Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Releases New PowerMacs

I did it

I know this is a really weird update and I have to agree with a lot of you that what they have done to the dual 1.8 is more than strange. Putting a laptop HD in an high end working station is just beyond my comprehension. Guess they must have their reasons. But since I have been reading posts on this site and the other rumors sites for more than six months now, I decided to take the plunge and by my rev b G5. Wich one to choose ? The 1.8 is pretty useless as it is now. (By the way I use my mac for Graphic design and photo editing, RAW files etc. I work on a G3 400 mhz and 640 of ram, and my brothers 17 inch 1 Ghz laptop. My brother is going to need his for work soon so I am in desperate need of a fast machine) The 2.0 is good value but the graphic card and the RAM is not so good. ( and built to order macs are really slow to get to our small Grand-Duchy in Europe ) So I turned to the 2.5 and there it all seems to fit. It is a rather expensive machine :eek: but I think it is worth it. I will have to work overtime to justifie such an expense but I think this liquid cooled beast is just going to stand the test of time more than the others. Even more so, i think it might end up having this magic glow around its name like the sawtooth or even the cube. In a time where all manufacturers have problems ramping up their chips, apple and IBM, delivered an amazing working station. And thats what i went for.
This morning i ordered a 2.5 Ghz G5 with 1,5 gigs of ram. :D
My apple importer (only one in the whole country) told me it would take until the end of july to get here but that is a bitter sweet wait, I am willing to endure.
After that I will be in mac heaven with a peacefull smile on my face and if you look close enough you might even see a little tear in my eye.
 
dopefiend said:
Well good for the UK, Im talking about America ;)
Click to expand...

You still get it cheaper than us even at $200 more but that's not relevant I suppose. I suppose what you need to decide is if it's worth $200 more for a 200mhz increase in speed and an extra processor.
 
AL-FAMOUS said:
i work for apple and have dont for 3 years now and i hav e tested for them for 5 years....
Click to expand...


The implication of this being what, that you know what you're talking about and I know jack****?

If you do work for Apple you should be sacked and quickly because you don't understand the current products relevant market placement which means you'll be giving potential customers bad information and that makes you a liability.
 
ts1973 said:
Anyway, I don't agree at all, as Apple computers are (except for the case) made up out of exactly the same components as PC's, be it with different drivers (which cost money to develop too, I admit).
Click to expand...

Hmm. show me another PC that uses G5 chips. Two of them in fact. And the same motherboard that the Mac uses. The same ASICS and bus contollers. :rolleyes:
 
365 said:
The implication of this being what, that you know what you're talking about and I know jack****?

If you do work for Apple you should be sacked and quickly because you don't understand the current products relevant market placement which means you'll be giving potential customers bad information and that makes you a liability.
Click to expand...

i dont understand current markets???? i think its you that has no idea my friend,

like i said earlier

the best marketing would have been to put the dual 2 down to the low end and intro a 2.2

its just my opinion

thanks for the sacking im sure that will happen now that you have said that
;)

at the end of the day your correct they have improved the line but in my opinion i think steve has done the wrong thing
 
aussiemac86 said:
Just to clear something up.. is the card that is BTO on the 2.5GHz the same card that Ati just released?
Click to expand...

The 9800 PRO Mac Special Edition is not the same as the 9800 XT, if that's what you're asking, but I'm not sure what the difference is. Barefeats states that it's different, but hasn't yet had a chance to test it.
 
lovely

Now bring out those flat panles and I will be on the sunny side.
Ups I forgot I am already walking down broke lane

well for 2005 then :eek:
 
jsw said:
The 9800 PRO Mac Special Edition is not the same as the 9800 XT, if that's what you're asking, but I'm not sure what the difference is. Barefeats states that it's different, but hasn't yet had a chance to test it.
Click to expand...

XT is mainly a higher optimised 9800Pro, higher core and memory clockspeeds. On the PC side it also has the built in overdrive overclocking feature, not sure if that will feature on the Mac.
 
jragosta said:
Or maybe the simpler explanation. ATI just released the 9800 Pro cards yesterday - the same day the PowerMacs were released.

Installing a new video card requires a great deal of R&D and quality testing. Perhaps Apple just didn't have sufficient cards in time to do the testing.

As has always been the case, they will undoubtedly offer the 9800 Pro at some point - after it's been thoroughly tested.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I'm confused (likely...as a night owl, I just woke up), but the Pro is likely less powerful than the XT if it's anything like its PC brethren.
 
Bigheadache said:
XT is mainly a higher optimised 9800Pro, higher core and memory clockspeeds. On the PC side it also has the built in overdrive overclocking feature, not sure if that will feature on the Mac.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info. I was too slow typing without my glasses to see your post before I finished mine.
 
jragosta said:
There's no such thing as 'factory approved overclock'. That is a contradiction in terms.
Click to expand...

Not when one factory (say, IBM) supplies the CPUs, and then another factory (say, Apple) assembles the CPUs into whole computers, overclocks them, and then sells them fully supported with a warranty.
 
mwpeters8182 said:
Yes, the single 1.6 wasn't the greatest machine ever - but I was thinking about getting a desktop, and while slightly above my price range, I think I could have pulled it off (combo rather than superdrive). Now, with the cheapest machine at 1999, there's no way I'm getting a G5.

I may stick to my iBook and build a decent x86 PC to go with it, for 1/3 of the price.
Click to expand...

The new G5s mean that the current stocks of 1.6GHz and dual 1.8GHz G5s will be discounted to clear inventory. The older single 1.25GHz MDD G4 PowerMac is already discounted, and production has just ceased.

If you really want a 'tower' desktop Mac system (ie: you want to add extra hard and optical drives, a lot of extra RAM, upgrade graphics card, add PCI cards etc), then a run-out priced 1.6GHz or 1.8GHz G5, or even a 1.25GHz G4 PowerMac might be worth a look.

