macsrus said:
Cool enought, I believe you ... not really because we hear this crap so often... but anyways welcome to MacRumors, the best site on the web!
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Releases New PowerMacs
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Cool enought, I believe you ... not really because we hear this crap so often... but anyways welcome to MacRumors, the best site on the web!
(num chips*speed)/cost= mhz/$
(2*2500)/3000=1.6mhz a dollar
(2*2000)/2500=1.6mhz a dollar
(2*1800)/2000=1.8mhz a dollar
This just has the processor speeds in mind. If you add in the video upgrades and ram upgrade the dual 2.5 is actually the best deal.
Please someone correct my math. I want to by a cheeper one, but this comp will have to last me a while, so I need the best for the $.
Also, this will be my frist mac, what should I get.
VGJ
(2*2500)/3000=1.6mhz a dollar
(2*2000)/2500=1.6mhz a dollar
(2*1800)/2000=1.8mhz a dollar
This just has the processor speeds in mind. If you add in the video upgrades and ram upgrade the dual 2.5 is actually the best deal.
Please someone correct my math. I want to by a cheeper one, but this comp will have to last me a while, so I need the best for the $.
Also, this will be my frist mac, what should I get.
VGJ
macsrus said:
Yawn.
Another newbie post right before a big mac convention, with yet more unconfirmable rumors about processors. Sorry if you happen to have a real source there, macsrus, but we've seen this an awful lot and it gets a bit old.
Sure, it makes sense that the 90nm parts are probably in limited quantity, but there's something working against you there. Why would Apple ship a system they know they're going to sell quite a few of, wich is also a much higher volume than the machine that you're saying gets the mid-level chip because of quantity? Would you honestly think that IBM gets more 2.5ghz parts than 2.3ghz parts? That doesn't really make much sense at all, really.
If they could get enough 2.5GHz 90nm, then sure they could get enough 2.3GHz 90nm, which would enable them to be in the PM's, but they aren't...........
PowerMacMan said:
It hasnt been proved yet that the 2.5s are 90nm......
They could be overclocked 130nm..... Maybe thats why Apple had to go to a liquid cooling system for the PM
Also I know for a fact that the 2.3 GHZ CPU has built in thermal throttling capability(i.e. The CPU can slow its clock during overheat conditions)
And the 2.5 doesnt have thermal control.... therefore it leads one to believe that these CPUs dont both come from the FISHKILL NY plant
macsrus said:
Or, you know, it could have something to do with physics and shrunken die size. As I posted earlier today, if the heat for the push to 2.5ghz on 90nm is even merely equal to the 130nm at 2.0ghz, then you end up with greater needs for cooling. The 130nm part has a cooling ratio of something like 0.8 watts per mm^2, as compared to the 0.4 watts per mm^2 of the 90nm at the same clock. The shift I hypothesized above would bring the requirements back to 0.8 watts per mm^2, but without the same amount of space to dissipate the heat.
All 90nm 970FX chips have PowerTune, which is a power throttling implementation that has to do with conserving power, not temperature, and has nothing to do with overheating. I smell at least partial BS.
IBM manufacturs the G5 on the 300mm line at Fishkill, New York.
MacEyeDoc said:
Read up on stuff- Just because it's liquid does not mean it's conductive. Why do people have this silly assumption stuck in their heads? Do you know there are PC geeks out there that run PC motherboards SUBMERGED in liquid? Do you know that the fuel pump in your fuel injected car sits submerged in gas with + and - power leads exposed also submerged in gasoline.
MacEyeDoc said:
There are plenty of "coolants" that last 5+ years in the worst conditions. You will NOT have to service your computer.
MacEyeDoc said:
I think they knew there would be plenty of people wining about this and tested things well enough. I find that liquid cooling these new machines is a fantastic step forward! It's much better than continuing to make bigger and bigger heat sinks which may or may not be cut out for the processors to come. MacEyeDoc, Im not trying to pick on you, but way too many people have this weird concept that this is some frankenstein water and electricity monster that's going to set computers on fire or something...
