arena that keeps Speed increases going in the PC world and that is one of the main Reason why the Mac's Market share is so small. Think about it this way all those college students out their who need a computer for both work and at the same time are still heavily involved in gaming, what do you think they wind up buying? That choice of PC over mac often sticks once these students become professionals, the Macs Gaming woes are much more detrimental than many would like to realize. True the Mac will never be equal to the PC for Games but having as much as possible going for the Mac platform in regards to Games does not hurt either!!

Sorry for the reply delay - meetings....

I'm not disputing that it would be a great if Macs had better gaming capabilities. However, capabilities do not translate into games. There are more and better games and cards for PCs because there are vastly more PCs. Unless that equation changes, it doesn't matter how good a gaming machine the Mac is. The games will always come out first for the PC and often only for the PC.

I'm not particularly bothered by the low Mac market share. It keeps viruses, worms, etc. down substantially. Fewer script kiddies with Macs means fewer annoying problems for Macs (not none, but substantially fewer).

On the other hand, although Apple has a relatively meager market share, they sell more than enough machines to be profitable and to keep OS X going.

As a user, I am mostly interested in advances in the OS and secondarily interested in hardware. As long as the hardware is good enough to be effectively invisible to me, I don't care if it's state of the art or not. I use AppleScript extensively. I use cron and other UNIX-y things extensively. I develop with Java. A lack of state-of-the-art games doesn't bother me.

I understand the argument that college kids using PCs will lead to professionals using PCs. However, that's already taken place. I don't see things getting much worse.

So, for now, I still say that gamers should buy PCs. For things like Civ and WC III and Halo, the Mac is fine. But most games are better or only available on the PC.

For me, the hardware exists only so I can better use the OS and the apps that run on that OS. Many PC owners care more about the hardware because they often completely hide the OS with games, etc. For me, the OS is often extensively involved with my work.

That said, I do think it would be a wonderful idea to make the iMac-level Macs better graphically than they are now, because that's more what most college kids would buy (if they buy a Mac at all).

 

[Frobozz]

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) ????

It does appear that the 2.0 offers the best performance to price ratio after all. The clock speed increase is 25% and it does seem Rog is right about an average of ~16% increase in speed. Some of the tests showed a 16% increase per processor (~32%.)

Hmmmm.

Maybe the dual 2.0 is the one to get? Nah. I think I'll get a PowerBook and wait for the 3.0 to replace my dual 1GHz Quicksilver.

Personally, I think fast hard drives make a bigger difference these days than the Processor speed.

I agree the Gfx cards are TERRIBLE. The 9800xt should be standard. Sorry Apple, but that is cr*p and you _have_ to know it!

 

[jocknerd]

The iBooks are an awesome consumer laptop - you can't beat the price for what you get proc wise.

Lets just hope the new G4 ones don't break down like the G3's. My iBook got sent back to Apple last week for the 2nd time to have its motherboard replaced.

 

[adamjay]

why would someone buy a dual 1.8 g5? with 1/2 the hard drive space(80gb instead of 160), 1/2 the ram capacity (4gb instead of 8gb), 1/2 the actual ram it comes with (256mb), and crappier PCI's (PCI, instead of PCI-X) , and what do u get in exchange of all that? oooh la la an 8x superdrive... thats crap.. im soo happy i bought the older dual 1.8 g5

this is why someone (like me) would buy a new dual 1.8ghz G5

well, it IS $500 less now.
bumping it up to 160gb ($100) amd 512mb ($75) (even with apple's bloated ram prices)
would cost only another $175 total. Or heck, for the same price of upgrading to 160GB, you could buy a new Maxtor SATA 160GB for $91 to give you 200GB total. 4GB of ram is plenty for me, and since the G5's have digital s/pdif optical audio output, i have no need for a PCI-X slot (or pci for that matter). and as you mentioned twice as fast SuperDrive.

that said, i am kinda disappointed in these upgrades, my hopes were higher. and if i had to choose between the old 1.8 dual G5 (that was $1999 Refurbished, yesterday). and this new one, i would obviously go with the refurbished older model. On the other hand, in a month or two, i expect to see the current model on apple's refurbished page for $1599.

 

[jsw]

Gaming helps the Mac community. Support Mac gaming.

Agreed, completely!

I've bought a couple hundred dollars' worth of Mac games in the past year (Halo, WCIII, Civ III, Call of Duty, etc.). I also support Ambosia (SnapZ Pro X, etc.), OmniGroup, and other smaller developers of games and applications.

I agree that we need to support the gaming community (and Mac developers in general, lest all software come from Apple). I just don't think that we should expect the "latest and greatest" games on the Mac, simply because we're so outnumbered. I'm happy with the games I have, and happy with the performance. I just realize that the PC experience must be overwhelmingly better for so many posters to argue that the graphics cards are so terrible. Honestly, the 9600 has been fine for me.

 

[DGFan]

I guess we are all wrong and you are right then. Let me make my case then.

November 2003
Dual 1.8ghz processor G5. Maximum memory = 8 GB
Standard memory = 512 MB
Standard hard drive = 160 GB

June 2004
Dual 1.8ghz processor G5. Maximum memory = 4 GB
Standard memory = 256 MB
Standard hard drive = 80 GB

Sounds like a downgrade to me.

June 2003
Dual 2.0ghz processor G5. Standard video = ATI 9600

June 2004
Dual 2.0ghz processor G5. Standard vidoe = Nvidia fx5200

Sounds like a downgrade to me.

There. The truth has spoken.

You're looking at it in the wrong terms. The absolute comparison factor is money. What could I get for my money then vs what can I get for my money now.

Only a fool would point out that a system is now $500 cheaper but is "downgraded" because one component costing $50 has been removed while another (Superdrive) has been upgrade.

Sure, whatever. Sounds like you're just bitter and looking for reasons to justify it.

 

[wdlove]

So today Steve has announced Rev. B. As of now I'm a little ambivalent. Very excited that the Rev. B is available. The water cooled 2.5 sounds really neat. Just a little disappointed that Steve's goal wasn't met. Although he could surprise us with 3.0 by summer's end. I will assume that he doesn't want to announce something that he can't deliver fairly soon.

 

[fpnc]

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...

You seem to be assuming that the picture is of the dual 2.5GHz system. How do you know that? The pictures on Apple's site could just be for the dual 1.8/2.0 GHz systems.

In any case, if these are pictures of the 2.5GHz system then it pretty much PROVES that the images posted on AppleInsider were completely fake (different motherboard, different layout of the USB/Firewire cable, etc.). Frankly, that would not bother me, since I seemed to be one of the very few who provided reasoned arguments as to why the pictures published on AI should not be trusted. However, I'm not yet ready to claim final "victory" in that debate. I'm waiting until we see images that are verified to be from the water-cooled, 2.5GHz system. Perhaps those will resemble the images posted on AI.

On a second point, I'm not certain that anyone should be assuming that the 1.8/2.0 GHz systems are using the 970fx (IBM's 90nm fab). In particular, it's possible that the dual 2.0GHz system is using the exact same motherboard and chip set as last year's model.