Apple Releases New PowerMacs

[PowerMacMan]

Salesman Told Me It Was Difinitively Stated To Them That All New G5's Are 90 nm.

Many people are saying they are or aren't... Nobody is actually sure at this point, however I hear of most of the Apple people saying "Yes, they're 90nm." I would assume so since the xServes are equiped w/ 2.0GHz 90nm... But of course I'm not sure, and not many others are either...

BUT, I AM leaning towards the answer that "they are indead 90nm chips"... Seams like that is what most people are leaning towards...

 

[Bhennies]

Many people are saying they are or aren't... Nobody is actually sure at this point, however I hear of most of the Apple people saying "Yes, they're 90nm." I would assume so since the xServes are equiped w/ 2.0GHz 90nm... But of course I'm not sure, and not many others are either...

BUT, I AM leaning towards the answer that "they are indead 90nm chips"... Seams like that is what most people are leaning towards...

Well...just heard back from the tech...here's what he said:

"Peter,
I have asked around, our pre sales technicians and searched our spec sheets. I don't have an answer for you. I'm sorry.
?The Apple Store ?
Sean (800)409-5381ext.2414 M-F 6:30-3:00 PST"

 

[jragosta]

Well...just heard back from the tech...here's what he said:

"Peter,
I have asked around, our pre sales technicians and searched our spec sheets. I don't have an answer for you. I'm sorry.
?The Apple Store ?
Sean (800)409-5381ext.2414 M-F 6:30-3:00 PST"

I'm having a hard time understanding why anyone cares.

The 90 nm 2.0 won't be any faster than the 130 nm 2.0. Sure, it will use less power, but there haven't been any reports that I'm aware of saying that the 2.0 has EVER had failures due to excessive heat. IBM has had 9 months to work on it, so even if the 2.0 is 130 nm, it's STILL going to be more reliable than the one released last September - which doesn't have any significant failure rates.

So what difference does it make?

 

[PowerMacMan]

I'm having a hard time understanding why anyone cares.

The 90 nm 2.0 won't be any faster than the 130 nm 2.0. Sure, it will use less power, but there haven't been any reports that I'm aware of saying that the 2.0 has EVER had failures due to excessive heat. IBM has had 9 months to work on it, so even if the 2.0 is 130 nm, it's STILL going to be more reliable than the one released last September - which doesn't have any significant failure rates.

So what difference does it make?

Well I am a computer geek and just want to know... I guess that's all I can say... I WANT TO KNOW... Curiosity

 

[ratspg]

lol

Well I am a computer geek and just want to know... I guess that's all I can say... I WANT TO KNOW... Curiosity

do you always wanna know what ingredients are in that chocolate bar that you're eating? i guess it's important to know WHICH sugar they are using, and HOW Much of it is in there? 90nm, 130m, i could care less.. it has a plug.. the plug goes to your wall, the computer is the same speed... sounds great. the knowledge of knowing if its 90nm won't make my computer feel different, or me.

edit: i love chicago btw, i go yearly! and go detroit pistons!

 

[DMann]

90nm vs 130nm

Well I am a computer geek and just want to know... I guess that's all I can say... I WANT TO KNOW... Curiosity

The heat issues were not due to excessive
heat, but rather a separation of the insulation
materials. the 90nm run MUCH cooler that
the 130nm chipset, and with scale to 3 Ghz
while the 130nm would run way too hot.

 

[PowerMacMan]

do you always wanna know what ingredients are in that chocolate bar that you're eating? i guess it's important to know WHICH sugar they are using, and HOW Much of it is in there? 90nm, 130m, i could care less.. it has a plug.. the plug goes to your wall, the computer is the same speed... sounds great. the knowledge of knowing if its 90nm won't make my computer feel different, or me.

edit: i love chicago btw, i go yearly! and go detroit pistons!

Well like I said, I'm a computer geek, no chocolate geek...

Yeah Chicago is pretty good...

 

[dekator]

do you always wanna know what ingredients are in that chocolate bar that you're eating? i guess it's important to know WHICH sugar they are using, and HOW Much of it is in there? 90nm, 130m, i could care less.. it has a plug.. the plug goes to your wall, the computer is the same speed... sounds great. the knowledge of knowing if its 90nm won't make my computer feel different, or me.

