Frobozz said:
If the rumored iMac is like the current iMac you can't upgrade the graphics card. Maybe the new iMac will break this mold, we'll know in a couple of weeks.
🙂
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.
G5 iMac Specs?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If the rumored iMac is like the current iMac you can't upgrade the graphics card. Maybe the new iMac will break this mold, we'll know in a couple of weeks.
🙂
Frobozz said:
In the $1300 to $2200 price range this rumor leans toward, they(PC's) all do come with better GPU's out of the box(re: and that includes upgrading to an LCD screen).
GFLPraxis
macrumors 604
aldo said:
This post is hilarious.
The 3 GHz Pentium 4 gets it's rear whooped by the G5 almost every time in almost every benchmark (excepting the biased PC World benchmarks, which have been critized over and over for using programs known for bad Mac performance and giving the PC a better graphics card). The Athlon 64 beats the dual 2 GHz G5 sometimes (wins on every non-multithreaded test, loses on most multithreaded test). The dual 2.5 will SMACK that 3.6 gigger down.
reference:
http://www.barefeats.com/pentium4.html
http://www.pcmag.com/image_popup/0,1735,s=1564&iid=28726,00.asp (note: G5 almost always crushes the 3 GHz P4)
http://www.geocities.com/sw_perf/ (note: All the tests that say 2x 2000 mhz G5 are multithreaded, all those that don't have the 2x are single threaded, so in the single threaded tests the G5 loses since it only has half the processing speed. You'll notice that in all the multithreaded tests, the dual 2 GHz G5 only loses to the dual 3 GHz Xeons (sometimes) and dual Opterons (most of the time, but not always, and the Opteron system costs far more than the G5, being a server class system).
Since we see the dual 2 GHz G5 smacking the 3 GHz Pentium 4 down, and the dual 2.5 is a larger increase than the 3.6 P4, AND the 3.6 P4 often loses to the 3.4 P4, the only reasonable conclusion is...
the dual 2.5 should smack the P4 down.
BWhaler
macrumors 68040
Interesting posts, as always.
A couple of thoughts:
1. I suspect these specs are correct. Think Secret in general is correct. Not always, of course, but generally they are good. Plus, they allude to very firm sources.
2. I know gaming on the Mac is light compared with the PC, but gaming is important to the family consumer with children. I think Apple is being foolish limiting the graphics cards since it will always be one reason why gaming continues to be limited on the Mac platform.
Yes, market size is a bigger factor, but Apple should be spending the 50 bucks more to help bring better games to the Mac.
A couple of thoughts:
1. I suspect these specs are correct. Think Secret in general is correct. Not always, of course, but generally they are good. Plus, they allude to very firm sources.
2. I know gaming on the Mac is light compared with the PC, but gaming is important to the family consumer with children. I think Apple is being foolish limiting the graphics cards since it will always be one reason why gaming continues to be limited on the Mac platform.
Yes, market size is a bigger factor, but Apple should be spending the 50 bucks more to help bring better games to the Mac.
GFLPraxis said:
Maybe......for 3 times the price I would hope a box with "2" processors would beat a box with 1.....
However the point to debate on this thread would be more like......G5 1.6GHZ = P4 2.4????? for three times the price?
GFLPraxis
macrumors 604
BenRoethig
macrumors 68030
Tuned MP5 said:
Until they see the price tag and call 1-800-999-3355 (aka Dell). Then again, they could buy an eMac. Wait a minute, no they can't. They're dropping that.
dragonslive said:
It does. By a landslide on the right applications. Not all applications take advantage of that speed. People who complain for instance that web browsing is slower are trying to compare apples with oranges. http://www.macmaps.com/Macosxspeed.html#WEBBROWSER shows several other web browsers which function faster than what comes with the Mac on the Mac on many websites. Web browsing speed for the most part is not processor dependent, but more dependent on the speed of the internet connection and the quality of the connection. Don't let these people make you believe the speed is dependent on anything else. Those applications which don't take advantage of the Mac's speed need to have users contact the developers asking them to optimize their applications more for Mac use.
GFLPraxis
macrumors 604
Moonlight said:
1) The Mac without a CD drive is the education only model. This prevents students from coming in and copying, say, Photoshop or Dreamweaver, to a disk and waltzing out. I've seen it happen before. You can load programs from a central server loaded with ISO disk images.
2) Okay, you are right about the hard drive size. But these specs aren't final. Maybe they're wrong about the HD? I hope?
3) No bluetooth- who cares? Not everyone uses BT.
4) It's been explained in earlier posts why 1.6 - 1.8 makes sense.
5) Okay, I agree on this one. Maybe there will be a fourth model with a 15" LCD? Eliminating the 15" seems silly.
