Nothing in the listing title or description advertised it as "new and unused".
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.
NEW G5 Xserve 2.0 on the bay
- Thread starter Surrat
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Nothing in the listing title or description advertised it as "new and unused".
It was listed as just exactly that
Attachments
How did you determine the server mileage? Are those the drives that shipped with it? If so the seller has some 'splaning to do...
The drives are at least consistent with the box shipping label. Plus, the server shows some definite signs of being in and out of a rack-nothing major, but a lot of scratches on the top panel and some scuffs on the front.
Does anyone know if it's possible to pull data on the power-on hours for other system components?
If I end up pressing this into serious use, I'm inclined to repaste the CPUs.
In reading through the service manual, however, the instructions are emphatic about NOT separating the heatsink and CPU.
Is this Apple being overly cautious and not trusting field techs to apply thermal paste, or is there some reason why I can't/shouldn't remove the heatsink to clean and apply fresh paste?
In reading through the service manual, however, the instructions are emphatic about NOT separating the heatsink and CPU.
Is this Apple being overly cautious and not trusting field techs to apply thermal paste, or is there some reason why I can't/shouldn't remove the heatsink to clean and apply fresh paste?
Attachments
I would be that seller's worst nightmare because if there is wear and tear coupled with 3.5 years worth of use on the drives then there is no way it was new. You could have bought this Xserve G5 2.0 that was in use for only a year for only $50 so I would be royally ticked with that seller and demanding a partial refund. I bet he would be surprised to see you found out about 3.5 years of use.
Well, all things considered most of the $50 ones have serious problems like missing PSUs or drive carriers, and this one was at least complete and functional. Plus, I did get the box, software, and all of the original packaging, which is worth a fair bit to me.
The seller responded to me a little while ago asking what they could do to make it right, and I asked for $50 to replace one of the hard drives(one of them-fortunately not the boot drive-did show a fairly recent error, so I'm inclined to not trust that one). Hopefully, they will be agreeable to this.
I don't want to push it too much, as the whole package is nice even if used and not new as described.
The seller agreed to my $50 refund request.
On an unrelated note, I decided to tackle the repaste also. It's actually not too bad, although I can see why Apple might not necessarily want someone tackling it on their own.
Basically, the processor card and heatsink assembly are held on by six screws, as outlined in the service guide. Four go through the heatsink and processor, and two only through the processor.
Once these are out, the CPU and heatsink lift off as a unit.
There are 6 Phillips head screws that go into split copper "feet" in the heatsink. When the heatsink was originally fitted, the screws caused the posts to expand and lock the card into place. There are also four hex head screws around the processor core-these have cupped washers and springs to control the tension actually being applied to the heatsink.
Once all of these are removed, the card and heatsink can be separated, cleaned, and repasted.
The slightly tricky part is reassembly, where the CPU has to be "snapped" over the flared copper posts.
All told, it's not a terrible job.
On an unrelated note, I decided to tackle the repaste also. It's actually not too bad, although I can see why Apple might not necessarily want someone tackling it on their own.
Basically, the processor card and heatsink assembly are held on by six screws, as outlined in the service guide. Four go through the heatsink and processor, and two only through the processor.
Once these are out, the CPU and heatsink lift off as a unit.
There are 6 Phillips head screws that go into split copper "feet" in the heatsink. When the heatsink was originally fitted, the screws caused the posts to expand and lock the card into place. There are also four hex head screws around the processor core-these have cupped washers and springs to control the tension actually being applied to the heatsink.
Once all of these are removed, the card and heatsink can be separated, cleaned, and repasted.
The slightly tricky part is reassembly, where the CPU has to be "snapped" over the flared copper posts.
All told, it's not a terrible job.
On a simular but unrelated note: I find it odd that Apple could make a iMac G5 (basically a laptop in a shell with a huge-ass screen) and can make a Xserve G5 which is no thicker than a iMac G5 yet never made an iBook G5 or a PowerBook G5....
Mainly thermal issues prevented them from putting G5s in laptops. They just get too hot.
Also, I'm pretty sure the iMac G5 is much thicker than late-model iBooks and PowerBooks (not including the display), and it does contain mostly desktop components.
That...
Even a 1U rack is about two and a half times the thickness of the Powerbooks Apple was making them(which, I'll add, are chunky by todays' standards, even though they were thin then). Although I didn't measure, the heatsink alone in the Xserve(without the CPU card) is probably as thick if not thicker than a Powerbook, and has probably 1/4 the footprint of a 12" Powerbook.
The iMacs aren't a lot different.
That's also not to mention the fact that G5s are power hogs. Even if Apple had made a thicker, heavier laptop that could handle a G5, it probably would have needed a battery pack the size of a backpack to power it for any respectable amount of time.
