New iMac G5 Announced

[Wash!!]

How do you know?

The consumer DO want to play those new FPS games... They probably won't be too happy when they realise their twice-as-expensive-as-a-PC iMac G5 blows away a PC at almost anything except they can't even play Doom3 properly (and by "properly" I mean native-LCD-resolution at medium settings to get at least 30 fps - not "2048x1600 at ultra high settings to get at least 200 fps", we're not all numbers-crazy gamers).

See my previous post, I did some numbers crunching and the iMac G5 17" probably won't be able to pull more than 15 fps at the very best.

Not until someone gets a hold of an actual unit and run the benchmarks will find out what it can do. Most of you bitch and moan about the new imac but no one has actually use one yet... all of you talk like you're experts on it and used it for decades...

 

[~Shard~]

Again, let me emphasize that the 5200 is not a mid-range video card, it is an entry level or ultra-cheapo-browse-internet-and-write-letters-to-grandchildren card. It will not run doom3 here or there, it will not run doom3 ANYWHERE.

Hmm, funny, I've seen multiple posts in this thread from professionals stating that the 5200 does everything they need it to in terms of Photoshop. I guess these professionals must be Grannys writing letters to their grandchildren and browsing the Internet. I have never had one issue with my 5200 either, so I guess that must mean I'm 80 years old and only use Mail.

 

[myapplseedshurt]

a real question

I've been reading a lot of things what this new imac is NOT FOR (motion, etc...). Will someone please tell me what it IS FOR besides web surfing, text editing, chat-room stuff. There must be some creative, apple specific apps this machine will run without running into limitations imposed by the graphics card or small system memory. it doesn't even have firewire 800!

If there aren't any killer apps that this machine can handle, then apple really is a glutten for punishment because you can do all the "normal" stuff in a $400 pc. I really don't see a lot of people flocking over as switchers just because of a cool design. Not only is this more expensive, but people would have to learn a whole new OS, which in actuallity becomes a chore, not an adventure. The sad part is, by the looks of this thread, apple has even alienated about 50% of their stable marketshare.

I see this machine as being good for older people new to the world of computing, or small children (of parents that can afford $1300 on a computer for their child).

 

[Yvan256]

i can't believe all the complaining about the graphics card. Did any of you actually think Apple never consiidered this? Jesus Christ! Do you have any clue what sort of research goes into launching a product that was in RD over a freakin year! Most people who buy this machine have no freakin use for a 128 card!! i guarantee it!! this is a desktop for people who want to use Word, Internet and listen to Music (64mb gpu in fact is overkill for this).

Let's say you're right and Apple really doesn't care about gamers (even though they do list World of Warcraft, Doom 3, UT2004 comparisons with the old iMac on their iMac G5 pages. Isn't that weird for a company that thinks the iMac G5 isn't for games? Anyway).

Can you explain to me why most people would need a 1.6GHz G5 to use Word, Internet and listen to Music? (last time I checked even a 1GHz G4 was overkill for these tasks)

I said it once and I say it again: Apple blew it on the GPU/VRAM. I *WAS* going to get the 20" (no, really - I finally have the money after waiting for so long). But when I saw "FX 5200 Ultra 64MB"... eww.

 

[yey365]

iMac G5 vs Media PC

I am in the market for a new desktop system and have been holding off until the announcement of the new iMac model. Initially I was considering reverting to a Wintel system in the guise of the Elonex Excentia but, having seen the new iMac, I know I did the right thing in waiting. I think Apple have got the pricing spot on. Even configured to 250GB SATA hard disk, 1GB RAM, bluetooth mouse and keyboard the UK price is around £1600 compared to £1500 for a similar specced Elonex. Considering the user confidence the Mac extols, I am willing to pay the extra £100. My only gripe is the graphic card memory, but then I am not a gamer.

 

[Yvan256]

Not until someone gets a hold of an actual unit and run the benchmarks will find out what it can do. Most of you bitch and moan about the new imac but no one has actually use one yet... all of you talk like you're experts on it and used it for decades...

The fact is, games depend more on the GPU than on the CPU (of course the CPU does play a part, but in today's computers it's more about the GPU).

And since the GPU in the iMac G5 has been selling for more than 2 years now, there IS benchmarks available. See my previous post, I used numbers from a Doom3 video cards review and simply extrapolated the numbers. The iMac G5 really *is* under-powered in the GPU/VRAM department. And that's not an opinion it's a fact (again, see my numbers).

You could put an FX 5200 Ultra 64MB in a dual G5 2.5GHz system with 2GB of RAM and you still couldn't pull more FPS. The GPU/VRAM is the bottleneck.