Lets think positively and logically.
macsrus said:
Ahh i thought it had now been firmly established that they are all 90nm procs in the Rev B's
-im sure i will be corrected if wrong
PowerMacMan said:Well this is just for the Xserve, correct? They aren't going to update the PowerMac line-up with a 2.3GHz, seems weird that they wouldn't have put that in in the recent upgrade
I'm not supporting the WWDC statement, but I said before the new PMs and still believe apple needs to differentiate its PMs. 2.0, 2.3 and 2.5 at $2000, $2500 and $3000 would be too close, they want to push people up the price range as I'm sure they make more profit on the higher machines (although the water cooling unit maybe have changed this in this rev.) By going 1.8 with the specced down motherboard, HD and ram, they have managed to distance it a bit further from the 2.0. As most people seemed to think the old 1.8 was the better deal vs the old 2.0, I believe the $500 price difference has remained constant between the revs. The 2.5 is also sufficiently better than the 2.0 to warrant the extra $500.
Sure we think 2.0, 2.3 and 2.5 would be better but then a lot of us would buy the 2.3. So I don't think the lack of 2.3 GHz in a PM means there won't be a 2.3GHz xServe, however the reasoning certainly does not provide any support to the new xServe.
I think this new release is great news!
It gives me plenty of time to keep saving more for when they release
something actually worth $3000.
The video card situation is just plain pitiful across the board
This confirms my belief that Apple just gets the table scraps
from ATI and Nvidia because the priority in graphics hardware goes to
the one's moving the most gear.
Either that or the Apple graphics card team just never bothers to keep current on what's available.
It gives me plenty of time to keep saving more for when they release
something actually worth $3000.
The video card situation is just plain pitiful across the board
This confirms my belief that Apple just gets the table scraps
from ATI and Nvidia because the priority in graphics hardware goes to
the one's moving the most gear.
Either that or the Apple graphics card team just never bothers to keep current on what's available.
neonart said:Read up on stuff- Just because it's liquid does not mean it's conductive. Why do people have this silly assumption stuck in their heads? Do you know there are PC geeks out there that run PC motherboards SUBMERGED in liquid? Do you know that the fuel pump in your fuel injected car sits submerged in gas with + and - power leads exposed also submerged in gasoline.
There are plenty of "coolants" that last 5+ years in the worst conditions. You will NOT have to service your computer.
I think they knew there would be plenty of people wining about this and tested things well enough. I find that liquid cooling these new machines is a fantastic step forward! It's much better than continuing to make bigger and bigger heat sinks which may or may not be cut out for the processors to come. MacEyeDoc, Im not trying to pick on you, but way too many people have this weird concept that this is some frankenstein water and electricity monster that's going to set computers on fire or something...
Lets think positively and logically.
Well as long as we're thinking logically, from the Service manual (via apple-x.net):
"The LCS cooling system fluid is predominantly water (80% or greater) with a mixture of corrosion inhibitors, antifreeze, and bacterial growth preventatives.
'Nitrile or rubber glove should be worn when handling an LCS module that is leaking or suspected to be leaking. Evidence of leaks would include corrosion around fittings in the LCS coolant system, a light green or red liquid present, or a slick or slimy feel when handling the part. For leaks or spills, wipe up the fluid using rags, paper towels, or other suitable materials. Dispose of all cleaning materials according to local laws and regulations (Refer to laws and regulations pertaining to disposal of Antifreeze). Do not combine used coolant with any other chemical.'"
I work in a lab with conductive fluids all the time, and I can tell you, this mixture will not be "non-conductive". Even if it were, it wouldn't make a difference because once it escapes the closed loop and mixes with the dust on the motherboard, etc., it'll be conductive. Your fuel injected example is sitting in an organic mixture, not an aqueous one. The cooling fluid in the PM is obviously aqueous, making it a different ballgame.
I'd like to be optimistic and, as you, feel that Apple saw this as the potential PR disaster that it is, and rigorously tested these systems before letting them loose. I bet they're as rock solid as they possibly can be. But the service manual obviously has prepared for malfunctioning units in a pretty detailed way. The diagnosis is detailed and is not quite as vague as one would expect if they had no real problems during preliminary testing.
The question isn't IF there willl be LCS problems, but how widespread it'll be.
Is Apple's LCS solution the most reliable one out there? I would expect it to be. Would I jump at the chance to be their first wave of guinea pigs in this adventure? Definitely not.
Don't get me wrong...by the time I'm ready for a new machine, if Apple's track record is great, I'll definitely change my tune about LCS. Right now there's just no track record.
