G5 iMac?

[Rower_CPU]

According to that article, the heat sink is in fact the stock Apple Part No. 076-0983 for the MDD 1.42 systems. There's lots of noise on the web about the copper heat sink in the MDD 1.42, for example http://pmcg.comeuppance.org/archives/000025.html.

I don't mean to be flippant, but I challenge you to find a tech doc from Apple that says that that Apple uses capacitors in their power supplies. Obviously they do, so it's not worth stating.

If you can accept that Apple uses heat pipes, then look up what a "heat pipe" is.

Well, I'm sorry I can't find an article quoting Steve Jobs saying "This new Mac uses liquid-filled heat pipes for cooling". Maybe he's just embarrassed to be using the same cooling technology as everyone else.

How about one of the many quotes from Mac enthusiasts, though, like:

https://forums.macrumors.com/archive/index.php/t-61633

No problem, I think we're just getting stuck on semantics. From what I've seen, they do have pipes attached to some of their heatsink units, but I've yet to hear any mention of liquid heat pipes - I've also been unable to find the term "heat pipe" in Apple's service guides.

I'm just asking for another source to corroborate. No need for the attitude.

 

[dontmatter]

So where's the news in this? We all new that we're well due fro imac revisions, particularly after the emac revisions. And clearly the G4 ain't going much further. Maybe we didn't KNOW that it woudl be a G5, but we knew that it had better be a G5, and this is a rumor anyway, so it's hardly more solid.

The only question, and the big question indeed, is when. And we still get to ask. When? I guess this does provide plenty of people the place to make their speculations....

 

[BrianKonarsMac]

I don't get the idea of a "headless imac." From day 1, the imac has been an all-in-one. If it were headless, it would be an entirely new computer, certainly not an imac.


So, you want a G5-based machine with no monitor attached and a lot of upgradability... now if only apple would make something like that... hmm...

I've heard rumors of a G5 Power Mac but I'm not holding my breath.

as you said, the iMac is an all in one, its for people like my parents who could care less whether or not they have internal expansion or future upgradeability. if they can use the internet and emai, print a few papers and use the web camera that's all they want. it's a simple family computer, when you start talking upgradeability, you move to the power mac.

 

[volleygirl]

Bring it On!

I have been waiting patiently for a G5-based iMac. Current iMac is outdated/underpowered (for my needs); G5 desktop is out of my price range for home computer (I have a new G5 PowerMac at work). Have checkbook in hand...come on Apple, let's go.

 

[gekko513]

I've heard rumors of a G5 Power Mac but I'm not holding my breath.

as you said, the iMac is an all in one, its for people like my parents who could care less whether or not they have internal expansion or future upgradeability. if they can use the internet and emai, print a few papers and use the web camera that's all they want. it's a simple family computer, when you start talking upgradeability, you move to the power mac.

We don't want a dual G5 upgradeable tower with pci-x slots and digital audio in all directions. (We don't want a huge overprized single G5 tower with normal pci, either )

Many people just want a small quiet consumer G5 without a screen. How hard can it be?

 

[ktlx]

As a Ph.D. Economist and apple shareholder, as well as a long time Mac user I would like to make some general comments.

First, Apple as a corporation has two basic responsibilities, to make money and to increase market share. (At the present time, I would say that growing market share is the most important of the two.)

You need to get a refund for your education.

Apple as a corporation has only one responsibility: to make money for their shareholders. Everything else is just implementation details of that responsibility. Increasing market share may be one implementation plan but so might be liquidating the company and becoming a venture capitalist firm for cool technology.

 

[BoRegardless]

New G5 Mania Lowers Sales...Now

Everyone understands that when the story gets hot about the "next release" or "next generation" release that you can savage the existing sales. Hence, Apple better start accelerating their spending to get things out faster.

I for one am ready to buy both the G5s in a 17" PowerBook and a DP 3ghz PowerMac, but I'll be damned if I am going to buy now and have the new G5 stuff show up in a few months.

I am sorely tempted to "Buy Now", as the psychologically tempting web page phrase urges, but I have superb restraint.