6) We're talking about an all-in-one here. They don't have room to put a bunch of slots, especially if they're aiming for ultra-small.
arkmannj
macrumors 68000
My Wish List
I really hope that the specs given are wrong. and I'm curiouse to see how true the new design speculations are. the current iMac got rave reviews for design, for some reason I tend to think that Apple will stick to current designs (but update it some) or come out with a new design, not copying Sony's
and again, no CD drives really don't provide much benifit, (IMHO) you can lock the drive down in the BIOS, or by login account rights.
as for copying stuff. you are just as likely to have a student copy to an iPod or a USB flash drive as burning to a CD
on another note (forgive my following rant)
I think (wish) Apple would do is provide a more standard graphics solution.
don't get me wrong, ADC is a great idea, but I think using a more standard solution would benifit everyone. 1)Consumers would be able to upgrade GPU easier and cheaper 2)ATI/NVidia would get more sales because consumers could upgrade. 3)one draw back I get from many friends on why they don't switch are costs of upgrading, ram is easy enough to get around and get some cheaper solutions, but the video cards, why pay $400 for a card that is a few steps back...
🙄
I really hope that the specs given are wrong. and I'm curiouse to see how true the new design speculations are. the current iMac got rave reviews for design, for some reason I tend to think that Apple will stick to current designs (but update it some) or come out with a new design, not copying Sony's
and again, no CD drives really don't provide much benifit, (IMHO) you can lock the drive down in the BIOS, or by login account rights.
as for copying stuff. you are just as likely to have a student copy to an iPod or a USB flash drive as burning to a CD
on another note (forgive my following rant)
I think (wish) Apple would do is provide a more standard graphics solution.
don't get me wrong, ADC is a great idea, but I think using a more standard solution would benifit everyone. 1)Consumers would be able to upgrade GPU easier and cheaper 2)ATI/NVidia would get more sales because consumers could upgrade. 3)one draw back I get from many friends on why they don't switch are costs of upgrading, ram is easy enough to get around and get some cheaper solutions, but the video cards, why pay $400 for a card that is a few steps back...
🙄
gopher said:
A fair point, but until the apps are optimized.......the performance doesn't live up to potential or real life use. I have no issue with the G5's potential; just the hype surrounding its current usefullness apart from crunching DV or photoshop etc.
For a machine that can't be upgraded........I would probably prefer a 1.5GHZ G4 with a good graphics card. It will have longer practical applications in todays un-optimised world for the "consumer" who likes to dabble in DV, PS and the odd FPS.
The iMac
I agree with most of the people in this thread, those specs (for the price) is not a good buy.
I'm not thrilled about the all-in-one devices in some ways. Monitors last and are useful 2 to 3 times as long as a computer, making it a really crappy investment with an expensive, nice LCD. I like the form factor a lot, but it's hard convincing my wife I need one this way, because of the price 🙂 I understand they want to ensure they get the profit margins on monitors as well, but it's frustrating for a consumer like me. Maybe offering something that needs an Apple monitor, but that can have the guts of it upgraded easier. I'd also like them better if you could at least throw an additional hard drive in them. (I currently have an old Powermac G4 400 with a 120 GB hd in it, and I'd like to add it to my new iMac when I get one, instead of it being useless. It'd be great for backups.)
I want a 1.8 or higher G5, 512 ram, 160 GB HD, decent video card (I DO want to play an occasional game, though I'm not an avid gamer) and 17" wide screen display, for about $2000cdn. That's what I'm hoping for. If not, I might just have to keep dreaming about G5 power...
And to the (few) people who somehow feel that debating about what we'd like to spend our money on and what we need/want in a computer is some kind of travesty against Apple... 😕 ! If you would be satisfied to have people leave Apple because they can't get what they want, I find that wierd. I want to see Apple be competitive and grow in user base in all areas of the market, not get increasingly regulated to niche markets. I agree that targeting the cheapo PC market is a bad idea, but putting out solid consumer offerings that are competitive hardware wise to PCs seems like it would be a good thing to me. With OS X (OS 9 sucked), they blow Winblows away in the OS dept, so if price tags are at all competitive, they should remain in good shape to grow substantially, IMO.
As to the Porsche comparisons, it seems like a stretch to me. I'll happily pay a bit of premium for a well designed product, but if they want me as a customer (which I want to be, and what I understand is their goal), they have to have good value for the premium.(The whole car analogy that's used so often falls flat anyways, because if it was accurate, Microsoft would control all of the fuel stations and roads, and would change wheel bases, fuel types, engines, etc every few years (and keep them secret) so other companies wouldn't be able to build cars. 😀
I agree with most of the people in this thread, those specs (for the price) is not a good buy.