I really wanted to buy a iMac G5. But not with such a crappy GPU and low VRAM. All the other features are more than I'll ever need for the next 3-4 years (I was going to order the 20" with 512MB and 250GB. But there was no BTO option on the GPU/VRAM. So no sale).

 

[Yvan256]

Hmm, funny, I've seen multiple posts in this thread from professionals stating that the 5200 does everything they need it to in terms of Photoshop.

Funniest post in the whole thread (well, that one and its parent about the FX5200 being enough for Photoshop). If you don't why it's funny, it's no wonder you people think the FX5200 is "good enough".

Photoshop doesn't use the GPU on graphic cards. Those professionnals could be running Photoshop on an ATI Rage Pro 8MB and they wouldn't see any difference.

 

[takao]

Well yes of course the point isn't as strong if the potential switcher is using a CRT and was planning on getting an LCD anyway. But my point stays as some people already do have an LCD display, and some people just want to stay on a CRT (believe it or not, a CRT is still better than a LCD for some stuff, such as color precision and multiple resolutions)

Of course, I except you to reply with the now standard "get a powermac", to which I reply "way too expensive" since I'm talking about *saving money* by not buying a display I already have (so why are you telling me to get the most expensive Mac? That won't save me money at all!)

lets wait and hope for something 'other' ...perhaps apple will pull a different machine out of the magic hat...

that 1755 € BTO middle imac modell BTO with 160 Gb HD + airport express + bluetooth + buying an adiitional 512 mb stick and usb adapter is just too close to 2000€/powermac to convince me switching on the desktop

1500€ is my absolute upper limit personally (more like 1400€) and around the same 1400€ mark for a family pc (perhaps 1600 € could be possibly when streching the budget and myself adding a bunch of money and taking a slower desktop for myself
so i perhaps have 2800€ available next year for byuing 2 apple computers which both shouldn't have less than 512 mb ram but wireless included and LCDs (one possible as a laptop or with middle class grafics card)

edit: shorter: dillema followed by headache

 

[Wash!!]

I still don't get why the complain

The fact is, games depend more on the GPU than on the CPU (of course the CPU does play a part, but in today's computers it's more about the GPU).

And since the GPU in the iMac G5 has been selling for more than 2 years now, there IS benchmarks available. See my previous post, I used numbers from a Doom3 video cards review and simply extrapolated the numbers. The iMac G5 really *is* under-powered in the GPU/VRAM department. And that's not an opinion it's a fact (again, see my numbers).

I really wanted to buy a iMac G5. But not with such a crappy GPU and low VRAM. All the other features are more than I'll ever need for the next 3-4 years (I was going to order the 20" with 512MB and 250GB. But there was no BTO option on the GPU/VRAM. So no sale).

I used a G5 1.8 at work with the FX 5200 and use all my programs, photoshop, Indesign with hundreds MB files and Freehand/illustrators with multiple layers and all kind of very complex patterns and effects and never ran into any problems on the performance of the graphic card even with my old G4-400 was not an issue....

 

[Yvan256]

I've been reading a lot of things what this new imac is NOT FOR (motion, etc...). Will someone please tell me what it IS FOR besides web surfing, text editing, chat-room stuff. There must be some creative, apple specific apps this machine will run without running into limitations imposed by the graphics card or small system memory. it doesn't even have firewire 800!

Well, besides pro applications (Motion, etc) and games (because of the crappy GPU and low VRAM) there's not much the iMac G5 can't do.

With OS X and the iLife suite (especially if you buy a superdrive iMac G5, to get iMovie/iDVD - one of those isn't included on combodrive models I think) the iMac G5 should provide you everything you'll need for quite some time. Just watch the video of the Paris Apple Expo and you'll see what computing should be. That's why I want to switch, but Apple just won't give me a good machine (the iMac G5 was *so* close, but FX 5200 Ultra 64MB... bleh)

 

[the future]

Some pretty cool real life pictures from the Paris showfloor. As always, the new iMac seems to be much prettier than Quicktime movies or Apple homepage renders are able to show. The new iMac is just so shiny... very, very nice!

http://www.hardmac.com/niouzcontenu.php?date=2004-09-01#2774
http://www.cyril-schirmbeck.com/g5imac/

 

[Bendit]

I've been reading a lot of things what this new imac is NOT FOR (motion, etc...). Will someone please tell me what it IS FOR besides web surfing, text editing, chat-room stuff. There must be some creative, apple specific apps this machine will run without running into limitations imposed by the graphics card or small system memory. it doesn't even have firewire 800!

If there aren't any killer apps that this machine can handle, then apple really is a glutten for punishment because you can do all the "normal" stuff in a $400 pc. I really don't see a lot of people flocking over as switchers just because of a cool design. Not only is this more expensive, but people would have to learn a whole new OS, which in actuallity becomes a chore, not an adventure. The sad part is, by the looks of this thread, apple has even alienated about 50% of their stable marketshare.

