Dual Core PowerMac G5 Updates?

[heisetax]

Value of PowerMacs

The rapid updates to the Mac desktop lines are de-valuing the older systems at a quicker pace than what is traditional for Apple hardware. On one hand, that's fine - because it means they're pumping out the upgrades at a rate more in line with the rest of the computer industry. But it also means I'm less likely to fork out the money for an upgraded system.

(I have a Dual 2.0Ghz tower, for example, that in about a years' time, is worth over $1000 less than it was when I got it - despite buying it at a discount when new. If I wanted to upgrade to a new dual-core G5, I wouldn't be able to get enough out of this machine, used, to be much help in offsetting the cost of upgrading.)

If you want something that holds its value the way you seem to be talking, don't invest in a computer. This is true even with a Mac & its better value keeping. Computers are outdated in many ways as soon as they hit the market.

As far as another reply to your posts states, Apple is very slow in updating its computers. This is more true with the POwerMAc since the G5 than their other computers. When I sold computers, the Windows units were updated every 3 months. THe Macs were upgraded every 6 months. The PowerMac at 9 months to a year is as much as twice as long for an update.

I'd like to see PowerMacs with a 6 month or less update cycle. Remeber the last update was less than a 10% increase at the high end. And how can the other models be considered an upgrade or update when they are still slower than the older 2.5 GHz G5 model?

Bill the TaxMan

 

[lokey]

All these updates are pointless in my opinion. I know they can't just stop selling Macs until the Intel Macs are out, but to the informed consumer these updates are not going to matter.

If I could I would wait for Rev.B of the Intel Macs, but my G3 800 is on its last leg and I need something soon, so the day Intel Mac mini's are announced, I'll be in line.

 

[Tupring]

What are you talking about??? Apple has been horribly SLOW updating the PowerMac line! This, admitedly, would be a quick update. But the Dual 2Ghz PowerMac went for 1 full year without being TOUCHED! Then the 2.5 Ghz model with for another 9 months before getting the slap-in-the-face 2.7 Ghz update.

Besides, Macs hold their value 10x better than PC's anyday. So yeah, they might loose value over time, but that's just life.

All three Macs that I use regularly are nearly ten years old and still kick the **** out of most of my friends' peecees (pretty sad for them, I know)

 

[zv470]

no powerbooks till next year. that's a big ouch.

Well, yeah that is bad... but only for the sake of staying on the cutting edge. It's bad for professionals who are evermore thirsty for power while away from the office. It's also bad for those who always wait for the next update, who are disappointed by updates because the rumor mill sets higher specifications.

But... it's not really that bad for those who want to have a nice laptop that gives them the "Mac Experience". So the current Powerbooks are fine. Heck I use my two year old 1GHz 12" Powerbook Rev. B everyday, and it has plenty of power for most things. It's fast enought I use it as a desktop computer.

For me Mac computing is about enjoying the experience, not about speed. I do look forward to buying a PowerMac with Intel processor one day, but I'll always cherish my Powerbook.

I dunno... I just get a bit tired of people setting themselves up for dissapointment.

p.s. I wonder if... when the Intel powered Macs are out... if we will see model revision as often as they happen in the PC world?

 

[guitarman777]

My question is, will the G5's currently available from third-party stores (such as CompUSA) be marked down in price to make room for the newly updated models? Kinda like how car dealerships mark down the '05's to make room for the '06's. That would completely ROCK. I would do everything within my power to find a way to pick one up if that were the case. I'm going to be building up my home studio and would love to put a dual-processor G5 at the center of it. I love my G5, but it's a first-generation single-1.6GHz... I'd love for Logic Pro to run like a supercharged gazelle...

 

[Wonder Boy]

dual core eh? that would be apple's first effort. aka a revision A. no thank you.

when can we expect new imacs? im not waiting for rev b intel macs.

 

[Wonder Boy]

My question is, will the G5's currently available from third-party stores (such as CompUSA) be marked down in price to make room for the newly updated models? Kinda like how car dealerships mark down the '05's to make room for the '06's. That would completely ROCK. I would do everything within my power to find a way to pick one up if that were the case. I'm going to be building up my home studio and would love to put a dual-processor G5 at the center of it. I love my G5, but it's a first-generation single-1.6GHz... I'd love for Logic Pro to run like a supercharged gazelle...

do you have a college campus around? they're a lot easier to bargain wiith. i bought a 600mgz g3 ibook the day after the 700-800mgz models came out. they even threw in wireless and memory.

 

[Tristan_X]

I really can't see the desktop Mactel hitting the market before the PB line goes Intel. Something would be off about that.

If it is the case that the developers' version of OSX for Mactels is still not ready for the market, I'm guessing the dawn of the conversion is still some time away. There's no way they'd trump a major upgrade with a whole new line just a few months later. Unless the chips are just sitting around I can't see that level of waste being very productive for them.