I'm not thrilled about the all-in-one devices in some ways. Monitors last and are useful 2 to 3 times as long as a computer, making it a really crappy investment with an expensive, nice LCD. I like the form factor a lot, but it's hard convincing my wife I need one this way, because of the price 🙂 I understand they want to ensure they get the profit margins on monitors as well, but it's frustrating for a consumer like me. Maybe offering something that needs an Apple monitor, but that can have the guts of it upgraded easier. I'd also like them better if you could at least throw an additional hard drive in them. (I currently have an old Powermac G4 400 with a 120 GB hd in it, and I'd like to add it to my new iMac when I get one, instead of it being useless. It'd be great for backups.)
I want a 1.8 or higher G5, 512 ram, 160 GB HD, decent video card (I DO want to play an occasional game, though I'm not an avid gamer) and 17" wide screen display, for about $2000cdn. That's what I'm hoping for. If not, I might just have to keep dreaming about G5 power...
And to the (few) people who somehow feel that debating about what we'd like to spend our money on and what we need/want in a computer is some kind of travesty against Apple... 😕 ! If you would be satisfied to have people leave Apple because they can't get what they want, I find that wierd. I want to see Apple be competitive and grow in user base in all areas of the market, not get increasingly regulated to niche markets. I agree that targeting the cheapo PC market is a bad idea, but putting out solid consumer offerings that are competitive hardware wise to PCs seems like it would be a good thing to me. With OS X (OS 9 sucked), they blow Winblows away in the OS dept, so if price tags are at all competitive, they should remain in good shape to grow substantially, IMO.
As to the Porsche comparisons, it seems like a stretch to me. I'll happily pay a bit of premium for a well designed product, but if they want me as a customer (which I want to be, and what I understand is their goal), they have to have good value for the premium.(The whole car analogy that's used so often falls flat anyways, because if it was accurate, Microsoft would control all of the fuel stations and roads, and would change wheel bases, fuel types, engines, etc every few years (and keep them secret) so other companies wouldn't be able to build cars. 😀
edesignuk said:
install the chromedit extension in firefox and paste this into your user.js file.. over the line that is there it speeds up ff by 50-200 % and makes it as fast as a pc browser.
copy below this line.
user_pref("browser.cache.memory.capacity", 64536);
user_pref("browser.xul.error_pages.enabled", true);
user_pref("content.interrupt.parsing", true);
user_pref("content.max.tokenizing.time", 2000000);
user_pref("content.maxtextrun", 8191);
user_pref("content.notify.backoffcount", 5);
user_pref("content.notify.interval", 750000);
user_pref("content.notify.ontimer", true);
user_pref("content.switch.threshold", 750000);
user_pref("network.http.max-connections", 48);
user_pref("network.http.max-connections-per-server", 16);
user_pref("network.http.max-persistent-connections-per-proxy", 16);
user_pref("network.http.max-persistent-connections-per-server", 8);
user_pref("network.http.pipelining", true);
user_pref("network.http.pipelining.maxrequests", 8);
user_pref("network.http.proxy.pipelining", true);
user_pref("nglayout.initialpaint.delay", 750);
user_pref("browser.display.show_image_placeholders", false);
GFLPraxis
macrumors 604
BenRoethig said:
eMacs are actually far better deals than equivilant priced Dells. http://gflpraxis.no-ip.com/mvp-price.html
Who said they're dropping eMacs? Looking at ThinkSecret, it says NOTHING about dropping eMacs. It doesn't even say eMacs. Only the Macrumors guy said eMac.
okay, I guess
I was sure hoping for a 23" display on these things, but I could live with 20" I suppose. A 2.0 ghz G5 would've been nice, too, but a 1.8 ghz will be fine. However, the graphics card with 64MB video memory will not cut it, and neither will 256MB RAM. If I do buy one of these things (as I've been anticipating), I'll likely throw a gig of ram at it, upgrade to the 160GB drive, and hopefully bump up to a better graphics card option with 128MB. And by that time it'll be approaching three-large, which pretty much defeats the whole freaking purpose of me waiting to buy an iMac G5 for my house in lieu of a PowerMac G5. I guess I'll wait until after the Paris expo to make up my mind, but this news is somewhat disappointing.
-Joe
I was sure hoping for a 23" display on these things, but I could live with 20" I suppose. A 2.0 ghz G5 would've been nice, too, but a 1.8 ghz will be fine. However, the graphics card with 64MB video memory will not cut it, and neither will 256MB RAM. If I do buy one of these things (as I've been anticipating), I'll likely throw a gig of ram at it, upgrade to the 160GB drive, and hopefully bump up to a better graphics card option with 128MB. And by that time it'll be approaching three-large, which pretty much defeats the whole freaking purpose of me waiting to buy an iMac G5 for my house in lieu of a PowerMac G5. I guess I'll wait until after the Paris expo to make up my mind, but this news is somewhat disappointing.