There are one whole heck of a lot of people out there just like me. The pent up demand is high in my view.

 

[faroutfive]

Open Space in Your Big Empty Box

Upgradable...thats a tougher call. I very much doubt it. Of course they would always allow access to the ram slots, possibly the graphics card?, hard disk? and a pci slot or two, but it would be a big change for the imac line...

I hear this all day long. "The powermac is upgradable. The iMac isn't, Right?" I tell them I upgrade iMacs all the time.

You need a hard drive? External FW HD. Your need a faster optical drive? Lacie makes a great 8x DVD+/-RW. 7.1 audio via USB? TV Tuner with Tivo? Hell, You can upgrade your zip drive by not having a zip drive. (.mac). And shoot me now, but I am just guessing that not every consumer user could use a big fat PCI slot on the back of their iMac. (dun dun)

Don't get me wrong, I am a videographer and small business owner. The powermac exists for much needed reasons. But we are talking about iMacs. And I've worked with enough customers to know that the iMac is the answer for most.

But the powermacs are so expensive! The iMacs are so expensive! We need pro iMacs! We need powermacs at iMac prices!

I only start feeling the iMac price tag as unfair when the processor, the defacto non upgrade, has fallen behind the curve. Hello G5 iMac. Why not. I think we'd all agree we'd get what we paid for. And when I'm writing a check for a new powermac, I'm looking less and less at how many PCI slots it has and more to how many ports it has. Things are slowly changing.

The iMac is extremely flexible. I've worked in small houses that cut DV with 6-7 external drives on iMacs. That was during the dark ages of the powermac G4. If the new powermac architecture wasn't so (finally) advanced, maybe I'd own an iMac too. Don't get me wrong, people. There are fantastic PCI cards out there, but pros is pros is pros...

I took my SCSI card out when I upped to 10.3. I think it's time to remove the idea you need the big box everytime, everywhere and think outside the box alittle

External graphics card anyone?

 

[nextbigthing]

G5 Imac

Hi,

I've never posted before. But I do get a kick out of reading the forum.

There WILL be a G5 Imac. It will NOT be headless. In addition, we also think the $999 emac is a screaming deal.

Thank you, we now return you to your discussion.

n-b-t

 

[ramiman]

This is what i think personnally.

The imacs which will come out sometime this summer will be the following :
17" imac G5 1,6 and 1,8 the 1,6 with ATI 9700 64 Mb DDR and the 1,8 with ATI 9700 128 Mb DDR and superdrive for both
20" imac G5 1,8 Ghz superdrive pus ATI Radeon 9700 128 Mb DDR


Concerning the performance of the G5 compared to the G4, it is true that there is no great difference although the G5's higher performance is perceptible. The real gain in performance in the G5 is not in the processor but the whole architecture of it : more RAM and especially gain of performance in graphics wether it is photoshop or a game.

For example, the powermac G4 dual 1,42 Ghz with the ATi 9800 pro and 128 Mb DDR cannot perform more than 30 fps in a botmatch in UT 2003 whereas the powermac G5 1,6 Ghz withe same graphic card performs a bit more than 40 fps and the powermac G5 1,8 Ghz performs 50 fps with the same graphic card also. And the powerbook G4 1,5 Ghz with 128 Mb video option performs a bit more than 32 FPS. So lets admit that it would be a real revolution to get G5's in an imac especially that we will finally be able to compete with PC systems.

 

[The Red Wolf]

Just Posting

I don't know if you were responding to me, but I'll pretend you were cuz it sort of sounds like it..

Slughead, I was posting in general. I'm sorry if you felt my post was directed at you, it wasn't. I am tired of seeing several posts of how G5s based on the 970 chip-set are out of date and slow. I can't afford a high end G5 right now. The fact I was able to get an "Apollo" chip for my Cube made me very happy. It's basically a G5 without altevec. But my bus speed remains 100 MHz. 2MB level 3 cash helps. I would get a G5 iMac with a 20" screen. As it would be affordable for the time. Later when I have the money I can get a G5 PowerBook to replace a long dead 3400ce and finally retire the TAM.