I see this machine as being good for older people new to the world of computing, or small children (of parents that can afford $1300 on a computer for their child).

My 1ghz powerbook handles all the pro apps. Of course a 1.8 G5 will be able to handle them as well. Just don't expect it to still run top of the line software in 2 years.

 

[Yvan256]

I used a G5 1.8 at work with the FX 5200 and use all my programs, photoshop, Indesign with hundreds MB files and Freehand/illustrators with multiple layers and all kind of very complex patterns and effects and never ran into any problems on the performance of the graphic card even with my old G4-400 was not an issue....

Listen up people: the GPU is *only* used by games (well, for now anyway. That will change once CoreImage/CoreVideo is here).

*Of course* you never ran into any problems on the performance of the graphic card - what you need for those tasks are a fast CPU but even more so lots of RAM. As I said in a previous post, you could be using an ATI Rage Pro 8MB and you wouldn't see any difference (again, speaking for today without CoreImage/CoreVideo).

 

[jsw]

My 1ghz powerbook handles all the pro apps. Of course a 1.8 G5 will be able to handle them as well. Just don't expect it to still run top of the line software in 2 years.

Of course, this is arguably true of any consumer-level computer made by any manufacturer.

 

[Timelessblur]

Ok here is the reason why I complaining about the graphic card. The iMac should not be a consumer leval computer. It should be a prosumer.

Consumer lv computer is the eMac and it a great consumer lv computer

Prosumer should be the iMac but nope iMac is only a consumer lv computer. because lets see the graphic card is really what is holding it back. a Prosumer needs something in the range of a ATI 9600 - Ati 9800 pro (or the Nvidia equivelent).

Lastly there is the Profession lv computer which is the Powermac G5.

eMac was marketed as a consumer lv computer. iMac got marketed as a prosumer lv computer but nope it failed at it. or that could of made the imac could be built up to the prosumer lv computer. Really a prosumer lv computer is about 1200-1700 box only so the monitor is add on top of that. Currently the iMac is a 600-1000 buck box. No self respecting person going to spend 1200 on a Computer before they add in the monitor that has a near bottom of the line graphic card in it.

So can someone fill me in on what fills the gap bettween Consumer and Proffesion lv for apple. Currently there is noughting. They have enty lv barely above entry lv and then Proffision. There is a huge gap there in the middle

 

[Hlau]

Just read Forrester Research's analysis. They're saying that Apple stopped short of creating a genre defining iMac by not having a TV turner card and Tivo-like functions and by not having the wireless stuff built-in.

 

[takao]

I've been reading a lot of things what this new imac is NOT FOR (motion, etc...). Will someone please tell me what it IS FOR besides web surfing, text editing, chat-room stuff. There must be some creative, apple specific apps this machine will run without running into limitations imposed by the graphics card or small system memory. it doesn't even have firewire 800!

If there aren't any killer apps that this machine can handle, then apple really is a glutten for punishment because you can do all the "normal" stuff in a $400 pc. I really don't see a lot of people flocking over as switchers just because of a cool design. Not only is this more expensive, but people would have to learn a whole new OS, which in actuallity becomes a chore, not an adventure. The sad part is, by the looks of this thread, apple has even alienated about 50% of their stable marketshare.

I see this machine as being good for older people new to the world of computing, or small children (of parents that can afford $1300 on a computer for their child).

to answer it short:
it's perhaps the best computer package for the 'joe average' (who doesn't play games or hasn't any progams using 3d accelartions) out there... hands down.. (if you make that 512 mb ram instead of 256)

 

[MacinDoc]

Here's the image with the card in focus, it appears to be the old .11b cards.

I think this was mentioned earlier about the AirPort card but I sitll can't work it out.

That's strange, because the Apple Store website clearly states that the Airport Extreme (.11g) card is a BTO option...

 

[Wash!!]

Listen up people: the GPU is *only* used by games (well, for now anyway. That will change once CoreImage/CoreVideo is here).

*Of course* you never ran into any problems on the performance of the graphic card - what you need for those tasks are a fast CPU but even more so lots of RAM. As I said in a previous post, you could be using an ATI Rage Pro 8MB and you wouldn't see any difference (again, speaking for today without CoreImage/CoreVideo).

When you run video editing apps the GPU plays a big roll and have yet to run into a "performance" problem with my FX 52000

 

[jsw]

... a Prosumer needs something in the range of a ATI 9600 - Ati 9800 pro (or the Nvidia equivelent)...

Er, no, a gamer needs a better graphics card. Name one Pro app which will run on a screen no more than 1680x1050 which requires a better graphics card. As has been proven, the iMac runs Motion. It runs Final Cut Pro. It runs Shake. Please tell me why a prosumer system needs a better card. One example would be fine. Just one would be enough.