-Joe
DakotaGuy
macrumors 601
billystlyes said:
I think people have honestly forgot the image that Apple likes to give it's products, especially it's consumer line. The iMac WAS and STILL IS a computer designed to be EASY to set up, EASY to operate, and EASY on the eyes. As I read your post you think all-in-one is an old concept and yes it is, but only Apple has been able to do it right. I think there is a market for towers, but Apple provides an awesome G5 tower. Is it expensive? Yes. I think a lot of people have this dream that Apple is going to release some little dinky fully expandable tower that is just about as powerful as the PowerMac G5 on the cheap, like $300-500. I am sorry to tell you, that is not going to happen.
I like the All-In-One concept because it is easy to set up and use. Looks nice. No cables hanging all over the place. You just buy it and use it for a few years and then get a new one. Monitor is not as important because when figured into the cost of the computer, it is a very inexpensive monitor. There is one more thing everyone seems to forget on this message board. All of you, and even myself, are computer enthusiasts, you have to realize most people in the market for this type of computer don't care about opening it up and messing with it, or attaching multiple displays. They want to buy a computer, they take out of the box, set on their desk, plug in, and presto it "just works"
BenRoethig
macrumors 68030
GFLPraxis said:
I know and that's why Apple would be nuts dropping it. My next computer will probably be one. I would much rather get that proposed iCube though.
afields
macrumors 6502
It's craptacular!
While I'm not ecstatic about the specs, I'm suprised nobody is talking about the alleged design. Computer in the back of the screen? Sounds ugly as hell, and its been done. Honestly, I don't see why they couldn't just tweak with the current design which is brilliant. Anyone see the sony vaio link? Thats what they compared the new imac to?!? Ughh...talk about a step backwards. ThinkSecret has an excellent track record, but I hope to God they are wrong. 🙁 🙁
While I'm not ecstatic about the specs, I'm suprised nobody is talking about the alleged design. Computer in the back of the screen? Sounds ugly as hell, and its been done. Honestly, I don't see why they couldn't just tweak with the current design which is brilliant. Anyone see the sony vaio link? Thats what they compared the new imac to?!? Ughh...talk about a step backwards. ThinkSecret has an excellent track record, but I hope to God they are wrong. 🙁 🙁
BenRoethig
macrumors 68030
Give me the new iMacs innards in a XPC formfactor case with an AGP 8X slot and a single PCI slot and I'll be very happy.
Take another look on this one...
Not comparing price (because you get so much more with Apple, comes with flatscreen monitor, etc etc), take a look at Dell's "bulk" computer they sell for Joe-blow home and office productivity use, the lower end Dimension line (2400 or 4600).
2400 comes with 128mb RAM standard, which is IMPOSSIBLE to do anything with in Windows XP.....install a couple programs, and you're paging just sitting at the desktop.
2400 has INTEGRATED VIDEO ONLY, with NO AGP slot for ugprading. The 4600 has standard integrated, or to just get up to the 5200 range where the new iMac is, is an upgrade. The Radeon 9800 is an option, but if care enough about performance that you're going to configure a 4600 with a R9800, you will want more RAM, etc, which moves the 4600 well into the $1200+ column anyway, and that's no longer the average Joe-blow machine (you still have to buy software, monitor, etc for a PC to be useable).
They have similar hard drive options.
The 2400/4600 use the inferior P4 with 533mhz FSB and no HT, frankly...old technology at this point.
I guess my point here is, the new iMacs are on-par or better with fulfilling average Joe-blow's requirements for a computer right now. Furthermore, these are only Rev. A new iMacs, I'm sure in <6 months there will be a Rev. B with upgraded video card.
Not comparing price (because you get so much more with Apple, comes with flatscreen monitor, etc etc), take a look at Dell's "bulk" computer they sell for Joe-blow home and office productivity use, the lower end Dimension line (2400 or 4600).
2400 comes with 128mb RAM standard, which is IMPOSSIBLE to do anything with in Windows XP.....install a couple programs, and you're paging just sitting at the desktop.
2400 has INTEGRATED VIDEO ONLY, with NO AGP slot for ugprading. The 4600 has standard integrated, or to just get up to the 5200 range where the new iMac is, is an upgrade. The Radeon 9800 is an option, but if care enough about performance that you're going to configure a 4600 with a R9800, you will want more RAM, etc, which moves the 4600 well into the $1200+ column anyway, and that's no longer the average Joe-blow machine (you still have to buy software, monitor, etc for a PC to be useable).
They have similar hard drive options.
The 2400/4600 use the inferior P4 with 533mhz FSB and no HT, frankly...old technology at this point.
I guess my point here is, the new iMacs are on-par or better with fulfilling average Joe-blow's requirements for a computer right now. Furthermore, these are only Rev. A new iMacs, I'm sure in <6 months there will be a Rev. B with upgraded video card.