G5 iMac?

[thatwendigo]

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.

Did you even bother to read your own chart, DHM? The FPS for the Dual 1.42ghz is 36, and the single 1.6G5 is 33.5. The G4 wins. Also, if you at all research the models, the machine with highest FPS all have different graphics cards, and the leading one has a far better card than the others.

 

[MacFan25]

I'm wondering if they will have a re-design also. I love the design of the current iMacs, but I'm sure that the engineers at Apple already have something better in mind.

But a G5 iMac sure would be fast!

 

[steveh]

In my understanding, the heatsinks employed by Apple here are air conduits to directly move the heated air off the CPU.

No. My company did a competitive analysis teardown of a G5 system, and I got to look at the parts after disassembly. The heatsinks on the processors include a metal plate (copper, IIRC) contacting the CPU, and a pair of heatpipes carrying heat from the plate into the finned heatsink.

If you can provide a tech doc from Apple that says there's water in their cooling systems I'll gladly stand corrected.

You won't find it. If for no other reason than that the heat pipes don't contain water; they contain some low boiling point liquid.

There is no actively-pumped liquid cooling system, which is what you seem to be thinking of.

 

[steveh]

Can you point us to an Apple doc or other source that can confirm that?

No. Just hands-on experience with a complete tear down.

Definitely a heat pipe. It's a sealed copper tube, not some sort of duct for moving air.

 

[nmk]

DHM, as has been pointed out, you havent read your own chart. For the benefit of those who also didn't bother reading your chart, it shows the Dual 1.42 as having a higher framerate than the 1.6 G5. It also shows the Dual 1.25 matching the 1.6 in speed. This is interesting, particularly for a game that doesn't make any extensive use of dual processors.

Please sir, show me the benchmarks. Considering your G4 has less than 1/3 the bus of the g5. I find this very very hard to believe. When you make statements, show a benchmark to back yourself up.

This is a very well known, and respected, Mac benchmarking site. If you want to check yourself http://www.barefeats.com/fcp4.html

 

[MrSugar]

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.

Thank you, thank you! This is exactly what I think people miss, these apps aren't even utilizing the true power of the g5! nice work DHM

Please keep in mind all, that the g5 is 64 bit, even if it isn't as much of a performance increase at this current time.

 

[nmk]

Thank you, thank you! This is exactly what I think people miss, these apps aren't even utilizing the true power of the g5! nice work DHM

Oh really. FCP, at least, contains libraries that allow the software to take advantage of the 64 bit processor. See the chart I have included above. It does not, at the same clock speed, have any noticible advantage over a G4. Please play special attention to the scores of the 1.6 G5 and 1.5 G4. FCP is a professional application. It does take advantage of anything the G5 might have to offer.

 

[Lanbrown]

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.

Why can't they put the G5 in the iMac before the PB? When a product is ready, it should be released. Maybe the question should be why not? iMac sales are down, they need to do something to stimulate them. Another speed bump won't do it, they've already done that. They even tried releasing a bigger screen, that didn't do anything either. Look at the current iMac design, it's over two years old. Here's what they need to do:
G5, at least 1.8GHz if not 2.0. By the times these are released, the PM should be at 3GHz. SATA drives and offer more then the current 160GB ATA option. Update the SuperDrive on all desktop systems to 8x, or at least on the PM and iMac. The GPU should me much improved as well, how about the Mobility 9700 or 9800?

The iMac is for a different segment then a PB or even an iBook. Apple cannot make the G5 for the Pro line only. Apples sells more equipment to consumers then they do to Professionals. Some businesses/governments even use the iMac.

 

[SiliconAddict]

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.

Benchmarks based on Frames Per second are typically not very trustworthy in gauging pure performance since those specs are so dependant on the GPU. I'd trust something more along the lines of Photoshop benchmarks to give an accurate idea of performance.

 

[Mord]

1) Are they going to make a headless iMac?

stop with he headless imac thing apple tryed it with the cube (I am typeing on a dual g4 cube at this moment ) and the mac community rejected it because of the price it's not going to happen however much i want a g5 cube.