The difference between a G4 500 MHz (the same chip that was in the dual G4 500 MHz tower) and the G4 "Apollo" 1.25-1.42 GHz... I assure you, is not just a speed bump. Nor a Pinto compared to a Pinto. The difference quite honestly in the way of cars would be like going from the high end model of a car to the high end model of the luxury line of the same company. VW to Audi, Toyota to Lexus, Nissan to Infinity, Honda to Acura. Looking at a G5 while driving your new luxury car is like looking at a BMW M3 with twin turbo. Or a Lamborghini per say. Which is why it bothers me so much when someone says "Man, this 2004 Lamborghini is too slow, I need the new 2004.5 model." When you're diving a 1997 M3... Doesn't the low end Lamborghini look good? My two cents.

 

[aftk2]

What's the point if you cannot install more than 4 GiB of memory?
Should use faster G4.

We're talking about running OS X...not Longhorn ;-)

 

[cgc]

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

But an iMac on your lap on a plane would look even worse. Oh, it's not even on. A Powerbook's strength isn't it's power, it's its portability.

 

[dongmin]

The idea of a headless iMac, or some other varient of a consumer Mac at a price point of $800 makes perfect sense as a potential way to gain market share. It probably would not be highly profitable, but I believe apples stock would go up very nicely anyway if they were to gain market share and profits were to remain at about the same levels.

If all people cared about was getting a cheap computer, you can get an eMac for $750 (edu price) and ibook for $950 (edu). I think those prices are pretty competitive for what you get.

 

[dizastor]

I for one, am glad to see a fresh rumor... I go into MR witdrawl most weekends...

*twitch*

 

[the_wallcrawler]

when your mac is a 400 tibook..........even the current iMacs would be a major improvement. so talk of a g5?? sign me up.

 

[rogozhin]

I'll take one as soon as they reach the UK (though I'd much rather pay US prices - any reason a US one wouldn't work over here?)

Other than a power supply difference and that whole driving on the other side of the road, I can't think of any reason why not...

 

[Tom800]

design

So is the new design going to be as much as a leap as it was between G3/G4 iMacs? Will they go to metal? Return of the rainbow? How about black for once!

 

[isgoed]

finally!

A substantial G5 iMac rumor. It was about time.

 

[cryhavoc2112]

Longhorn Rumors False

Once again, everyone tries to blow Longhorn off as a huge system hog. Not true. Completely scalable. Oh, and I have OSX in all it's bloated glory, just as bloated as any M$ OS. I know the flames of feverent Mac users shall now commence, but the truth is clear. Longhorn will be pretty and bloated. OS-NEXT will be pretty and bloated. All OS'es suck, so get over it.

Plus it will play all the games I love. M$ may have it's issues, but if you are a gamer, it is the only OS right now. And M$ is taking steps to ensure it's stronghold in the gaming market in the next OS. Looks like us gamers are stuck with M$.

Now start your replies. And start foaming @ the mouth.

 

[Chaszmyr]

A pointless argument. People who buy a headless Mac for $800 to put it with a crappy old CRT do it for economic reasons. If they had the money, they'd either get a shiny new monitor to go with it, or an all-in-one model like the current iMac. My PCs 17" monitor is pretty old and starting to lose color, being secondhand, but it's served me well and I couldn't afford a new one at the time. Had it been economically viable at the time, I would most certainly have gotten a Mac instead of a custom-built PC recycling old parts like monitor, keyboard and HD. Moreover, if I had a Mac with a fully-functional 20" flatscreen, why would I want to pay to get a new one just to upgrade the computer?

If people can't afford the Mac, they won't get to experience OSX at all. Apple needs to grow marketshare badly. Cheap Macs may not be profitable, but they make for a good introduction to a Mac and future upgrades, and grows marketshare among groups like students etc.

A headless imac wouldn't be any more affordable than an eMac

 

[weezer160]

apple forced to do this

because it's taken so dang long before apple can get any new powermac g5 updates, it's forced to take some interesting steps in promoting the sales of it's g5s. i think this is the good side of this powermac g5 update - apple is forced to do something unexpected with the g5s that they so desperately have to sell.