I certainly do. It's essential for my buying/eating decision. I don't wanna know, what team ppl are with, on the other hand. This lack of interest in looking behind the scenes or wish for understanding explains a lot to me though, in a general way. BTW, if somebody finds out whether these mothers are 90nm or not I'd like to know too. Simply like to know. Disgustingly human, isn't it ?

 

[pjkelnhofer]

I know what you mean about the dual display setup- I would like two 23"!!

That would be sweet. To me it always seems more cost-effective to go with the two smaller monitors anyhow. While the 23" gives you more area, two 17" give you more pixels (and a much lower price).

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.

I understand (I actually use a G3 at home). I do a lot of amatuer video work and I am really looking to upgrade my system (I actually hacked FCP to get it to run on my G3) because I bought thinking I was going to be getting a new computer soon when it was only $500 if you traded in Premiere. I also do a little bit of graphic design work in Photoshop and Illustrator for extra money. If I weren't in such financial straights right now with a home purchase I would definitely be in the market for a G5.
This is what I would get:
• Dual 1.8GHz PowerPC G5
• 1GB DDR400 SDRAM (PC3200) - 2x512* (I might get the RAM elsewhere)
• 160GB Serial ATA - 7200rpm
• ATI Radeon 9600 XT w/128MB DDR SDRAM
• 56k V.92 internal modem
• 8x SuperDrive (DVD-R/CD-RW)
• Apple Keyboard & Apple Mouse - U.S. English
• Mac OS X - U.S. English
Subtotal $2,374.00

And I would pick up two 17" Sony LCD's for about $450 each.

 

[wdlove]

I certainly do. It's essential for my buying/eating decision. I don't wanna know, what team ppl are with, on the other hand. This lack of interest in looking behind the scenes or wish for understanding explains a lot to me though, in a general way. BTW, if somebody finds out whether these mothers are 90nm or not I'd like to know too. Simply like to know. Disgustingly human, isn't it ?

Yes, it's human nature to be curious. I'm very surprised that we don't know for sure by now. Or is it that someone will need to actually have on of the new machines in hand?

 

[ratspg]

i agree

I certainly do. It's essential for my buying/eating decision. I don't wanna know, what team ppl are with, on the other hand. This lack of interest in looking behind the scenes or wish for understanding explains a lot to me though, in a general way. BTW, if somebody finds out whether these mothers are 90nm or not I'd like to know too. Simply like to know. Disgustingly human, isn't it ?

WAY too human

i was just having fun joking around, of course someone would want to know if its 90nm! but its fun how people keep asking still

 

[Bhennies]

And I would pick up two 17" Sony LCD's for about $450 each.

Which ones? I'm curious because I would love to eliminate Apple's grip on my neck. Are they good color wise?

 

[machinehead]

I'm having a hard time understanding why anyone cares.

The 90 nm 2.0 won't be any faster than the 130 nm 2.0. Sure, it will use less power, but there haven't been any reports that I'm aware of saying that the 2.0 has EVER had failures due to excessive heat. IBM has had 9 months to work on it, so even if the 2.0 is 130 nm, it's STILL going to be more reliable than the one released last September - which doesn't have any significant failure rates.

So what difference does it make?

Several possible reasons:

1. Heat output from dual 2.0 GHz at 90nm process may be up to a third less than from dual 2.0 GHz at 130nm process. The real-world benefit is that your room or office won't get as hot in the summer.

2. Less total heat means the fan cycle can be reduced, or fans can run at slower speed ==> less noise.

3. For those who like to speculate about the future product line-up, we know that the 90nm dual 2.0 GHz used in the Xserve is air cooled, while the 90nm dual 2.5 Ghz in the PowerMac G5 needs liquid cooling. In the future, there could be a dual 2.2 or dual 2.3 Ghz, possibly still air cooled, depending on where the dividing line is between air and liquid cooling.

Unless liquid cooling offers a big noise reduction, air cooling is preferable for simplicity, reliability, and lower cost & weight.

 

[jragosta]

Several possible reasons [why someone would care whether their 2.0 GHz G5 is 90 or 130 nm]:

1. Heat output from dual 2.0 GHz at 90nm process may be up to a third less than from dual 2.0 GHz at 130nm process. The real-world benefit is that your room or office won't get as hot in the summer.