 

[Piker]

I wonder...

Has anybody heard which G5 chip will be in the iMac? This info prob'ly hasn't been released yet, but I wonder if they finally got enough of those 970fx chips pumped out of the factory to make this feasible, or if they are sticking with the first generation G5's which are (still) currently in the PMG5.

If they are using the 970fx, and they don't release a PowerBook G5 right along side of this new iMac, I would be forced to get upset.

-Piker

 

[dstorey]

What I'd like to see is something like the iMac mini that macrumors is currently making up. I'd like to see it being to the iMac, what the iPod mini is to the iPod. It would be in a cube form factor, but a real cube shape instead of being raised on plastic feet like the original...or was the NeXT cube the original? The problem would be fitting everything into a small cube form factor, as a large cube would look kinda bad. Cooling would be a problem too, but i guess they could share components with laptops if the size is too much a problem.

It would be made out of aluminium, and look like it was made out of one slab, coming in all the colours of the iPod mini and white. Basically it would look like the throphies that apple are giving away at WWDC

but with the apple logo on the side, iMac mini written on the front in small writing, small glowing power button on the front, which is more touch sensitive than an actual button...kinda like what bang & oulfson do on their latest hi-fi, and the same superdrive/combo drive as the powermac either at the top of the front face or mounted vertically like the cube...very clean lines and lack of clutter. The bottom would unlock to access the internald for expansion using same lock as the powerbook battery. The ports would be lined up along the bottom of the back face, again in a similar style as the powerbook. Maybe a mini-dvi could be used to save space. Im not sure about an removeable graphics card as it would ruin the clean lines along the back.

Of course it would be underpowered (low end g5 or high end g4) and cost too much, but as the iPod mini proved, the specs wont matter to the general public, theyll all think its cool and goes with their ipods and they will fly off the shelves to everyones amazment. Having some sort of ipod/mini dock on it would be nice too. Just as the ear buds are white, so would the keys and mouse for each model. Of course al lthe teen girls could buy pink imac minis to match their ipod, or mix and match such as hving ,pink ipod, blue imac and silver iSight.

sorry for going on...but that would be my dream computer...well except i'd get the silver or white one, not pink

 

[ahmadof]

All this talk of a headless iMac...

makes me wonder why Apple is not marketing the iBook/ Powerbook line as such. You can get a bluetooth iBook, CRT monitor, and wireless keyboard + mouse for about the same as an iMac. There's a cube or a rectangle that's pretty good and lets you have a laptop. The performance is about the same as iMac currently. also i don't even pretend to be an expert, but the reason i would not buy anything but a G5 atthis point is that I keep computers for a while. My G3 400 powerbook is running 10.3 faster than 10.2 which was faster than 10.1. I believe that if i buy a G5 now, it will last a lot longer and get "faster" as the OS gets more efficient, more applications are optimized for it, and people start using the 64 bitness of it. That's why even if there is not a huge difference now, apple has shown me that they will keep improving my existing computer. there is more room for the G5 to grow.

 

[jayscheuerle]

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

Then give me a headless eMac for $700! I've got a fine 17" lcd attached to a 400mHz beige G3. eBay is my only option for an affordable upgrade. Apple does not offer anything I can justify paying for.

A 1.25 gHz G4 is plenty strong for 90% for what most Mac users use their machines for, providing they have enough RAM.

I'm interested in understanding the opposition to an affordable, low-end Mac that isn't the size of a microwave oven and you can attach any size monitor you want to. Is this some kind of crazy religion? There's no logic behind it....

 

[rdowns]

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

I definately think they would update the design with a G5. If the G5 rumor is true, I bet Jobs and Ives have something really hot up their sleeves (save the G5 heat jokes please).

Off topic: Posting this from the hotel bar in my Atlanta hotel. Just finished blowing away some Wintel jerk who couldn't get his wireless connection working. Called my iBook a toy. I just booted up and Airport recognized the wirelss LAN, entered access code and was off. Started checking my work mail while he cursed and rebooted time and time again. I asked him if he wanted me to email a message to his office for him.