 

[Dont Hurt Me]

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.

here are some UT scores from eashop.macsales. notice how 1.6 G5 kicks a dual g4 1.42. This app isnt really that savy for 2 cpu's but this just goes to show in a lot of tests a single G5 can match or exceed any G4 duallies and these apps are not yet written for G5 or running a G5 OS.

 

[macrumors12345]

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.

Your argument presupposes that there is some degree of substitution between the Powerbook and the iMac line. This is a bad assumption - it is highly unlikely that many (any!) prospective Powerbook buyers would shift to the iMac simply because the iMac has a faster processor. It is arguably even more absurd to assume that a prospective Powerbook buyer might choose not to buy any machine simply because s/he was "jealous" that the "consumer" iMac had a faster processor than the "professional" Powerbook.

People understand that there is a tradeoff between power and portability. They are not stupid. They do not expect that a light laptop must be able to outperform a heavy desktop. In the Wintel world, you can buy a 3 Ghz Pentium 4 system for under $1000 that will easily outperform any $2000+ Pentium-M (Centrino) laptop, but you don't see consumers not buying Pentium-M's just because there exists a desktop that weighs 20 times as much and costs less and can outperform the Pentium-M.

 

[thatwendigo]

You have no idea what is/has been going on in Apple labs and for how long they have been working on putting a G5 in an iMac. We have all read the supposed problems with heat dissipation, FSB, memory controller ad nauseum. It wouldn't shock us if Apple has worked through these problems.

You're right on one point - we don't know what Apple has been up to. As I stated in my post, it is possible that something has been done to work around the issues of the G5, but the truth of the matter is that it would take one of a couple of solutions or a major breakthrough in technology. In general, that means a sacrifice in elegance or an even greater outlay in money, when you're talking about solving huge engineering problems.

If any company in the modern computing market could pull it off, I have faith that Apple could do it. The problem is that all the technical information that's been released, all the information on past models, and any other technical documentation points to the G5 being too hot, too slow, and too power hungry for a portable or a SFF computer. Just think about it logically for a moment... The 970 is a chip derived from a server processor that is constantly powered, cooled, and basically pampered in enclosures intended to keep it cool at lower clock than the current design.

I'd love to see there be an across-the-board rollout of a processor that's faster than the G4, but I'm not willing to see a decrease in power management and heat efficiency to achieve that. Big, important things are happening out there, and my predictions about Intel dropping the Pentium 4 development in favor of their Centrino design were right. Companies are realizing that they need fast and efficient, both. For Apple, this will be the 975/980, which should be around any time now, since the Power5 chips are debuting a week or two before WWDC.

If we see a major revision to the iMac, my bet is that it will be one of two things: an e600 from Freescale or a 975/980 with much better power slewing than the current 970 or 970fx. Of course, as I've posted all over the place in the past. I think the iMac is nearing the end of its life. Apple has a love/hate relationship with all-in-one computers, and they seem to make one every once in a while, only to discontinue it. A "headless iMac" would be better served as a minitower enclosure that is straightforward in its design, not as a kludge of an "all-in-one" that has some magical (and extra-expensive) detachable screen.

- I think they can cool it. New elegant form factor with clever use of convection and quite fans should do the trick
- I think only 2 RAM slots would be a waste for a prosumer machine. Dual channel is what helps the G5 go fast.

I think you're wrong. The heat output of current generation G5s is more than any past system that I am aware of, and that goes double for the all-in-one designs. Convection is only good for so much, and even the G4 required active cooling in both the eMac and iMac.

Also, as much as people like to label the iMac as a "prosumer" machine, I'd like to see what features make it so. There is no expansion slot, there is no upgradability, and that is one of the tradeoffs of all-in-one that you make as a necessity. In order to package the whole bundle together, you sacrifice certain things. That's just how it is, when you do simple, elegant designs like Apple's.