That aside, who knows...these iPod margins are giving them some breathing room for computer development.

Ideally, IMO, the next upgrades will me minimal to moderate, so as not to lead everyone on before a mactel switch next summer. Then I can grab a rev b laptop for spring 2007.

 

[Tupring]

I'd like to see PowerMacs with a 6 month or less update cycle. Remeber the last update was less than a 10% increase at the high end. And how can the other models be considered an upgrade or update when they are still slower than the older 2.5 GHz G5 model?

Bill the TaxMan

Damn, how much money do you have? You can afford to buy a new Mac every six months or less...

 

[jiggie2g]

Too late now

I want a dual dual.

*drool* *drool*

Dual Dual Fool Fool ...never going to happen

This would put the G5 in a whole new price bracket. we are talking about a $3500 PowerMac. very Likely it will be a single dualcore cpu which will save Apple money ..let them keep prices as they are and make an even bigger profit due to the fact that they don't have to make any more expensive dual socket motherboards or the additional cost of a 2nd CPU. It will still be AGP 4X Trash cheese grader.

Gateway is selling Pentium D 830(dual 3ghz) systems with 1GB DDR533 , 250GB HD , 16XDVD-+RW , 6-in-1 media reader , XP Media Center 2005 , Mcafree Antivirus , MS Works...other stuff

all this for $999...how is Apple going to compete with that. especially after they make the switch.

 

[scu]

If these dual cores are 50% faster than the single core, Apple better throw a big party when they are released. I have waited over 2 years for the 3 ghz system and finally gave in and bought 2.5 ghz system. If all IBM could do is give us a dual core 2.0 system, then Apple will make a quite announcement again.

 

[mo0805]

All these updates are pointless in my opinion. I know they can't just stop selling Macs until the Intel Macs are out, but to the informed consumer these updates are not going to matter.

If I could I would wait for Rev.B of the Intel Macs, but my G3 800 is on its last leg and I need something soon, so the day Intel Mac mini's are announced, I'll be in line.

Many people, including myself, are looking forward to dual-core g4's and g5's for the Powermacs and Powerbooks. If a dual-core powerbook comes out before the Macintel powerbooks, i'm buying one.

 

[woolfgang]

Dual Dual Fool Fool ...never going to happen

This would put the G5 in a whole new price bracket. we are talking about a $3500 PowerMac. very Likely it will be a single dualcore cpu which will save Apple money ..let them keep prices as they are and make an even bigger profit due to the fact that they don't have to make any more expensive dual socket motherboards or the additional cost of a 2nd CPU. It will still be AGP 4X Trash cheese grader.

Gateway is selling Pentium D 830(dual 3ghz) systems with 1GB DDR533 , 250GB HD , 16XDVD-+RW , 6-in-1 media reader , XP Media Center 2005 , Mcafree Antivirus , MS Works...other stuff

all this for $999...how is Apple going to compete with that. especially after they make the switch.

It helps that Gateway sucks and that most people end up trying to sell their Gateway a couple of months after getting one. It's amazing they're still in business.

 

[AidenShaw]

I expect MacIntels in January

As for no PBs until MWSF, maybe this means they are simply going straight to Intel! Actually though, they would probably only announce the PB at MWSF, with a shipping date of a few months out, so I'm not sure if this will be the case or not

Apple's been telling developers exactly which chips will be in the first MacIntels, and they are currently available chips. Why focus on currently available Intel chips, if they aren't going to release MacIntels for 6-12 months away. I think that they'll be here sooner.

The clue is that the DTK documentation is telling developers to use 32-bit and to replace AltiVec code with SSE2 vector instructions - not 64-bit and not the newer, higher performance SSE3 vector instructions. (Note that the DTK systems themselves, however, are Pentium 660's that support both SSE3 and 64-bit.) (See http://developer.apple.com/hardware/ve/sse.html#ISA_Overview for Apple's developer notes.)

If we look at Intel's current and future chips, we see:

• Xeon (Paxville) - 64-bit, SSE3, dual-core (due by end 2005)
• Xeon (Irwindale) - 64-bit, SSE3 (current)
• Pentium 4 - 64-bit, SSE3 (single and dual-core)
• Celeron - 64-bit, SSE3
• Pentium M (Merom) - 64-bit, SSE3, dual-core (due by end 2006)
• Pentium M (Yonah) - 32-bit, SSE3, dual-core (due by end 2005) (single core also)
• Pentium M (Dothan) - 32-bit, SSE2 (current)

Note that the current "Dothan" Pentium M's are the only CPUs in Intel's current lineup that only have SSE2 - therefore Apple is clearly telling us that Dothan-based products are on the way.