He was looking over my shoulder so I asked him if he ever saw OS X. He was very impressed with the OS X stuff I showed him. Told him he owed me a beer for the education.

The whole place is wireless!!!!!!

 

[jayscheuerle]

1) Are they going to make a headless iMac?

stop with he headless imac thing apple tryed it with the cube (I am typeing on a dual g4 cube at this moment ) and the mac community rejected it because of the price it's not going to happen however much i want a g5 cube.

That's because they aimed for the wrong market.

A headless iMac/eMac should be aimed for the lowest price bracket, not the designer/boutique/pseudo-power-user market.

 

[Rower_CPU]

No. Just hands-on experience with a complete tear down.

Definitely a heat pipe. It's a sealed copper tube, not some sort of duct for moving air.

Thanks for the info.

 

[Phobophobia]

I wish whatever 3rd grade teacher told the world that, would be flogged on national television. It's WRONG. That statement is based on the relation of wing size to mass, in a fixed wing craft Airplanes don't flap their wings. They are just gliders with deformable wings and an engine to keep inertia at bay.

You do yourself, and anyone listening who is gullible enough to believe you, a grave disservice by passing along Bad Science.

To bring this slightly back towards the topic, the same application of ignorance and bad science is what leads people to think you have to stick all the components from a G5 tower into a box the size of an iMac in order to make a G5 iMac. No one expects a G4 powerbook to be the size of a G4 MDD tower, so why can't they wrap their head around the notion that if you don't include all the expansion slots, a power supply designed to run a computer, and a monitor (remember the ADC monitors) etc, that you

Although I feel you overreacted a bit, you are correct. I was merely trying to make a point and realize that it is "bad science".

 

[dontmatter]

What I'd like to see is something like the iMac mini that macrumors is currently making up. I'd like to see it being to the iMac, what the iPod mini is to the iPod. It would be in a cube form factor, but a real cube shape instead of being raised on plastic feet like the original...or was the NeXT cube the original? The problem would be fitting everything into a small cube form factor, as a large cube would look kinda bad. Cooling would be a problem too, but i guess they could share components with laptops if the size is too much a problem.

It would be made out of aluminium, and look like it was made out of one slab, coming in all the colours of the iPod mini and white. Basically it would look like the throphies that apple are giving away at WWDC

but with the apple logo on the side, iMac mini written on the front in small writing, small glowing power button on the front, which is more touch sensitive than an actual button...kinda like what bang & oulfson do on their latest hi-fi, and the same superdrive/combo drive as the powermac either at the top of the front face or mounted vertically like the cube...very clean lines and lack of clutter. The bottom would unlock to access the internald for expansion using same lock as the powerbook battery. The ports would be lined up along the bottom of the back face, again in a similar style as the powerbook. Maybe a mini-dvi could be used to save space. Im not sure about an removeable graphics card as it would ruin the clean lines along the back.

Of course it would be underpowered (low end g5 or high end g4) and cost too much, but as the iPod mini proved, the specs wont matter to the general public, theyll all think its cool and goes with their ipods and they will fly off the shelves to everyones amazment. Having some sort of ipod/mini dock on it would be nice too. Just as the ear buds are white, so would the keys and mouse for each model. Of course al lthe teen girls could buy pink imac minis to match their ipod, or mix and match such as hving ,pink ipod, blue imac and silver iSight.

sorry for going on...but that would be my dream computer...well except i'd get the silver or white one, not pink

hmm... sounds just like the origional cube, only with modern specs. An, yeah, that one went well, if I remember correctly. not. What, precisely, would make this one different? Compters are just a bit more complex than ipods, in use and so in marketing and what people care about. That's why the cool factor just isn't as big. Not to mention, why does apple need to make a desktop that's going to require laptop components, and otherwise be an engineering nightmare and so be rediculously over priced, just to be cool? Apple's are ALREADY cool.

 

[thatwendigo]

Then give me a headless eMac for $700! I've got a fine 17" lcd attached to a 400mHz beige G3. eBay is my only option for an affordable upgrade. Apple does not offer anything I can justify paying for.