This was the ultimate issue with the G5. Too much power consumption for the amount of processing power to make it practical for a laptop. IBM (who designed the G5) couldn't produce a product with a guaranteed roadmap so thus Apple switched to Intel and a new Era was born.
And that leads us to why we are here today in the PPC section.
Why Apple couldnt go to AMD is what I want to know.... AMD processors are cheaper and run much cooler plus I have heard nothing but horror stories on Intel Macs. I have heard people saying the quality and reliability in Apple since the Intel switch has gone down the tubes. Why not just make Faster G4s if G5s were too power hungery? they made a 1.67GHz G4 no reason they couldn't make a Dual Core or 64 bit G4 or a G4 that was 2.8GHz.... and wasn't it MOTOROLA that made the PowerPC CPUs? I know for a fact my dead iMac G3s CPU Daughter card says "Motorola" on the CPU.
----------
correct me if i am wrong but dont all the iMac's (or most of them) since the iMac G5 use LAPTOP parts? 2.5" HDDs, Laptop RAM, Laptop DVD Drives... The CPU HSF is not much different than what laptops use either....
All iMacs since the G5s use desktop HDDs (with the exception of the thin 21.5" models) and desktop CPUs (with the exception of the mid 2014 low-end 21.5", that one can be considered a laptop in a iMac case).
actually quite a Few intel iMacs Used Laptop CPUs (and some Laptop GPUs).
I was researching the G5 CPU and while the TDP on the CPU it self was not too unreasonable for a laptop what most peple forget is its not Just the CPU that uses Power and outputs Heat remember the G5 North bridge Runs quite hot and draws some power so while a G5 on its own might fit in a Laptop, the G5 Plus its north bridge made it unsuitable for a Laptop
Apple looked at Intel's and AMD's respective roadmaps for the next few years ahead plus their ability to deliver in volume. No contest. As far as heat dissipation is concerned, Intel and AMD have flip flopped plenty on that score.
As for quality concerns - I doubt you can put the blame squarely on Intel for that. All Intel does is supply the chips and hardware information. Apple is responsible for the rest. Other big quality issues like the RoHS/BGA problems are nothing to do with processor architecture any more than Apple's minimalist approach to notebook ventilation or yellowing glued-in screens on All-In-One computers.
As for ramping up clock cycles - Motorola hit a wall for years on that, which prompted the move to Intel in the first place. All this stuff came out and was discussed to death years ago. Not sure why you need to ask now.
I'd like some proof please that AMD processors of the period were cooler while providing equivalent performance to a 2006 era Intel Core platform.
PowerPC chips were designed and produced by the AIM alliance. That's Apple, IBM and Motorola. What's your point?
Suggest you put your newly learned Google skills from the software thread to good use.
I'd like some proof please that AMD processors of the period were cooler while providing equivalent performance to a 2006 era Intel Core platform.
PowerPC chips were designed and produced by the AIM alliance. That's Apple, IBM and Motorola. What's your point?
Suggest you put your newly learned Google skills from the software thread to good use.
well for starters... An AMD Athlon 64 and a AMD Sempron run cooler and preform equal if not better than a Pentium 4, A AMD Phenmon III X4 Socket S1 laptop CPU runs cooler than a Intel Core 2 Duo laptop CPU, Hell, even the G4 CPUs run cooler than A Pentium 4 (The MDD does anyway)
That's not proof. I'm also pretty sure AMD never made a Phenom x4 (quad core?) mobile CPU, and it would be from years later than the Core Duo. Apple never used Pentium 4s for products on general sale.
I have used all the mentioned CPUs and using temp monitoring can verify AMD is cooler AND its cheaper to buy
and yes AMD did make quad core mobile CPUs The Acer Asphire 7551 uses one. Technically it's and APU and it has the AMD Mobility Radeon HD 4250 GPUs.
Last edited:
When discussing the Intel transition, we have to remember that
1. Motorola(the M in AIM) had all but exited the CPU business by the mid-2000s, by spinning it off to Freescale in 2004
2. IBM overpromised and under-delivered on the G5
Intel-for the past several years-has had a definite edge in performance per watt, which is what Apple is really searching for in their never-ending quest for thinner and lighter computers.
Here's one of many comparisons available on the internet that bear this out
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-core-i7-3770k-gaming-bottleneck,3407-8.html
1. Motorola(the M in AIM) had all but exited the CPU business by the mid-2000s, by spinning it off to Freescale in 2004
2. IBM overpromised and under-delivered on the G5
Intel-for the past several years-has had a definite edge in performance per watt, which is what Apple is really searching for in their never-ending quest for thinner and lighter computers.
Here's one of many comparisons available on the internet that bear this out
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-core-i7-3770k-gaming-bottleneck,3407-8.html
Last edited: