Dual 1.8 Ghz G5

[jocknerd]

Who is Apple's customer base?

Apple seems to have a problem figuring out who their customers are. They run the switch ads trying to get consumers to switch, but they don't have a consumer line of computers that can compete with the x86 platform on performance or price.

Fact is, I didn't switch to Apple for the hardware. I switched for the OS. In the mid 90's it would have been the other way around. They had the hardware but the OS sucked in my opinion.

Then they announce these kick ass G5's for the high end, but only one of them is dual processor. Then they cripple the entry level one bad enough that nobody wants it. Why the slower RAM? Why not PCI-X? There are a lot of people who won't spend $3000 for a computer. This isn't the 80's or early 90's anymore.

Considering that probably 80% of computers sold are under $2000, Apple is really missing out on a lot of potential customers.

Personally, I'd like to just have one PowerMac that is configurable. Choose the processor from 1.6, 1.8, and 2.0ghz. Each dual-processor capable. All with the same type of RAM. Let us choose the size of hard drive. Let us choose the video card. Apple reminds me of car manufacturers and their PEP or cable operators and their channel packages.

And for crying out loud, bring the entry price down. $2000 will keep a lot of people from even looking. Start the price at $1499 or even less for a single processor 1.6ghz with 256MB of memory and a 80GB hard drive.

Don't tell me these are for the professional crowd not the home user. The professional crowd runs Windows. They need to get the home crowd to use Apple.

 

[soggywulf]

Re: from the start

Originally posted by daveg5
big mistake on apple's partas the duals barely beat the single g4, i suspect the singles to get clobbered esp in fps games which or not optimized for altivec and duals except quake 3
oh well

Umm...where do you get this? I am sure the G5's will annihilate the G4's in all games.

 

[Dave K]

Originally posted by Rocketman
If this turns into official Apple policy it is the first hard evidence of a production bottleneck BY IBM similar to what Apple has been experiencing with Motorola,
<snip>

Not necessarily. As was pointed out on Ars, the performance grade distribution for the chips is likely hard coded into the contract between IBM and Apple, and it's fairly unlikely it favoured a 50% shipment rate at the highest grade for a first run Proc. This effectively means that, while IBM can likely meet Apple's needs, the contract forces Apple to eat a bunch of lower grade proc's for each high end one they move.

Now, If your customer feedback shows that the primary reason the biggest box is moving at 50% is because it's the only SMP box and the price is too close to the others, you really have only three solutions to drive sales down to the lower speed procs you've got to take from the supplier:

1) Increase price on the highend box in hope "SMP = nice bonus" customers will find it prohibitive

2) Decrease price on the lowend boxes in hope "Price is close enough, so I might as well get the biggest box" customers will find the low end a better deal

3) Introduce a lower speed DP and hope both the above and the "gotta have SMP" customers will trade a few hundred Mhz for a few hundred $ and balance out your order sheet to more closely reflect your supplier contract.

But really, this just shows that Apple screwed up their pricing scale by leaving pretty muchso the entire lineup in a $1000 window, which, while factoring differently in other currencies, is quite within the realm of selling up in the US$. Especially when you consider that the kinds of people who tend to have $2K to drop on a computer tend to either have the cash to also drop $3K for ultimate performance or be the type of folk who splurge to buy the fastest machine available every 3-5 years and run it 'till it drops...

 

[soggywulf]

Re: Who is Apple's customer base?

Originally posted by jocknerd
Don't tell me these are for the professional crowd not the home user. The professional crowd runs Windows. They need to get the home crowd to use Apple.

That is not entirely true--media houses and especially video shops use Macs extensively still, I believe. Still, I see your point. The "professional" single processor G5's are really in the same performance category as consumer PCs, and should be priced accordingly to attract home users.

 

[soggywulf]

Originally posted by MacRETARD
Apple has a history of not offering options that I think they should.

Yes, I'm afraid this is quite true. Apple has a lot of pride, it seems. It's Apple's way or the highway, and you know which way most people choose. 🙁 They say that pride goeth before the fall, and all that rot.

 

[vrapan]

Stupid question but what SMP stands for?

 

[jaedreth]

SMP

Symmetric Multi Processing

Say a computer has 4 processors. Symmetric Multi Processing is basically for using all supported processors to process the same batches of data, as opposed to an assymetric layout, where Processor One does some things, Processor Two does others, etc...

Jaedreth

 

[visor]

Re: Noise level is low w/o full power

Originally posted by giffut
The usage of 9 fans results in low noise levels in general, even when the machine is running fulls peed, lull load. That´s why they have controlled fans, and so much of them.

Well, I'll belive it when i hear it.
Controlled fans are all nice and well, but if a system is running at full speed, so do the fans, and hight rpm fanns -> more noise then low rpm spinning fans...

 

[gregorypierce]

Originally posted by redAPPLE
i hope this does not backfire! imagine this, people start buying the dual 1,8 instead of the dual 2,0. 🙁

and losing 500 $ per computer

this should only be offered to pre-ordered computers.