I have been using a 1.6GHz G5 PowerMac since last September (check my sig for specs) and apart from the first one being DOA (grrrr Apple QA!!!) and then having a faulty Radeon 9600 card, the system has been a solid performer. I have also owned a 1GHz Rev B 12" PowerBook and a Rev C 1.33GHz Rev C 12" PowerBook, and there is a very noticeable difference in performance between the G5 and either of the PowerBooks. On graphics and gaming, they aren't even in the same ballpark. I imagine the difference would be even more magnified with the dual 1.8GHz model.

Don't write off the older models...use this as an opportunity to scope out some nice discounted run-out pricing.
 
oingoboingo said:
Not when one factory (say, IBM) supplies the CPUs, and then another factory (say, Apple) assembles the CPUs into whole computers, overclocks them, and then sells them fully supported with a warranty.
Click to expand...

But when both Apple and IBM say that they're 2.5 GHz processors, they're not overclocked.

I realize, of course, that an unethical computer vendor could overclock chips (one of the PC vendors was caught doing that, actually). But that's not the case here. IBM stamps these chips 2.5 GHz - so they're not overclocked.
 
ts1973 said:
This is a good one : you consider Macs to be an "upper class" product only, do you.

Anyway, I don't agree at all, as Apple computers are (except for the case) made up out of exactly the same components as PC's, be it with different drivers (which cost money to develop too, I admit).

If Apple, at the current price point, doens't make any profits, they should make a proper cost analysis and restructure the company : these prices are getting too rediculous....
Click to expand...

Showing, of course, that you simply don't understand quite a few major business issues:

volume / price curves
cost of developing new products
cost of developing and maintaining an OS on relatively small customer base
cost of quality

and so on...
 
belair said:
I know this is a really weird update and I have to agree with a lot of you that what they have done to the dual 1.8 is more than strange. Putting a laptop HD in an high end working station is just beyond my comprehension.
Click to expand...


Just what the heck are you referring to? There's no laptop drive in any of the new G5s.
 
AL-FAMOUS said:
i dont understand current markets???? i think its you that has no idea my friend,

like i said earlier

the best marketing would have been to put the dual 2 down to the low end and intro a 2.2
Click to expand...

No, the best marketing move would have been to release a quad G6/4 GHz for $999.00.

Unfortunately, reality precludes that - just as it precludes all the other options being thrown around here.
 
jragosta said:
Just what the heck are you referring to? There's no laptop drive in any of the new G5s.
Click to expand...

I believe the reference was to the now relatively dimunitive capacity of 80GB for a prosumer product, not a literal reference to the actual HD.
 
aussiemac86 said:
So my point is, whilst the graphics card maybe more than adequate now, it may not be for the latest incarnation of Mac OS in 5 or 6 years time, and the fact that we are paying so much for a computer, i believe we should be getting the cutting edge graphics cards, which will be "good" for a longer period of time, instead of getting ones which are already slightly dated
Click to expand...

These systems are upgradable. You don't need to buy tomorrow's hardware today. If you're on a budget and are buying a system that has to last for awhile, you want to concentrate on buying the parts that are hard to upgrade. The video is one of the easiest things to upgrade, so you should stick with the 9600 for now. Buy your new video card in a few years, once this one starts to feel too slow. It'll be less of a financial burden, and you'll have a better video card in the end.

As for what to look at first...the motherboard is probably the hardest one to replace. I might go for the 8 Gig/PCI-X board over the PCI board. After that go for the faster CPUs. But no matter what, do get at least 512 MB of RAM.
 
jsw said:
I believe the reference was to the now relatively dimunitive capacity of 80GB for a prosumer product, not a literal reference to the actual HD.
Click to expand...

Then people should learn to say what they mean.

80 GB is a quite useful hard drive size for many people.

Keep in mind that for most professional users, you're going to store most of your data on the server and not on your computer. If you're storing data on the server, 80GB is way more than enough.
 
Mav451 said:
On the money, my friend. Especially liquid cooling. I know, many of you don't think that its overclocked, but this is something, that I would called factory "approved" overclock.
Click to expand...

I think a more accurate description is simply that the system as a whole is designed to run at 2.5GHz (and thus the system is not "overclocked"). However, it may be possible that Apple is running the processor beyond its originally targeted speed (and if that is true you could call it processor "overclocking").

In any case, if Apple has designed a rock-solid system than runs at 2.5GHz then the question is largely moot.
 
aussiemac86 said:
A lot of people are saying that people will not need a better graphics card than the ones on offer, unless they want to play games, and then a console is better and cheaper. This is a very valid point, but consider my (perhaps slightly unusual) situation, as a gift from my parents for doing well at school and getting into Uni i can have a powermac of my choosing, and whilst i would not nearly use a top end PM to its full potential ( web, a bit of light video editing and the occasional game) i want that computer to be able to adequately run Mac OS, and other fairly basic apps in like 5 years time, whatever version we are up to by then (XII???? :p ) So my point is, whilst the graphics card maybe more than adequate now, it may not be for the latest incarnation of Mac OS in 5 or 6 years time, and the fact that we are paying so much for a computer, i believe we should be getting the cutting edge graphics cards, which will be "good" for a longer period of time, instead of getting ones which are already slightly dated


end of rant :)
Click to expand...


Then buy the 9600 today - which is vastly more powerful than you need and buy 2005's new card (which will be vastly more powerful than anything you can buy today) for $99 in 2007.

Video cards are easy to replace. Since there's no way you need any more than what's in the machine today (and probably won't for the entire 5-6 years you keep the computer), just plan on upgrading the video IF you ever need to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back