Which systems would get a Dothan? Mostly likely the iBook and the MiniMac. Apple could relatively quickly release those two systems with Dothans - all the chips are ready and they don't need to wait for anything on Intel's roadmap.

However, a Dothan-based iBook would kick the G4 PowerBook's butt on lots of tasks. Apple, therefore, might be inclined to hold off on releasing the MacIntel iBook and MiniMacIntel until the PowerBook could have some "power".

What do we see in the roadmap - dual-core Yonah should be ready around MWSF'06 time, also dual-core Xeon!!

So, at MWSF'06 Apple could announce any or all of:

• iBook Dothan - immediate availability
• MiniMac Dothan - immediate availability
• PowerBook Yonah (dual CPU, single dual-core) - available in limited quantities, or "soon"
• iMac Yonah (dual CPU, single dual-core) - available in limited quantities, or "soon"
• PowerMac Paxville (64-bit quad CPU, dual dual-core) - also limited or "soon"

By waiting for Yonah in the PB, the problem of the iBook eclipsing the PB disappears.

But, just because these are possible, will we see them?

Will Apple do an iMacIntel in January? Probably not. The Dothans and Yonahs would outperform the G5 on some things, but if the video apps aren't well-optimized for x86 the G5 might be better for those. There's also the minor embarrassment of going from 64-bit back to 32-bit - but we all know that 64-bit brings almost no benefit to the iMac.

How about the PowerMac quad Xeon.... IMO it would be a good transition system for early adopters and developers - Apple could continue to sell the G5 systems for legacy apps until the transition is complete. However, using the current Xeon chips might be too large a serving of crow for Jobs to swallow - so I don't see this as too likely.

(There's also the issue that OSX86 is 32-bit only, so trying to hype a 64-bit hardware system with a 32-bit O/S might seem cheeky. Oh wait, Apple did that all through Panther.... )

But to release Dothan systems - that pretty much means a January release. If Apple waited until WWDC'06, then single core SSE3 Yonah chips would be available, and there would be no reason to cripple Yonah systems with SSE2-only code.

I'd bet on 'books and the MiniMacIntel in January.... If that doesn't happen, then Apple's insistance on SSE2 will be a mistake.

( Pentium M codenames explained at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_m, Xeon at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xeon, Pentium 4 at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_4 )

 

[digitalbiker]

No!

Are any of you guys really surprised? The writing's been on the wall for a while. The Mini and iBook got virtually zero CPU upgrades.

Repeat after me: No new G4-based Macs. All signs point to Apple having all but stopped the development of the G4 line. They're most likely devoting all their resources on the Intel 'books--as they should. I'd much rather Apple work on bringing Intel laptops sooner than offering meager G4 updates to tide us over.

On the upside, MWSF will be super-interesting, no?

From my point of view a Yonah Powered PowerBook would suck. It would mean that I would have to wait about two years before the pro apps that I use daily would be ported to Intel (Rosetta doesn't do Alti-vec). The apps that would run under Rosetta would be running at reduced speed probably slower than my current PB (lousy choice). After the two year wait, most likely I would have to invest another couple thousand in upgraded software, by then the Yonah PB would be old tech.

On the other hand, buying the current Powerbook at the current price is ridiculous!

Almost every facet of the current PB spec is old tech. The last PB update Feb 2005 was a minor speedbump. Yet Apple still sales the PB at a premium price.

I like Apple, I love OS X. But I can't bring myself to buying 2 - 3 year old tech at cutting-edge prices.

Apple you need another PPC update of the PB and fast or you are going to lose a lot of pro portable customers.

 

[intrepkid21]

It helps that Gateway sucks and that most people end up trying to sell their Gateway a couple of months after getting one. It's amazing they're still in business.

Haha so true! Though I have to say Gateway, when they were Gateway 2000, was a decent company. The tech support was great for me when I didn't know a thing about Windows 95 and computer viruses

Wouldn't buy a Gateway today for sure, though.

 

[kingtj]

Speed of updates

I'm not necessarily talking about Apple being fast with the PowerMac G5 upgrades, but rather - the increased speed of updates in general. For example, I knew several people who bought shiny new iMac G5's with 20" LCDs around the beginning of 2005, and only a few months later, it started coming with a 2Ghz CPU standard instead of a 1.8Ghz, and a 250GB drive instead of a 160GB, for no extra money. My Powerbook 17" was barely broken in when Apple announced the 1.67Ghz variation of it with the "new, brighter backlit keyboard" and connector for 30" Cinema Displays, plus a 100GB hard drive standard in it ... and I was going to buy it right before they bumped it up to 1.5Ghz, making me wait to grab the "latest and greatest" version of it. Because the PowerMac *didn't* see updates at this same pace, the only thing Apple could really do to make it look "in line" with everything else was to keep dropping the prices on it and shuffling around the configurations.

