G5 iMac?

[rufwork]

Keep your head, man!

The two other questions are:

1) Are they going to make a headless iMac?

2) Are they going to allow it to be upgradeable?

These are 2 weaknesses of the current iMac's sellability.

Or they're two big strengths for the PowerMac's sellability. Since the first Mac (and continued through the LC and then the original iMac (see any connections with CEOs & designs?)), consumer models gave Mac users 90% of what they'd ever want for a pretty competitive price, all things considered. If you wanted more, you had to shell out for it, cube very much included. That's been Apple's most successful business model, and I wouldn't expect that to change.

Heck, they removed the Mezzanine slot from the rev A just to save a few cents per motherboard -- removing even an unsupported chance to keep those boxes up to date with a better video card. iMacs are efficient, slimmed-down, money making machines, believe it or not.

Want more, pay more. Buy or bye. It's 'spensive, but ultimately worth it, I think (on my third iMac already...).

That said, the warranty's gone on my latest iMac, and if anyone finds a hack to let me use that flatscreen with another box, I'm ready to start soldering. If you could just figure out a way to reuse the monitor, the iMac becomes an aboslutely great buy.

 

[ts1973]

There's one problem with these facts - right now, no (official) 1.6 GHz PowerPC G4 exists. How on earth, then, did the testers come up with this conclusion without extrapolating, overclocking, or both???

You're right of course, but the point is made : Mhz for Mhz, a 1.5 Ghz G5 would be about as fast as the current 1.5 Ghz G4, and a 1.6 Ghz G5 would just not make the iMac competitive... (of course, the scaling is not correct : a 1.8Ghz G5 is not 20% faster than a 1.5Ghz one). The only reason to put such a slow G5 in an iMac is image building...

On the other hand, Apple will have to make this step once in the future... whether the G5 is faster Mhz for Mhz or not.

 

[nmk]

I'm not, despite these facts, saying that Apple will not release a iMac G5. They may do this simply as a marketing ploy. However, the unfortunate thing is, if they stick in a 1.6 G5 it won't be any faster than the current top of the line Powerbook. It will not be appreciably faster than what they could get by sticking a G4 in their, but it will be a noisier, hotter machine to run. I only think it makes sense to put a G5 in their if its 2.0 Ghz and up. Meaning the lineup should be 2.0, 2.2, 2.4. Then it makes some sense to compromise the design of the current machine.

 

[lem0nayde]

Scrap all G4s.

I think Apple should move everything to G5 ASAP. **** the G4, its ancient technology and those ties need to be severed. If they put all their backing on the G5, they can focus their product line, produce more G5s and therefore make them cheaper.

This can make way for an all G5 lineup with consumer machines having single chips and maybe one dual iMac for prosumers and pro machines having all dual chips, and maybe one very high end quad-chip machine.

The iPod is great, but they've been way too focused on it, and unless they are planning an exit from the computer market - they need to make their consumer products a lot more appealing.

That's what I think.

Joe

 

[nmk]

not only is there an issue with the fact the there is no 1.6 GHz G4, if you take into account the bus speed of a G5 vs. that of a G4 system, there's no contest. You get a 800 MHz bus on a 1.6 GHz G5 and a 167 MHz bus on the G4 iMac.

I wish people would read my followup to the original post. I said that there is no 1.6 G4, but the performace of the 1.5 G4 is very very close to the 1.6 G5. If freescale takes the G4 to 2.0 Ghz with improved cache, it will make the new 1.6 G5 iMacs look like toys. The bus is a nonissue, since even with the 167 bus the current G4's are competitive with the G5's (again Mhz for Mhz). The G4 only has 7 pipeline stages, whereas the G5 is something like 20+. G4 doesn't need to be fed as quickly, and doesn't suffer the same penalties for things like branch mispredictions that the G5 does.

 

[Rower_CPU]

PBG4

http://www.medicalmac.com/mac103.html

MDD 1.42

http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/systems/MDD_copper_heatsink_swap/mdd_copper_heatsink_swap.html

emac, ibook, G5, ...

I'm seeing nothing at either of those links that shows/states Apple using liquid cooling.

I think you're mistaking the heat pipes with a liquid cooling system. I've seen Apple's tech docs for all current models and nowhere is liquid cooling mentioned. Besides, you know Phil Schiller would have made a big deal about it if they were - "It's like air cooling...on steroids!".

