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?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Admittedly, on some of the integer-operation heavy tasks, the G5 does smoke the G4. That's because it was at least partly aimed at filling that gap. However, for consumer use, which is all that the iMac is intended for, it doesn't make nearly as much of a difference. This is especially true when you're talking about the dual G5, instead of a single.
yes it might be cheaper w/o a g5 and wouldnt sacrifice much but what will sell more a improved imac g4 or a all new imac g5 g5 is just better for marketing
yes it might be cheaper w/o a g5 and wouldnt sacrifice much but what will sell more a improved imac g4 or a all new imac g5 g5 is just better for marketing
G5 iMac
I don't know whether Apple will update the next iMac to a G5 or not, but it is possible.
I remember how (alleged) structural engineering experts posted to this forum saying that it was impossible for Apple to increast the TFT on the iMac from 15" to 17" as it would topple over.
Loads of technical stuff was said about load bearing, things being disproportional etc etc, but here we are a year later staring at not just 17", but 20" imacs - so much for the 'experts'.
I hope the new iMac is a G5, but (unfortunately) I think it will still use G4.
Anyone claiming that Apple can't put a G5 in an iMac though, is just talking out of their bottom.
Geoff
I don't know whether Apple will update the next iMac to a G5 or not, but it is possible.
I remember how (alleged) structural engineering experts posted to this forum saying that it was impossible for Apple to increast the TFT on the iMac from 15" to 17" as it would topple over.
Loads of technical stuff was said about load bearing, things being disproportional etc etc, but here we are a year later staring at not just 17", but 20" imacs - so much for the 'experts'.
I hope the new iMac is a G5, but (unfortunately) I think it will still use G4.
Anyone claiming that Apple can't put a G5 in an iMac though, is just talking out of their bottom.
Geoff
I'm not sure it matters whether the next iMac is G4 or G5 so much as it costs less, so it's an actual CONSUMER product for EVERYONE. Where Apple is really hurting is its volume which could be increased through reaching out to everyday Joe. (sorry to you if your name is Joe) Apple is praised effervescently by design critics for their intriguing, COOL new creations (Cube, iMac, etc.), but unfortunately that's not what it takes to sell computers. I appreciate the functional design of Apple's computers as much as any, but for goodness sake, make a headless iMac and we'll be back in business. Let's Go Apple! You can do it!
nsb3000 said:
Oh yeah, I forgot that the eMacs aren't OS 9 bootable. I use OS 9 quite a lot, for Virtual PC.
thatwendigo said:Um... Right. So where are the power and signal coming from, without wires? If 802.11g is tha fastest current consumer wireless, doesn't it tell you something that there's wireless audio but no wireless video? Anywhere. No, really.
Right now, I'd settle for people just using theirs.
You're doing that wrong. Extrapolating by clock speed, you get an increase of 41% over the G4s, and yet a performance increase of about the same. Oops. There goes the supposed benefit of the G5 over the G4, aside from its faster scaling.
I'm firmly ensconced in the idea that the 970 was a rush job, as more and more evidence has come out. It's only meant to tide us over until the real deal, the 975/980 can be released. Then we'll see some actual differences, because it's designed from ground up and not taken from a design that's just as old at the MPC74xx.
Admittedly, on some of the integer-operation heavy tasks, the G5 does smoke the G4. That's because it was at least partly aimed at filling that gap. However, for consumer use, which is all that the iMac is intended for, it doesn't make nearly as much of a difference. This is especially true when you're talking about the dual G5, instead of a single.
No, it doesn't. The dual 1.42ghz G4 almost universally beats the single 1.6ghz G5, and this is exactly the kind of market hype we need to avoid. Pay attention to reality and not the shiny, "ooh, the number is higher so it's better" mentality. That way lies Intel...
everything you said was true....but having the infamous "G5" just makes it more eye catching...more appealing.up to date....and of couse "more powerful....if you look through the consumers looking glass that is....
Dodecaedron !!
Heh, I'd be prepared for something really new, if I were you guys.
An iMac with DODECAEDRON form shape and deploying G5 proc is about to emerge!
Now, just try to image that!
windowsblowsass said:
Heh, I'd be prepared for something really new, if I were you guys.