I think it has been discussed to death now whether or not the Dual 2.5 GHz is simply a matter of personal opinion. If I had $3000 to spend on a computer, I would get one in a second, but as it is I am trying to buy a house so my iMac has to keep chugging along.FFTT said:
Both ATi and nVIDIA are more concerned with beating each other on specific benchmarks then they are with making quality products. It is all about game-specific drivers right now so that they can keep beating each other out by .05% on some silly game. What the entire industry needs is a new player in the graphic card market to is more focused on inexpensive cards, with solid performance and less concern about how it performs in Unreal Tournament 2003 and Quake 3.The video card situation is just plain pitiful across the board
This confirms my belief that Apple just gets the table scraps
from ATI and Nvidia because the priority in graphics hardware goes to
the one's moving the most gear.
probably because they had a ton of leftover 2.0 and 1.8 130 nm stock which financially they needed to liquidate. Apple doesn't seem to understand what the customers want. I waited since February for a mid level 2.4 (if top was a 2.6) or 2.8 (if the 3.0 was going to be reached). This update makes me furious. If I get anything, it'll be the 2.5. Luckily I have my trusty PB to get me by.PowerMacMan said:They aren't going to update the PowerMac line-up with a 2.3GHz, seems weird that they wouldn't have put that in in the recent upgrade
Bhennies said:
I am suprised how many people honestly thought that Apple would update the entire line. Has this ever happened in the past (excluding processor changes)? In general the intro a new top-line drop the old top line to mid and the mid to the bottom. Where did this idea that the lineup would go from 1.6, 1.8, 2.0 to 2.2, 2.4, 2.6 come from?
You were prepared to spend $2499 on a Dual 2.4GHz, and you are "furious" that it only gets you a Dual 2.0Ghz? That is just silly. You say if you get anything it will be the 2.5GHz, so you are ready to spend $2999 and you were prepared to only get a 2.4GHz, what is the big deal?
I love how everyone is taking the update as a personal slap in the face. 2.5GHz is the fastest chip IBM is making right now, where is Apple supposed to find these 3GHz G5's?
from various sources including cnet starting in feburary. ALso, if Apple had delivered what Steve had promised, do you think the line up would be 1.8, 2.0, 3.0? Come on.pjkelnhofer said:
pjkelnhofer said:
I'm furious because I wanted a 23" display with a 2499 computer...if I spend 2999 then I will have to get the 20". That makes me pretty mad that my money will not go anywhere NEARLY as far as I anticipated it would. I certainly could buy a 2.0, but I don't trust the 130nm chip for pro audio. Those new power supplies aren't fixing the chirping problem, just slighly alleviating it- many people are still reporting it.
Also, as barefeats.com has reported, the new rev. b 1.8 and 2.0 are downgrades, and the FW800 write speed issue has not been resolved, which if you ask me is downright irresponsible on Apple's part. I couldn't give 2 S__ts about the 8x superdrive. And I think some of us were expecting at least Bluetooth to be standard.[/QUOTE]
By the way, are you planning on buying a g5? There seems to be a lot of people commenting on how potential buyers should feel when they aren't even in the market. If you are, I apologize, but jesus...pjkelnhofer said:
Bhennies said:
Why didn't Apple release a 2.8 if they can do it? The answer is simple - it can't be done.
They released the most powerful computer they could release at this time. End of discussion.
Your theory about massive inventory of older components has already been debunked. Apple runs one of the tightest inventory programs in the industry - with 4 days of inventory on hand at any one time.
Did people really expect them to go straight from 2GHz to 3GHz with no intermediate speed in between. If we had gone to the current line-up in January, I would have expected 3.0GHz now, but a 50% increase was not a realistic expectation. When the XServe came out at 2GHz, we should have known that 3.0GHz was not going to happen. Instead, everyone stuck to this Steve said 3 and I believe him mantra. He cannot make IBM create faster chips. It was a bold prediction and it did not come true. You cannot make innovation follow a schedule.Bhennies said:
At work, I prefer the using the computer that has two smaller (15") displays to one larger (20'"). We use mostly Photoshop and After Effects, and I like to be able to split all the windows up between the two screens. That is just my personal opinion. Other people like one big monitor.
The power-supply problem I agree with you on. It is just plain poor design. I am suprised that they didn't start from scratch and come up with a new power supply since nothing seems to have truly "fixed" the problem.
I hardly see how the 1.8 and 2.0 are downgrades. The Dual 1.8GHz replaced the single 1.6GHz, the Dual 2.0GHz replaced the Dual 1.8GHz. How is that a downgrade. Apart from the video card the 2.0 is the same machine (possibly with 90nm instead on 130nm chips). How would a 2.0GHz 970FX chip be faster than 2.0GHz 970 chip? It is simply a smaller version of the exact same chip! The die shrink was intended to increase the top line chips. Those clocked at 2.0GHz should perform exactly the same be them 130nm or 90nm.