2. Less total heat means the fan cycle can be reduced, or fans can run at slower speed ==> less noise.

3. For those who like to speculate about the future product line-up, we know that the 90nm dual 2.0 GHz used in the Xserve is air cooled, while the 90nm dual 2.5 Ghz in the PowerMac G5 needs liquid cooling. In the future, there could be a dual 2.2 or dual 2.3 Ghz, possibly still air cooled, depending on where the dividing line is between air and liquid cooling.

Unless liquid cooling offers a big noise reduction, air cooling is preferable for simplicity, reliability, and lower cost & weight.

1. has some relevance - but the difference in heat output isn't going to have any real significance unless you're talking about a whole roomful. Your computer and monitor probably use 250 W continuously. The difference between the 90 and 130 nm chips is probably 20 W. You'll never notice it.

2. A reasonable argument on the surface, but most people say that even the older 2.0 GHz was whisper quiet.

3. Irrelevant. Future plans are meaningless as to whether I should care if my 2.0 GHz G5 is 90 or 130 nm today.

 

[jragosta]

Which ones? I'm curious because I would love to eliminate Apple's grip on my neck. Are they good color wise?

This is one area where you don't give much up by buying a third party product. I have an NEC 20" LCD on my desk that's spectacular. There are plenty of other great monitors out there - and most of them are considerably less than Apple's.

In general, Apple has flashes of brilliance in the monitor area (when they first introduced their LCDs, their performance was phenomonal for the price), but in general, you do better elsewhere.

I'd suggest going to ZDNet or PC Magazine's site and looking at the reviews.

 

[jragosta]

I certainly do. It's essential for my buying/eating decision. I don't wanna know, what team ppl are with, on the other hand. This lack of interest in looking behind the scenes or wish for understanding explains a lot to me though, in a general way. BTW, if somebody finds out whether these mothers are 90nm or not I'd like to know too. Simply like to know. Disgustingly human, isn't it ?

So you're simply being irrational.

There's no real reason why it would matter (other than a trivial difference in your electric bill). Saying that it's 'essential' for your buying decision indicates that you're not thinking rationally.

 

[Multimedia]

Dynamic Speed Control May Make 90nm Systems Quieter

Several possible reasons:

1. Heat output from dual 2.0 GHz at 90nm process may be up to a third less than from dual 2.0 GHz at 130nm process. The real-world benefit is that your room or office won't get as hot in the summer.

2. Less total heat means the fan cycle can be reduced, or fans can run at slower speed ==> less noise.

3. For those who like to speculate about the future product line-up, we know that the 90nm dual 2.0 GHz used in the Xserve is air cooled, while the 90nm dual 2.5 Ghz in the PowerMac G5 needs liquid cooling. In the future, there could be a dual 2.2 or dual 2.3 Ghz, possibly still air cooled, depending on where the dividing line is between air and liquid cooling.

Unless liquid cooling offers a big noise reduction, air cooling is preferable for simplicity, reliability, and lower cost & weight.

I was also under the impression that the 970fx dynamically throttles up and down in speed according to processing demand. This may make it a lot quieter when demand is not being placed on the processors.

 

[neonart]

i don't feel like being the LCS guinea pig either...

gonna get 2.0's........

Are you for real!? Or is it really a budget thing?

I just got a great deal on a RevA 2.0 (after a fiasco with a RevA 1.8 that was DOA). I looked for these machines because they kept me in my price range of at, or below $2K.
But if I was budgeting to spend 3K on a machine I would be ALL OVER a DP2.5. I don't care if they're using a continuos spray of that acid crap ALIENS drool to cool the thing - It's under warranty for 1 year with Apple care available after that.

Just sounds like paranoia.

 

[NusuniAdmin]

goto macwarehouse.com They have the rev 1 dual 1.8's for $2100 USD and its the full thing. I think this is a great deal personally.

 

[Multimedia]

Nope. $2195

goto macwarehouse.com They have the rev 1 dual 1.8's for $2100 USD and its the full thing. I think this is a great deal personally.

Nope. It's $2195 - $196 more than a refurbished dual 2 G5 from Apple at this address.