An iMac with DODECAEDRON form shape and deploying G5 proc is about to emerge!
Now, just try to image that!
Get a grip here would you, there are many good reasons why this route might be taken.
First iMac sales suck and aren't getting any better!!!!!!
Second portables are doing well, at least in comparison to the rest of the line.
Third who says the iMac has to be a 1.6GHz unit??? If apple is at all serius about staying in the market place the iMac or its replacement needs to hit 2GHz as a minimum. The reall world performance of the iMac will have to be able to compete for almost a year against remarkable new technology. Expect to see a world wide shift to SMP machinery in the near future.
Dave
First iMac sales suck and aren't getting any better!!!!!!
Second portables are doing well, at least in comparison to the rest of the line.
Third who says the iMac has to be a 1.6GHz unit??? If apple is at all serius about staying in the market place the iMac or its replacement needs to hit 2GHz as a minimum. The reall world performance of the iMac will have to be able to compete for almost a year against remarkable new technology. Expect to see a world wide shift to SMP machinery in the near future.
Dave
LimeLite said:
freddiecable said:I have the same doubts...look at the PM G5 and all the fans and space...what happens when putting that cpu in the iMac - it's going to be "glowing" with heat
Pssst ... Liquid cooled *wink*
If I remember right rumors of this have surfaced again recently in reguards to the ever present G5 Powerbook threads ....
While I doubt the liquid cooled PB's, the iMac's maybe a better contender for this cooling system.
*kicks the soap box to the next speaker...*
wizard said:
There are at least as many why it shouldn't be taken.
You're off on a couple of things. First, the 2.0ghz G5 in the original 970 puts out a whopping 50w of power, or roughly four times what G4 under the hood does. Even with the 970fx revision, it's still at least twice as hot, and that's just for the chip. Add in the RAM, the new FSB and ASIC, and you get quite the toasty little package.
Secondly, it's not SMP but SMT that the world is moving towards, though SMP will probably play a role with the dual-core designs that are being talked about at basically every chip manufacturer.
daRAT said:
Complications roughly equate to expense. Forget a cheap iMac if they're doing something as new as commercializing liquid cooling.
You're right, but I think another reason is space. Right now, since the iMac design makes the base pretty small, there isn't that much space to squeeze that much more extra stuff. Of course the iMac G5 would probably be a complete redesign, but one of its strong points is how much little desk space it takes up, especially compared to the huge PowerMacs (they're nice but huge, even bigger than previous PM's).nek said:
Hattig said:
I'm sure everyone agrees with the 2nd part. Seriously, other companies sell computers with 3.2GHz P4 computers for consumers to edit DV, their digital photos, burn them on DVD to send to family members, etc. They'll sell another line to cater to people who are seriously looking to run their P4's to the max using pro-level software. Its not other companies cripple the consumer line just because they're not planning on using Avid or something. They're just more geared towards DV and digital photos, mp3's, etc. They need a single proc G5 line of PowerMac's for those looking to do some intensive stuff, and a single proc G5 iMac line for the general consumer types. No crippling is actually necessary.
And I'll repeat it again:
(possibly....17" iMac 1.33 GHz G4 with Combo drive)
17" iMac 1.5 GHz G4 with Combo drive
17" iMac 1.5 GHz G4 with Superdrive
20" iMac 1.5 Ghz G4 with Superdrive
20" iMac 1.6 GHz G5 with Superdrive
Only 2 RAM slots for the G5, but possibly a modified case for the entire line for now.
I really don't think it'll be an issue for them to jam a 1.6 G5 in the casing they have now, possibly modified.
And for those who say that Apple is definitely going to release the new iMac with a completely brand new case design because of how long Apple is taking with the update, it has only been 6 months since the last update to the iMac in November 2003, so its still within Apple's typical timeframe.
Also, the heat issues with the G5 was generally reserved for the dual G5 2GHz models. A single G5 1.6GHz proc won't exactly give me 3rd degree burns. It may be a bit hotter than a G4 1.5Ghz proc, but they can jam that into a 15" PB, so.....
Abstract said:
It doesn't really make sense to have two types of logic boards (one for G5, one for G4) from a business point of view. If they designed a G5 motherboard, they might as well use it across all iMacs instead of having one which is only used by 1 model.