 

[nmk]

I think Apple should move everything to G5 ASAP. **** the G4, its ancient technology and those ties need to be severed. If they put all their backing on the G5, they can focus their product line, produce more G5s and therefore make them cheaper.

lol, yeah, dump it because its old. Maybe you should go give Intel a clue, they're about to drop their P4 architecture in favour of the Pentium M architecture which is based on the P3. The Pentium M is essentially a P3 with a lot of cache and better branch predictor.

 

[lem0nayde]

You're right of course, but the point is made : Mhz for Mhz, a 1.5 Ghz G5 would be about as fast as the current 1.5 Ghz G4, and a 1.6 Ghz G5 would just not make the iMac competitive... (of course, the scaling is not correct : a 1.8Ghz G5 is not 20% faster than a 1.5Ghz one). The only reason to put such a slow G5 in an iMac is image building...

On the other hand, Apple will have to make this step once in the future... whether the G5 is faster Mhz for Mhz or not.

It's definitely all about image building.
The chips may or may not make faster machines - but Apple needs to SEEM like it is moving into the future. The iMac, eMac and iBook just seem sad and old. Plus its also important to remember that Apple has to build OSX to straddle several generations of Macs right now. If it could focus its lineup with the G5 and broaden the chips adoption - it would be able to start taking advantage of what the G5 has to offer, as would other developers.

Forward movement is always best, even if it is only perceived forward movement. Consumers eat it up.

 

[Mr. Anderson]

I wish people would read my followup to the original post. I said that there is no 1.6 G4, but the performace of the 1.5 G4 is very very close to the 1.6 G5.

I read that after I posted mine - relax - you hadn't posted it when I quoted.

As for the bus - what about moving data around for video editing and the like? If they offer firewire 800 for a new iMac that would be a nice advantage.

D

 

[macridah]

do you think the look will also change when the iMac G5 comes out?

 

[Hattig]

The current iMac is not selling that well.

I don't think that is because of the current processor, more the styling and limited usefulness of the computer in a consumer environment. It might be good as a stylish computing device in a household where no-one plays games or does anything particularly stressful.

Then again, Apples product line-up has so many holes it is no wonder that the share of the market is so small and shrinking. PowerMacs are droolworthy, but too expensive for a power consumer. There is no "single processor (but as fast as the fastest dual PowerMac's), cheaper PowerMac" option to get though.

I think that Apple should make a smaller G5 style PowerMac, with one processor (at comparable speeds to the current PowerMac line-up, none of this retarded "consumer machines should have slower processors" crap). It should have AGP and PCI expansion. I'd buy something like this if it was a reasonable price without thinking. I won't buy an iMac, I want to play games occasionally and have my choice of monitor (I have monitors already, I don't need another). I won't buy a PowerMac - I can't afford one.

 

[stockscalper]

It will not be appreciably faster than what they could get by sticking a G4 in their, but it will be a noisier, hotter machine to run.

The current generation G4 at 1.5 GHZ pulls 27 watts compared to only 12 with the current generation G5's (970 fx). Plus you get an 800 MHZ fsb vs. 167 and the capability to address much more ram with the G5's.

I have one of the new G4 Powerbooks and it gets hotter than hell. The G4 is at the end of it's life cycle; time to move on to new technology

 

[Postal]

There are some areas where the 1.6 GHz G5 could improve upon a 1.5 GHz G4. Any time an app is bandwidth-dependent, for example. Also, the G5 has a much better FPU, and as a result is a much better choice for 3D apps such as games.

However, I think the real gain from using a 1.6 GHz G5 (or faster, if it's sufficiently inexpensive) is cost. The 1.5 GHz G4 is currently the fastest - and thus most expensive - G4 chip out there. The 1.6 is the lowest-end G5, and we know that its cost will have gone down over the past year. This should be especially true if Apple uses the 90 nm G5, since any sub-2.0 GHz yields should be relatively easy.

And don't think that the G5 is too hot to run in an iMac-style enclosure (assuming they don't produce a radical revision). The MPC7455 chip in the current 17" and 20" iMacs can produce up to 35W of typical power dissipation according to Motorola's PowerPC listings, although I'm sure it sometimes produces less. A 2 GHz G5, by comparison, shows 24W in typical power consumption.