If Apple would consider selling it - I highly doubt that they would lose any money on the sale. Apple has demonstrated that they have no issues putting people on a waiting list for machines so while this config (if real) isn't something that they would have originall intended - I highly doubt they aren't making money off it. They may in fact make more money as some people who were planning to buy something cheaper might spend a little more to get the dual 1.8.

 

[vrapan]

Thanks Jaedreth... knew the principle but i had no clue of the name of it or what smp meant 🙂

 

[billyboy]

It is amazing to me that the greatest processor offering ever from Apple has not even been released, yet already there is a feeling being whipped up that they have got it wrong on prices.

Maybe they have, maybe they havent, but who can really double guess the public to the nth degree? Besides, price is not the over-riding factor in the marketing mix. Important, but not the be all and end all. I say this based on others´research, but my personal situation sort of backs it up too, in that I had money available for any Powerbook I wanted, but I chose the 867 instead of the 1Ghz. Why? Because within the range of excellent laptops available it seemed to me to be plenty sufficient for my needs, one of those needs being a computer that would survive a few years of upgrades.

So, whilst some of those Mac fans that have $2000 for an entry level computer probably have $3000 for an all singing dual processor, it is no less likely that many with $limitless wont go for a mid range. And most importantly, those with $1000 for a PC may well stomp up an extra $500 to go with the "basic" G5 - if they can be convinced that there is something a bit special on offer that gets them looking and seeing beyond the extra $500 up front.

It is that aspect of their marketing that Apple have really got to get exactly right if they are to shift G5s of all shapes. Debating whether someone is going for a $1500 1.6 or a dearer 1.8 is the easiest part of the battle, getting them debating in the first place with their fingers leafing through their wallets is the crunch.

 

[3.1416]

Originally posted by billyboy
It is amazing to me that the greatest processor offering ever from Apple has not even been released, yet already there is a feeling being whipped up that they have got it wrong on prices.

Don't get me wrong, I'm very pleased with the G5. Any of the three models is a huge improvement over the G4s they replaced. But that doesn't mean I won't criticize Apple for failing to take full advantage of their opportunity because they configured and priced the models illogically.

Maybe they have, maybe they havent, but who can really double guess the public to the nth degree?

You didn't need to be a genius to predict that the dual 2.0 would be the overwhelming favorite, for reasons I mentioned before. If Apple is surprised by this, they shouldn't be.

I had money available for any Powerbook I wanted, but I chose the 867 instead of the 1Ghz. Why? Because within the range of excellent laptops available it seemed to me to be plenty sufficient for my needs

Sure, but the difference between the 867 and 1GHz PBs is far less than the difference between the 1.8 and dual 2.0 G5s. If the high-end PB had dual processors for the same price, what do you think the sales of the 867 would be?

 

[ffakr]

Re: Re: Noise level is low w/o full power

Originally posted by visor
Well, I'll belive it when i hear it.
Controlled fans are all nice and well, but if a system is running at full speed, so do the fans, and hight rpm fanns -> more noise then low rpm spinning fans...

That's a pretty simplistic view of the situation.

Your logic hinges on the statement "if a system is running at full speed, so do the fans". This is not factually correct. The speed of the system has nothing to do with the speed of the fans. Variable speed fans generally rely on current draw, heat or both to determine how fast to spin.

The reality is....
a) more fans means more air flow at lower speeds. more air flow means cooler and lower speeds means quieter. more fans means quieter.
The G5s aren't silent, but they are pretty quiet. At least they were when I used them.
b) The G5 is a relatively low wattage processor, compared to chips like the Athlon and P4. There is no compelling reason why a G5, even a dual G5 needs to be any hotter, or require any more cooling than a current PC. In fact, the intelligent design of the G5 case pretty much ensures that it will be signficantly quieter than just about any mid-full size fast PC.
c) Apple actually said that the total power consumption of the G5 is significantly less than a Mirror Door G4. I believe that they said it was about 1/2 of the G4.

 

[DavidThornberg]

Why have dual?

I would love them to offer a lower end dual but I just don't see an over supply of chips as a good reason to modify the lineup prior to release. The iMac line will be going to the 970 soon and they can use any over supply in those machines.

It is no suprise to me that the 2.0 Dual is selling well. Many of us have been sitting on our money for a few years waiting for a reason to update to a new machine. I had to sit at an angle for so long I don't remember know how to sit up straight. 😀

My guess is that if Apple finds that the 1.6 and 1.8 are not selling after they ship then I think we will see them update the lower end of the line to duals.

Someone earlier said that 'dual' should be an option in the store. Is this feasible? I'm not sure of the production process enough to say that this lovely option would be cost effective. Anyone know?

David

 

[Sheebahawk]

under 1600$ 1.6

Beggining to wish they charged a dollar per megahert... at the current priceing scheme, theres no way I'd ever be able to get a g5 until I win the lottery or go out of my current debt, But if the single 1.6 was around fifteen or sixteen hbundred dollars, it would be a different story completely. definately need to replace that old B&W g3, but I have to suffer for a while yet until I can afford it. If the low end tower fell closer toward the lower end of the 1-2000 dollar range, well that would be a much more reachable range to me, and I'm sure many potential customers.