I doubt it'll happen. Besides, it's $1,299 for a 1.25ghz G4 tower that's more expandable than the eMac and roughly comparable.

I'm interested in understanding the opposition to an affordable, low-end Mac that isn't the size of a microwave oven and you can attach any size monitor you want to. Is this some kind of crazy religion? There's no logic behind it....

I'm against crappy versions of the mac platform, which a low end machine will have to be if it isn't a G4. Of course, since you've stated that you'd be fine with a G4, I have to ask you this... What makes you believe that a G4 lowend box would sell all that well if the eMac isn't exactly screaming off shelves?

 

[Mojo The Monkey]

If Apple's really interested in selling iMacs, they shouldn't be too afraid of the idea of a G5 iMac. If they can design it, they should ship it.

Look back to the introduction of the first, tray loading iMacs.

Apple agressively designed the Bondi iMac with a 233 G3 processor at the same time that the PowerMacs were shipping with 233, 266, or 300 MHz processors. It wasn't clock speeds that were differentiating these machines, it was the expandability.

When I bought my 333 Grape iMac in May of 1999, Apple had since moved to the Blue & White PowerMacs, which were shipping with 300, 350 or 400 MHz processors. Again, the iMacs had comparable processor speeds to the PowerMacs. My lowly consumer-level iMac was, at least in terms of MHz, faster than the cheapest PowerMac!

At this same time (April 1999), Apple was shipping PowerBook G3s with 233, 266, or 300 MHz processors. The iMacs, for a few weeks at least, were faster than the fastest PowerBook! In May, Apple introduced the Lombard PowerBooks, which shipped with 333 or 400 MHz processors. It wasn't processor speeds that were differentiating these machines, it was the portability.

Anyway, the long and short of this post is this: Historically, Apple has not been afraid of agressive specifications for the iMac line. For short periods of time, the iMacs have been faster than any PowerBook available, and have been faster than all but the fastest PowerMacs available. A G5 iMac could well be released in the next couple of months.

If Apple remembers and learns from the success of the original fruit-flavored iMacs, Apple could well release G5 iMacs at speeds up to 2.0 GHz.

 

[jayscheuerle]

What makes you believe that a G4 lowend box would sell all that well if the eMac isn't exactly screaming off shelves?

LCD and a small form factor. The eMac is huge and overkill space-wise for anyone who already has a decent display.

And there's the fact that tons of people are clamoring for them. Have been for years. Inexpensive doesn't mean cheap. Heck, if someone created a kit which would allow the removal of the monitor of an eMac and a revised, smaller case (with respectable styling), I'd buy one in a minute. Sure, I can get a used G4 on ebay, but like all of those who claim that the current iMac is upgradable, I already have external drives and opticals, etc. I don't need a fully configured machine...

It would take away the excuse of Macs being too expensive. Yes, yes... We ALL KNOW that feature for feature, they're not, but not everyone needs a high-end machine and not everyone needs all of their working external devices replaced by a new machine.

I think Apple doesn't offer this because it would drastically cannibalize the sales of their higher-margin machines.

Not everyone needs a laptop.

 

[jayscheuerle]

I doubt it'll happen. Besides, it's $1,299 for a 1.25ghz G4 tower that's more expandable than the eMac and roughly comparable.

Why would I pay $500 more just not to get a monitor? The low-end eMac is $799.

Heck, I'd pay $799 if they'd just redesign the case without the monitor in it...

 

[Trekkie]

The G5 systems. They use heat pipes to carry heat from the CPU to the heatsink fins.

They don't use water, though, but a liquid with a much lower boiling point, like a light alcohol.

Not necessarily, you can also put water in at a much lower atmospheric pressure and it'll boil much sooner at a lower temperature transfering the heat better/faster. I think at 50% of normal pressure water converts to steam at 80 deg F.

 

[Trekkie]

An iMac G5 would put the iMac ahead of the Powerbook and no one seriosly expects a G5 Powerbook before 2005.

This is new how? I seem to remember processor technology showing up first in a desktop form factor before a laptop factor?