So a G5 seems entirely plausible to me. The only questions I have are regarding the cost and design. Will Apple be able to reduce the price significantly, whether through the internal components or through the materials the enclosure is made with? Will they reintroduce colour into the case design? And finally, will they still try to cling to the all-in-one LCD design, or will they try something 'new' and offer a relatively inexpensive headless desktop?

 

[0 and A ai]

I just don't see why they'd put a G5 in an iMac before getting one in a PowerBook. I know it would be easier, but that doesn't make sense to put a G5 in a consumer line computer before getting it in all of the pro line. Obviously we could get at least a 1.5 in there, maybe even a little more. A 1.5 or 1.6 G4 wouldn't be much slower than a 1.6 G5 (which the iMac would almost have to be) yet it would keep the consumer line more consumer.

I think it has to do more with having the g4 as a mobile processor and the g5 as a desktop processor. Thats how its going to be for at least a year.

2ghz g5 imac here we come.

So a G5 seems entirely plausible to me. The only questions I have are regarding the cost and design. Will Apple be able to reduce the price significantly, whether through the internal components or through the materials the enclosure is made with? Will they reintroduce colour into the case design? And finally, will they still try to cling to the all-in-one LCD design, or will they try something 'new' and offer a relatively inexpensive headless desktop?

I think the fact that they have had faster cooler g5s for a while now plays a part in the cost. Because they had them for a while and have stocked up on them because of the issues they have had with new powermac revisions the price will probalby be the same. A modified case too. I would expect a change like that of the original iMac. ala iMac -> iMac DV. thats the kind of change I suspect.

 

[ts1973]

lol, yeah, dump it because its old. Maybe you should go give Intel a clue, they're about to drop their P4 architecture in favour of the Pentium M architecture which is based on the P3. The Pentium M is essentially a P3 with a lot of cache and better branch predictor.

LOL, good one. But I still think Apple will have to look forward one day, and I think you'll have to agree that the G5 has a lot more headroom to grow than the older G4... Furthermore, these 20+ or so instructions on the G5 are meant to be used, so Apple (and others) will want to rewrite their code to make advantage of the G5 (thus diminishing support for the G4...)

 

[nmk]

Interestingly, Mr. Anderson (that has a familiar ring to it), the benchmarks I mentioned from Barefeats were for a group of FCP renders. This is the benchmark in which the 1.5 Powerbook had almost the same times as the 1.6 G5. I'm guessing that the 1.6 G5 probably is anable to take advantage of the massive bus. But even in the case of the Dual 2.0's, there performace advantage is almost completely equivalent to their Mhz advantage. The G4's tend to be more efficient processors. Perhaps if they wouldn't need a bus faster than about 200 mhz. I just really like the G4's. I think they are one of the reasons Apple has been able to make the Powerbooks extremely sleek. I really hope the freescale rumors are true. 2.0 Ghz G4's by middle of year with built in memory controllers (and perhaps dual core later) would be monster processors. Motorolla has, as its over riding objective, to keep energy consumption down. So any improvement they make in their architecture has to meet this condition. I really doubt Apple will be able to continue making Powerbooks, or mabe even iMacs, in their current form factor if they start using processor that consume 40+ watts and produce enough heat to warm a small building.

 

[the_mole1314]

and what is your source?

reliable or just something in passing...

D

Hasn't been to reliable when it came to the iPod Mini, but some rumors I have read here stack up to what he has said before. SOooooooooo, take it with a grain of salt.

 

[AidenShaw]

I think you're mistaking the heat pipes with a liquid cooling system.

And I think that you are being pedantic about my definition of "liquid cooling" without explaining what you think that your words mean.


A heat pipe contains liquid, and cools due to the motion (and phase change) of the liquid therein. If that isn't "liquid cooling", then English words no long mean what they say.


Also - go back and see that I was replying to the question Are the [sic] other extreme coooling methods besides using a liquid to do it?

Heat pipes do use liquid to cool, and they're commonplace, not "extreme".

Apple *is* already using liquids to cool their laptops and desktops - this technology might be feasible for a G5 iMac as well.