They will go G5...its inevitable. The fact they haven't done anything really with the iMac for so long bodes well to see G5 the next time round.

They're a bit stupid if they do, then. The recent admission by Intel should be meat enough for anyone that megahertz is not the measure of a machine, and the benchmarks at Barefeats (along with the analysis of them I've done elsewhere on the board) shows that the G5 is not significantly faster than the G4 at the single-processor level when you go clock-for-clock. The new 1.5ghz G4 PowerBooks have shown this.

Regardless of what speed G5 the iMac gets, it will be a significant improvement and something that will sell quite well. I'd imagine there would be a huge delay in shipping

People keep claiming that there would be a huge boost in performance.. Why? Show me where anything indicates that a low-clock single processor G5 is soooo much faster than the current generation of G5s. Please keep in mind that I'm talking about the 1.5ghz 7447A, not any previous version.

I'd have to respectfully disagree, I think that having a detachable screen would send one message only which would be choice and upgradeability, it would also reduce significantly Apple's iMac inventory headache, rather than the current scenario where they have to produce a 15", 17" and 20" iMac, they could simply stock a one size fits all iMac box and ship your monitor of choice seperately.

Gee... I've heard this before. Oh, right, it's called a tower.

The simple truth of the matter is that some people just don't seem capable of admitting that what they want is a greedily cheap implementation of a non-commodity system. It doesn't matter what it does to Apple, whether it would be viable as a long-term product, or anything else. All that counts is that they get a G5 system with their particular desires, not that the design be at all solid or likely to sell. There is already a headless G5 system, and it's called a PowerMac.

I kind of wish that they would go ahead and do so, just to shut the people who can't stop talking about expandable low-end G5s up. I've done it before, but here's what I think the lineup would look like in a reasonably perfect world:

iBook 12"/14" 1.8ghz e600 (dual-core), 512MB PC2700(2-DIMM), 40GB 4200RPM, Combo, Radeon 9200 Mobile 64MB, $1,299
iBook 14" 2.0ghz e600 (dual-core), 512MB PC2700(1-DIMM), 60GB 4200RPM, Superdrive, Radeon 9200 Mobile 64MB, $1,699

eMac 15" LCD 2.0ghz e600 (dual-core), 512MB PC3200, 60 GB/80GB, Combo/SuperDrive, Radeon 9600 128MB, $1,099/$1,499

cMac 2.2ghz 975 (dual-core), 512MB PC3200, 80GB SATA, SuperDrive, NV 6800 GT 128MB, $1,499
cMac 2.6ghz 975 (dual-core), 512MB PC3200, 160GB SATA, SuperDrive, NV 6800 GT 128MB, $1,799
cMac 3.0ghz 975 (dual-core), 1GB PC3200, 250GB SATA, SuperDrive, NV 6800 Ultra 256MB, $2,099

PowerBook 15" 2.0ghz e600 (dual-core), 512MB PC3200, 60GB 5400RPM, SuperDrive, ATI Radeon 9700 128MB, $1,799
PowerBook 15" 2.0ghz e600 (dual-core), 512MB PC3200, 60GB 7200RPM, SuperDrive, ATI Radeon 9700 128MB, $1,999
PowerBook 17" 2.2ghz 2600 (dual-core), 512MB PC3200, 60GB 7200RPM, SuperDrive, ATI Radeon 9700 128MB, $2,399
PowerBook 17" 2.2ghz 2600 (dual-core), 1GB PC 3200, 80GB 7200RM, SuperDrive, ATI Radeon 9700 128MB, $2,699

PowerMac 2.2ghz (dual-core, dual-processor), 512MB PC4200, 2x60GB SATA 10000RPM RAID, SuperDrive, ATI x800 128MB $1,999
PowerMac 2.6ghz (dual-core, dual-processor), 512MB PC4200, 2x80GB SATA 10000RPM RAID, SuperDrive, ATI x800 128MB $2,499
PowerMac 3.0ghz (dual-core, dual-processor), 1GB PC4200, 2x120GB SATA 10000RPM RAID, SuperDrive, ATI x800 256MB $2,999