And I know all computer lose value over time... I'm not saying they're supposed to be an *investment* from the standpoint of price going UP or anything. I'm just saying that we're enteing an era where Macs won't really keep their value "10 times better than Windows PCs" anymore. Once they start using Intel CPUs, they're going to be on Intel's path of "planned obsolescence" just like everything else is. Macs are great, but one BIG reason they held their value so well was because Apple didn't make very significant strides in updating them. If you had, say, a 733Mhz G4 tower, there was no real pressing need to upgrade to a 1.2ghz G4 tower that looked very similar and ran all of the same software ... and it took a long time for Apple to get between those two points. They probably made many of their machines *too* upgradable too, keeping them viable for people long after Apple expected you'd really keep using them. (EG. G4 upgrades for 7300. 7500 and 7600 PowerMacs and xpostfacto software letting you run OS X Tiger on them!)

What are you talking about??? Apple has been horribly SLOW updating the PowerMac line! This, admitedly, would be a quick update. But the Dual 2Ghz PowerMac went for 1 full year without being TOUCHED! Then the 2.5 Ghz model with for another 9 months before getting the slap-in-the-face 2.7 Ghz update.

Besides, Macs hold their value 10x better than PC's anyday. So yeah, they might loose value over time, but that's just life.

 

[Kobushi]

It helps that Gateway sucks and that most people end up trying to sell their Gateway a couple of months after getting one. It's amazing they're still in business.

hear hear. Gateway is crap. The only thing worse than a gateway is a gateway with millenium on it like the boat anchor sitting in my garage. In fact, with all that prune juice I drank, I think I feel a gateway movement coming on....

 

[technocoy]

digitalbiker...

i was just about to say something very similar.... I think they will continue to update the G4s and G5s until more software is ready to take advantage of intel. otherwise your famed super fast intel PB will actually run slower than the current G4 model until all the software is ported. not me... i want a final updated G4 powerbook. it will last me through the rev and intel growing pains.

 

[bigwig]

Very Likely it will be a single dualcore cpu which will save Apple money ..let them keep prices as they are and make an even bigger profit due to the fact that they don't have to make any more expensive dual socket motherboards or the additional cost of a 2nd CPU. It will still be AGP 4X Trash cheese grader.

If as you say they're going to design a new motherboard anyway, why not replace AGP with PCI-E while they're at it? The marginal cost is likely trivial.

 

[Peel]

Apple's been telling developers exactly which chips will be in the first MacIntels, and they are currently available chips. <snip>
I'd bet on 'books and the MiniMacIntel in January.... If that doesn't happen, then Apple's insistance on SSE2 will be a mistake.

Excellent bit of annalysis there!

 

[beatle888]

ThinkSecret reports that Apple will be upgrading the PowerMac G5 line in the near future -- possibly as early as the end of this month.........

...............Still, many expect that Apple will utilize the Dual Core 970MP processor in upcoming PowerMac revisions before moving to Intel. The dual core version of the PowerPC 970 is reported to have up to a 50-80% performance improvement over the single core version.

it doesnt make sense that the Dual Core will have an "50-80% performance improvement" over apples current chip. if that were the case, I dont think we'd be moving to the x86. we might get Dual Cores but i doubt we'll see a performance gain like that.

Indeed, analysts had predictedthat Dual Core PowerMac G5s might arrive at Apple Expo Paris which kicks off next week

analysts predicted? hes referring to the "enthusiasts" right? so macrumors and other rumor sites along with their members/contributors are all considered analysts. something else i can put on my resume.

 

[bigwig]

970MP pin compatible?

If they were, while you're upgrading the PowerMacs you could also upgrade the iMac

 

[freiheit]

would existing software be able to take advantage of the dual cores or would that take special optimization? If it does take work, adobe will be pissed with all the software they have to write for the mac lately.

Otherwise, yay! 50% boost in power at a minimum! I gets my official stamp of approval.

Typically software which is multi-threaded (able to take advantage of multiple CPUs) will inherently take advantage of multiple cores on one CPU.

I'm not sure how much improvement you get with dual dual cores versus dual single cores. If dual core = 150% as fast as a single core, does dual dual core = 150% of single dual core? Law of diminishing returns there, if it's true.

 

[avkills]

it doesnt make sense that the Dual Core will have an "50-80% performance improvement" over apples current chip. if that were the case, I dont think we'd be moving to the x86. we might get Dual Cores but i doubt we'll see a performance gain like that.







analysts predicted? hes referring to the "enthusiasts" right? so macrumors and other rumor sites along with their members/contributors are all considered analysts. something else i can put on my resume.

What do you mean that performance is not feasible. A dual core chip is pretty much like having a dual processor machine. So apps that are multithreaded, like FCP, Lightwave 3D and such will see huge speed ups. A 4-way SMP Mac would rock for these applications.

-mark