As far as I can tell, a Motion/FCP/Shake-running system is pretty much definable as prosumer. Hell, it's definable as "pro" for most uses.

 

[zelmo]

...So can someone fill me in on what fills the gap bettween Consumer and Proffesion lv for apple. Currently there is noughting. They have enty lv barely above entry lv and then Proffision. There is a huge gap there in the middle

Sadly, you are correct. Apple really does have a large gap in their product line, and it gets larger as the buying public becomes more computer savvy. Unfortunately for us, Apple's last experience with bridging that gap, our beloved Cube, failed to the point that Apple has not seen fit to try again.
What we need is a mini tower with a single 1.8 or 2.0 G5, 2:1 bus ratio, minimum 512 memory [4 slots please], 120-160 GB hdd, a "real" graphics card, 2 PCI card slots, FW 800, USB 2.0, BT, AE, and a selling price around $1,200. Then, if you have an LCD, you don't have to buy a dual PowerMac to get a G5 without a display.

Okay, commence slicing the spec's to ribbons...

 

[sambo.]

my two cents

yay!
i have been waiting to update my pc's for nearly a year (since i bought this business actually), i was initially planning to go with a couple of rev A g5pm's at a sale when the rev b's arrived, unfortunatly cash flow prohibited this at the time.
i've resisted getting a g4 imac as i want these machines to last a while. now i can have a g5 machine with a decent sized screen (20"), certainly better than the 15 inch i have now. this will get me away from win98 and out of the digital dark ages. the amount of time i spend wrestling these celeron 500's adds up. so do the costs of me not doing "work" and playing "sysadmin" on production night (there are two people in this company by the way, the other is my mum, i am 31).
i still plan on getting a powermac, but now i can switch to G5/OS-X for under AUD$10,000 inc software. new 64 bit whizz bangs and all. will hopefully happen by Feb next year.
yay

 

[jsw]

to answer it short:
it's perhaps the best computer package for the 'joe average' (who doesn't play games or hasn't any progams using 3d accelartions) out there... hands down.. (if you make that 512 mb ram instead of 256)

I think that a lot more than "joe average" types will embrace it. I think pretty much most "joe not-hardcore-gamer" types will embrace it. And "jane like-a-neat-home" types will embrace it even more.

Who's driving flat-screen TV purchases? Women. Who's going to love this flat-screen wall-mountable Mac? Women. And who's going to use their wives' love of its form factor to upgrade to a new Mac? Men.

This thing's the new mini. It's not going to be sitting in warehouses. If you want one, buy early.

 

[jsw]

Sadly, you are correct. Apple really does have a large gap in their product line, and it gets larger as the buying public becomes more computer savvy. Unfortunately for us, Apple's last experience with bridging that gap, our beloved Cube, failed to the point that Apple has not seen fit to try again.
What we need is a mini tower with a single 1.8 or 2.0 G5, 2:1 bus ratio, minimum 512 memory [4 slots please], 120-160 GB hdd, a "real" graphics card, 2 PCI card slots, FW 800, USB 2.0, BT, AE, and a selling price around $1,200. Then, if you have an LCD, you don't have to buy a dual PowerMac to get a G5 without a display.

Okay, commence slicing the spec's to ribbons...

I don't disagree. I'm hugely in favor of a sub-PowerMac headless offering. I just really doubt it's going to happen. They're selling too many 1.8 PM's to want to sacrifice that profit margin with a low-end headless. Apple isn't Dell, and they aren't trying to squeeze a couple of bucks out of each sale. They're making a good profit, and have no reason to offer anything lower.

That said, they'd freakin' clean up if they'd offer a sub-$1000 headless Mac. If, say, they offered the current iMac's specs without LCD but with an upgradeable graphics card - and, really, the Imac is fine otherwise (FW800 is nice but, honestly, about as "needed" by most as gig Ethernet) - and sold it for, say, $800-$1000, they couldn't build enough of them.

But they're not going to do that.

 

[Lancetx]

Upgrades?

This may have already been mentioned, but after over 1,100 posts it's impossible to know for sure. Anyway, I saw this blurb in a news story this morning.

Joswiak took apart one of the new iMacs to show how easy it is to replace the hard drive, Airport card and optical disc drive.

This is the first I've heard of the hard drive and optical drive being "easy to replace." If this is true this is a huge step forward from previous iMac designs. By the looks of how the back comes off though, it seems to be rather plausible. I just haven't heard anything "official" stating this. It would be nice to be able to upgrade one with a Raptor hard drive and faster SuperDrive for example. Anyway, if this has already been mentioned I apologize, just sounded very interesting to me.