 

[minstryoffunk]

Hmm, imagine this at WWDC 2004:

Power Mac G5 DP 2.2GHz, DP 2.6GHz, DP 3.0GHZ

iMac G5 SP 2.2GHz, SP 2.6GHz, SP 3.0GHz

Yummy! I know, it’s just a dream and won’t happen but Apple would finally be competitive again.

something like that for the powermacs would definately be good…but are dependent on a certain fab in East Fishkill.

i would imagine that a G5 iMac would be a single proc machine with chips clocked at the same speed as the current pMacs (1.6,1.8,2.0)

An excellent way for apple to differentiate their product lines is to have all DP pMacs and all single proc iMacs

Expandability isnt so much a concern as people on these boards seem to think it is. The market that the iMac targets isn't terribly interested in expanding, they just want a basic, easy to use, maintenence free computer

For instance, there are 3 different generations of the CRT iMac in my extended family, apart from adding ram and installing osx, there has been no real want or need for anything else.

 

[denm316]

I hope Apple does this, I understand it's a consumer line but the better the machines are in all the lines the better Apple looks

 

[nsb3000]

A G5 iMac will make my Power Mac G4 look even worse

I don't understand how the current eMac and the current Power Mac G4 can have almost identical specs, yet the Power Mac is about NZ$1000 more.

On the other hand, any advance is an improvement

Because the Power Mac G4 is Apple's Last OS9 Bootable machine. A small, specific group users really need that, and are willing to pay extra for it.

 

[CmdrLaForge]

You mean there have always been all-in-one Macs, correct? Not ALL Macs are all-in-one (for example, the B&W G3, the PowerMac G4, the PowerMac G5, and earlier Macs like the PowerMac 7200/75 weren't all-in-one). You are correct in stating that Apple has historically had at least one all-in-one Mac in its product lineup.

Thanks for correcting me. Yes - thats what I meant. There have always been all-in-one Macs.

 

[minstryoffunk]

The next iMac upgrade won't be completely to the G5. It'll be:

17" G4 1.5 GHz iMac with combo drive
17" G4 1.5 Ghz iMac with superdrive.
20" G4 1.5 GHz iMac with superdrive.
20" G5 1.6 GHz iMac with superdrive.

i can't imagine that Apple would be so daft as to mix processors in a single model. if they're moving to a new form factor (which it appears is the case) than it would be stupid and wasteful to design both G4 and G5 versions of the mobo. am i wrong, or do the two not share much in terms of other components?

 

[Trekkie]

ever heard of phil zimbardo's prison experiment? you are an example of what it proved: people take up roles that they are given and play them out. I assume you think of yourself as somekind of Pro-User. Apple's classification of iMac at some unfortunate point in its history as consumer model has now led to people claiming that Apple should cripple a computer so Powerbook can get a rush out of being 'Pro' with special access to Apple tech.

Oh, and Apple long since made iMac something other than consumer- the top of the line now costs 2200.

I've found myself on many occasions in the past looking over the G4 Tower vs. the iMac as far as the 'available slots' and stuff like that.

Then one day, something clocked me in the head, or I stopped having a bit of a disposable income when #2 child came along or something like that and I realized that when it came to a replacement desktop for my iMac 800MHz and I realized I'm never goign to invest in 8 memory DIMMs, PCI-X adapters, or anything like that and a G5 iMac would be perfect especially around the 1.6 - 1.8GHz range compared to what I have, and I bought a LaCie 320GB drive for my music & home videos.

So, Bring on a 21" 1.8GHz G5 iMac that I can put a big drive in and about 1GB of RAM and I'm good to go and ready to spend.

 

[wdlove]

The current iMac is not selling that well.

I don't think that is because of the current processor, more the styling and limited usefulness of the computer in a consumer environment. It might be good as a stylish computing device in a household where no-one plays games or does anything particularly stressful.

I think that Apple should make a smaller G5 style PowerMac, with one processor (at comparable speeds to the current PowerMac line-up, none of this retarded "consumer machines should have slower processors" crap). It should have AGP and PCI expansion. I'd buy something like this if it was a reasonable price without thinking. I won't buy an iMac, I want to play games occasionally and have my choice of monitor (I have monitors already, I don't need another). I won't buy a PowerMac - I can't afford one.

I have never really cared for the style of the iMac either. For some reason I like having the monitor separate, just a creature of habit. It would be a good idea for Apple to got with the all G5 line ASAP, guess that it somewhat depends on IBM.