Speaking of VaTech - did you know that Dr. Varadarajan is hawking Itaniums now?
Saw this story on C|Net, about the new #2 supercomputer (unofficial until next Top500 list) based on Itaniums. ( http://news.com.com/2100-7337_3-5208220.html )
Seems that it has 20 TFLOPs, and was made by the company that has a certain Dr. Srinidhi Varadarajan as its CTO. ( http://www.californiadigital.com/execs.shtml )
Maybe those PPC970fx chips aren't happening after all, if Dr. Varadarajan is an executive at a company that's pushing Xeons and Itaniums....
ps: Dr. V. was behind an older cluster at Virginia Tech....
Sun Baked said:
Saw this story on C|Net, about the new #2 supercomputer (unofficial until next Top500 list) based on Itaniums. ( http://news.com.com/2100-7337_3-5208220.html )
Seems that it has 20 TFLOPs, and was made by the company that has a certain Dr. Srinidhi Varadarajan as its CTO. ( http://www.californiadigital.com/execs.shtml )
Maybe those PPC970fx chips aren't happening after all, if Dr. Varadarajan is an executive at a company that's pushing Xeons and Itaniums....
ps: Dr. V. was behind an older cluster at Virginia Tech....
I think if they take all that white boring plastic off that imac and but some nice slick aluminum casing on that thing. That would really look good; it would also cool better to. They also have to through a G5 in there, maybe not a duel, but through a 1.8 G5 and cut that from the Power Macs. Also what they got to do is bump up that bus speed
jezzzz, there defiantly going to have to come out with new imac, the powerbook are now comparable or even alittle nicer on the spec side. The ibooks are even catching up, IBOOKS!!!!!!!!!
Bobby The Gibbons
Crazybobby.com
Bobby The Gibbons
Crazybobby.com
G5 90nm by IBM? In a iMac???
"The traditional scaling of semiconductor manufacturing processes died somewhere between the 130- and 90-nanometer nodes, Bernie Meyerson, IBM's chief technology officer, told an industry forum. "
"Meyerson expanded on his scaling-is-dead theme here, saying CMOS has hit a wall in terms of power consumption. He said industry faces a similar transition to the one faced when moving to CMOS from bipolar logic. A new problem is the lack of mature alternative transistor logic technology."
source
http://www.eetimes.com/semi/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=19502091
"New Pentium M - 7xx" Dothan - Intel - 90nm (next step = dual core)
AMD athlon 64 - 90nm
IBM G5 - 90nm - undisclosed...???
Until the WWDC, I don't buy a new Mac...
"The traditional scaling of semiconductor manufacturing processes died somewhere between the 130- and 90-nanometer nodes, Bernie Meyerson, IBM's chief technology officer, told an industry forum. "
"Meyerson expanded on his scaling-is-dead theme here, saying CMOS has hit a wall in terms of power consumption. He said industry faces a similar transition to the one faced when moving to CMOS from bipolar logic. A new problem is the lack of mature alternative transistor logic technology."
source
http://www.eetimes.com/semi/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=19502091
"New Pentium M - 7xx" Dothan - Intel - 90nm (next step = dual core)
AMD athlon 64 - 90nm
IBM G5 - 90nm - undisclosed...???
Until the WWDC, I don't buy a new Mac...
Abstract said:
G5 2.0ghz 970 = 50-55w
G5 2.0ghz 970fx = ~25w
G4 1.5ghz= 12-14w
A bit? It's double, and that's just the processor.
AidenShaw said:
Or, you know.. Maybe it was time-limited, like the Virginia Tech cluster, or he realized that processors can have strengths and weaknesses, like most people who know anything about computers do. It could just be that they wanted a Linux system on non-proprietary hardware.
There are a number of reasons, and we don't know which one is true.
Dothan -> Jonas (90nm dual-core) -> Merom/Conroe (improved Jonas)
Athlon 64 -> 90nm Athlon 64 4400+ "San Diego" (SOI) using 939 -> K9 Core
IBM 970fx -> Power5 2.0ghz 130nm (two SMT virtual cores per physical core) -> Power5+ 2.5ghz 90nm
Extrapolating the Power4 to 970 clockrates (1.3 to 2.0), we arrive at a speculative Power5 to 975/980 clock of 3.08ghz (2.0 to 3.08). The Power5 ships in June.