 

[NusuniAdmin]

Nope. It's $2195 - $196 more than a refurbished dual 2 G5 from Apple at this address.

Eh? Yes its $2195 its the unopened rev 1 dual 1.8 whereas the new one is 1999. But wait your sentence is kinda confusing...

 

[MacEyeDoc]

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.

Thanks for not picking on me - but I guess I over embellished the basic problem: I don't want to buy a Rev A. G5. I've waited almost a year to get a Rev. B G5 with no chirps, no power problems, corrected FireWire 800, an upgraded video card, and maybe a little more speed (Dual 2.2. would have been fine) and instead Apple has given us basically the same computer they announced last year (the Dual 2.0) with no extra RAM, no larger HD, nothing different except the 8x DVD, AND they announced a new Rev. A G5 that uses their first time ever LCS. I think they would have been better served to offer a Dual 2.0 with upgraded components, or a true Rev. B Dual 2.2 with traditional cooling. I'm not mad at Apple (I'm sure they must have some reason for their new/old line-up), and you and others may say I'm being silly, AppleCare will cover it anyway, but at my office I have 2 B&W G3's and an original iMac that are way beyond AppleCare, and I plan to keep my next computer just as long, and I'm just not too excited about getting their first attempt at liquid cooling. It's not even so much the liquid, rather it's their first version of it. In the end, I'm disappointed that I waited almost a year to get what I could have bought last year, and I'm sharing that disappointment with some fellow Mac-heads. Apple still makes great products (I've got a new Airport Express on order), a wonderful OS, superb laptops (my 1.25Ghz G4 15inch is "sweet" just like the guy in the Dodge Hemi commercial says as he flips burgers), but I was just hoping for something different. I hope my logic is not too negative for you guys (and gals).

 

[Mercury]

Are you for real!? Or is it really a budget thing?

I just got a great deal on a RevA 2.0 (after a fiasco with a RevA 1.8 that was DOA). I looked for these machines because they kept me in my price range of at, or below $2K.
But if I was budgeting to spend 3K on a machine I would be ALL OVER a DP2.5. I don't care if they're using a continuos spray of that acid crap ALIENS drool to cool the thing - It's under warranty for 1 year with Apple care available after that.

Just sounds like paranoia.

I agree-I can't wait to be Apple's guinea pig. I made the mistake of not purchasing AppleCare with my G4/733 and 17" CRT Studio Display. After the monitor died less than two years after purchase and the hard drive failed a few times, I'm never going to make that mistake again. However, my old PowerBook had numerous problems, which resulted in it being replaced, with a perfectly good newer PowerBook. By the time the LCS breaks, they'll have new PowerMacs-free upgrade for me!

I realize that we are always lagging behind on graphics cards, but come on! Radeon 9800XT is a great card, and the price isn't so horrible. While I agree the 800 would be better, it's much nicer than being stuck at the 9800 Pro forever.

I've always wondered why we refer to the new Power Macs as Revision B, and in general the first incarnation of a product as "Revision A". The new Power Macs are the first revision, not the second, except perhaps the dual 1.8. So why is it that the debut product is called a revision?

 

[aussiemac86]

90 nm confirmation-sorta

If yuo look in the white paper, it refers to the processors a few times, albeit it not to each specific model, anyway heres what it says
"IBM uses a 90-nanometer
process with more than 58 million transistors and ten layers of copper interconnects." - page 13 of white paper

"Each transistor on the PowerPC G5 is just
.00000009 meter (90 nanometers) wide, built on a layer of silicon on insulator (SOI)." - page 13 of white paper

"Physical specifications
• 58 million transistors
• 90-nanometer, silicon-on-insulator (SOI) process
• Die size: 66 square millimeters" - page 15

Nowhere in the paper does it mention 130nm, but it does say the G5 uses 90nm an awful lot, whilst this isnt definite, it is some pretty good evidence to support the fact that all the new G5's are 90nm

 

[AppleJustWorks]

G5

Just bought my new Dual 2, 1 GB Ram, ATi Radeon 9600XT, BT Mouse and Keyboard, 23" CinemaHD Display....And yes...I know that new displays are coming out soon....but I liked the current one, I got a great price($1499) and I was told by multiple sources that the current would be 10x more reliable than the new....So 23" with a G5 here I come!