 

[visor]

Well, I didn't really understand why they didn't realase all doubles

Honestly,
who would want to buy a 2.3 grant single processor, if he can have a more than twice the speed for not even half the price more.

Especially in a market segment that needs a lot of speed...

 

[fourthtunz]

Re: Re: Who is Apple's customer base?

Originally posted by soggywulf
That is not entirely true--media houses and especially video shops use Macs extensively still, I believe. Still, I see your point. The "professional" single processor G5's are really in the same performance category as consumer PCs, and should be priced accordingly to attract home users.

You're right😀 but also for music production, Protools on the Mac is the #1 Daw in the world. This whole thread is silly, you can buy over $2000 sony pcs at sams club and the software on those are nowhere near as usable as the Mac stuff but people see what they want I guess
🙄
Hey it would be nice if Macs were less but I could say the same thing about some of the guitars I want😉
daniel

 

[scan300]

Re: under 1600$ 1.6

Originally posted by Sheebahawk
Beggining to wish they charged a dollar per megahert...

So where will that leave you when 3, 4, 5 GHz machines come out?

 

[ae86_16v]

I just got an email from a company called eUnitek and they are offering the Dual 1.8 for $2,399. I check on the Apple's site and there wasn't anything there. . .

512MB DDR400 128-bit SRAM, 160GB Serial ATA, Superdrive

 

[pellucidity]

...Nothing on eUnitek's site either....

 

[Dahl]

If you are a AAA member, they have 10% off on selected products. You can save on iBooks, iMacs, G4's etc but I do't see any discount for G5's. 🙁

 

[slipjack]

PLEASE!

1.8 dualie would rock! I'd buy it in sec... I cancelled the 2.0 when I finally got over the 'must buy now' high... It's just too expensive.

 

[AidenShaw]

there's only SMP today...

Originally posted by jaedreth
Symmetric Multi Processing

Say a computer has 4 processors. Symmetric Multi Processing is basically for using all supported processors to process the same batches of data, as opposed to an assymetric layout, where Processor One does some things, Processor Two does others, etc...

Jaedreth

Jaedreth, there's a grain of truth there, but not a lot more....


There are no truly "symmetric" multiprocessing systems in widespread use - every successful system has a few things that can only be done on the "master" processor.

So, "SMP" really means "mostly Symmetric Multi Processing" - and often the difference between "completely Symmetric" and "mostly Symmetric" is too small to notice.

On earlier ASMP systems, it was often the case that the system (kernel) code could only run on the master. For some workloads, like I/O bound apps where the kernel I/O took a lot of CPU, you'd get poor scaling because 1 cpu would be overloaded with I/O, and the others would need to wait for the overloaded master.

More modern systems have multi-processing kernels, so that each CPU can run most of the kernel code. This gives pretty good scaling.

At the innermost hardware interrupt level, however, pure SMP can be counter-productive. When a device signals for attention, you don't want every CPU to stop what it's doing to handle the device. It's better that one CPU be designated as the master to field interrupts and other hardware events (like clock ticks and power failure events).

Modern operating systems spend very little time in the hardware interrupt context - the interrupt routine's main job is to take the device attention message and package it up into a task that can be handled by normal kernel routines (normal routines that can run on any processor).

====

But anyway, today "SMP" simply means the same thing as "multi-processor". None of the common systems today are anything but "symmetric", in the "mostly symmetric" sense that I've described. "ASMP" was a weak solution even for a dual processor, and a failure at trios, quads and higher.

Twenty years ago the distinction between "SMP" and "ASMP" was important - today "ASMP" in an historical footnote.

 

[actionslacks]

Re: Re: Noise level is low w/o full power

Originally posted by visor
Well, I'll belive it when i hear it.
Controlled fans are all nice and well, but if a system is running at full speed, so do the fans, and hight rpm fanns -> more noise then low rpm spinning fans...

Stood right next to it at the Pixar Demo at SIGGRAPH yesterday. It was whisper quiet.

 

[job]

Re: under 1600$ 1.6

Originally posted by Sheebahawk
But if the single 1.6 was around fifteen or sixteen hbundred dollars, it would be a different story completely.

Are you in college/university?

With the new education discounts you can drive down the price of the 1.6Ghz tower easily.

Without a Superdrive and a $200 educational discount, the 1.6Ghz suddenly looks very attractive.

Heck I can spec out a 1.6Ghz tower with 512MB RAM, a 160GB HD, and a Radeon 9600 Pro for $1,889.00. That's a $511 difference from the retail 1.8Ghz tower and a $311 difference from the edu. discounted 1.8Ghz tower. And that's with a better graphics card in the 1.6Ghz tower to boot! All that money for an extra 200Mhz and a slightly faster bus? Not worth it IMO. Personally, I don't need PCI-X slots. I can deal with the slower (although not by much, and cheaper!) DDR SDRAM. You may want the PCI-X slots as a 'future proofing' precaution, I don't know. To be honest, I really don't see why everyone's ragging on the 1.6 tower for. I'd much rather have one than my iMac DV.