Coincidence?
On headless iMacs and more....
I can't say I agree with the message quoted below. Apple is still running as a company primarily because they fill a niche in the computer marketplace. They offer the only real commercial, bundled personal computer solution that runs something other than Windows. (Let's face it.... who else really sells such a thing? A few companies sell PC's with Linux preloaded on them, but Linux is still looked at as too complicated for "average people" to use as a workstation. The people who are comfortable in an OS like Linux are quite capable of installing it themselves on a bargain-priced Windows PC.)
The "all in one" computer may traditionally be very associated with Apple Macs, but I don't think consumers are really clamoring for that design these days. A small minority prefers it or demands it, but most people don't care for being locked into whatever screen size they initially purchase. They like the idea of being able to upgrade monitors down the road without needing to replace the whole computer to do it.
The success of the current iMac design is probably just due to it being unique and cool-looking. I know several dentists in this area using all iMacs, and it wasn't strictly because they felt a need for an "all in one" design. Rather, they liked the overall "elegance" of the design, and thought it added a touch of class to their offices. (That, plus these people just happen to dislike Windows and have a devotion to MacOS.)
That being said, I agree that Apple probably sees no point in doing a "headless iMac". Most of the iMac's customers like the flat screens on the swiveling arm and think that's part of the "charn" of the whole thing.
I would think the entry-level PowerMac G5's cover some of the bases for people wanting headless systems right now. The budget-conscious will do fine with an eMac and live with the monitor they have integrated in them....
I can't say I agree with the message quoted below. Apple is still running as a company primarily because they fill a niche in the computer marketplace. They offer the only real commercial, bundled personal computer solution that runs something other than Windows. (Let's face it.... who else really sells such a thing? A few companies sell PC's with Linux preloaded on them, but Linux is still looked at as too complicated for "average people" to use as a workstation. The people who are comfortable in an OS like Linux are quite capable of installing it themselves on a bargain-priced Windows PC.)
The "all in one" computer may traditionally be very associated with Apple Macs, but I don't think consumers are really clamoring for that design these days. A small minority prefers it or demands it, but most people don't care for being locked into whatever screen size they initially purchase. They like the idea of being able to upgrade monitors down the road without needing to replace the whole computer to do it.
The success of the current iMac design is probably just due to it being unique and cool-looking. I know several dentists in this area using all iMacs, and it wasn't strictly because they felt a need for an "all in one" design. Rather, they liked the overall "elegance" of the design, and thought it added a touch of class to their offices. (That, plus these people just happen to dislike Windows and have a devotion to MacOS.)
That being said, I agree that Apple probably sees no point in doing a "headless iMac". Most of the iMac's customers like the flat screens on the swiveling arm and think that's part of the "charn" of the whole thing.
I would think the entry-level PowerMac G5's cover some of the bases for people wanting headless systems right now. The budget-conscious will do fine with an eMac and live with the monitor they have integrated in them....
paxtonandrew said:
thatwendigo said:
Philips makes a wireless monitor. I don't know anything about it, i've just seen it on their website. (www.philips.com) I'd imagine it still needs to be plugged in.
possibly i read the site wrong, but i think its the same thing
minstryoffunk said:
You read it wrong.
Philips Desxape Detachable Monitor
Embedded Intel Xscale 400mhz processor
64MB SDRAM
32MB Flash ROM
802.11b wireless LAN
15" TFT LCD
60w Li-ion battery "up to five hours"
USB cable
VGA and mini-VGA cables
Audio cable
It's basically a tablet PC with no hard disk. In other words, this is exactly what I said would have to be done if there was going to be a wireless display, which is a heavily cached and networked flat panel with its own processor to shuttle things around.
In the words of the ZDNet review:
The limitations of both the RDP protocol and 802.11b wireless mean that although you can get your Windows desktop on-screen anywhere you want around your home or office, you don't get a fast enough connection for video and you can't use DirectX applications at all. It's ideal for email, Web browsing, listening to music or working with documents, and you get a decent desktop monitor too. However, the price is as high as the convenience factor.
Also, it costs around $1,300-1,400 for the display alone. Does this stop you people from clamoring over the removable LCD?