The firewire issue is something I know very litte about. I don't at home or at work use a RAID so I cannot comment on it directly. Reading the Barefeats comments it sounds like the problem is that for an unknown reason the G5 writes slower to the firewire RAID than the G4's did. It it so slow that it causes a problem or is it simply a nuisance that it is slower?
I never expected Bluetooth to be standard, just like I never expected Apple to put the best graphics card availible standard (the reason being they make to much off people adding them BTO).
To answer your question, I am not currently in the market for a new computer. In fact, until I finish closing on my new house, I am not in the market for much other than food and water. My work however, is considering upgrading the design departments small (5 computer) network of Dual G4's to G5's and the department head asked me for my opinion since I know more about Macs than the actual IT guy at our office (just to let you know, it looks like they are leaning to new Dual 2.0GHz with 1GB of RAM, 250GB HD's and the 9600XT cards).
Personally, I will probably be buying something around the start of next year (by which time the G5's may or may not get speed bumped).
videogame_junky said:
While your calculations are correct, you're not taking into account real world performance. The CPU MHz/GHz increase from the 2.0 to the 2.5 model is 25% but the real world performance (on Apple's site) averages to about 12% to 16%. I'd be curious to do the above calculations with performance per dollar... but I'm too lazy right now.
I still think that, if someone wanted a PowerMac G5 right now, they should get the refurbished dual 2.0.
Hi there. I personally never expected the g5 to go to 3.0. I did, however, expect the 2.6 to be the top end, with either of these two setups- 2.2, 2.4, 2.6, OR 2.0, 2.2, 2.6. I expected all of the upgrades to correct the previous problems. If the 2.0 and 1.8 are 90 nm chips, I would see them as slight upgrades, because it would reflect the implementation of newer technology. Apple, however, is deliberately keeping our heads in the dark with tricky wording. I currently have an Apple tech researching on whether or not they are 90nm chips. Guess what? He never called me back.pjkelnhofer said:
I know what you mean about the dual display setup- I would like two 23"!!
Not trying to flame you about the new computer comment...that was aimed more at folks who just want Apple to beat the fastest PC's but as an earlier poster said "are typing on g3's with no plans or need to buy a g5". I am not one of those. I own a recording studio, and I am a graphics- digital photographer, i need every ounce of power and reliability I can get. I would have bought a dual 1.8 with a 23" monitor last winter if it weren't for the power supply issue (or 130nm issue- guess it depends on whose opinion you receive). Either way, I will most likely settle on a new g5 right now- no more waiting, and then I'm going to stay a long way away from this site for a while- If I listen too much to the rumors I'll never buy anything. I've certainly learned my lesson.
Salesman Told Me It Was Difinitively Stated To Them That All New G5's Are 90 nm
Salesman Told Me It Was Difinitively Stated To Them That All New G5's Are 90 nm.macsrus said:
Bhennies said:Hi there. I personally never expected the g5 to go to 3.0. I did, however, expect the 2.6 to be the top end, with either of these two setups- 2.2, 2.4, 2.6, OR 2.0, 2.2, 2.6. I expected all of the upgrades to correct the previous problems. If the 2.0 and 1.8 are 90 nm chips, I would see them as slight upgrades, because it would reflect the implementation of newer technology. Apple, however, is deliberately keeping our heads in the dark with tricky wording. I currently have an Apple tech researching on whether or not they are 90nm chips. Guess what? He never called me back.
I know what you mean about the dual display setup- I would like two 23"!!
Not trying to flame you about the new computer comment...that was aimed more at folks who just want Apple to beat the fastest PC's but as an earlier poster said "are typing on g3's with no plans or need to buy a g5". I am not one of those. I own a recording studio, and I am a graphics- digital photographer, i need every ounce of power and reliability I can get. I would have bought a dual 1.8 with a 23" monitor last winter if it weren't for the power supply issue (or 130nm issue- guess it depends on whose opinion you receive). Either way, I will most likely settle on a new g5 right now- no more waiting, and then I'm going to stay a long way away from this site for a while- If I listen too much to the rumors I'll never buy anything. I've certainly learned my lesson.
Very well said, the more I hear the rumors the more inclined I am to wait for them... If you want a G5, get one now...