Yes, although it doesn't have to be a Power Mac; any nifty new Apple toy will do. So far, you're the only one who noticed and mentioned it. I'm using small type so that nobody else will know the secret!
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 PowerMacs and 20" LCD
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Re: Re: Re: ...but the imacs.....
A better question is why would they put a better/faster processor in an iMac before the PowerMac? This goes along with the speculation I have read about Apple putting the IBM 970 in the iMac first. No way!
A better question is why would they put a better/faster processor in an iMac before the PowerMac? This goes along with the speculation I have read about Apple putting the IBM 970 in the iMac first. No way!
Re: Re: Wow, this is interesting
I still think a 1Ghz iMac/eMac is very possible. If anyone remembers back when the iMac was introduced the base PowerMac model was a single 800Mhz. The same processor speed as the iMac. Now I am not sure what will be done with the memory or bus speed, but I think Mhz will be matched.
I still predict that Apple will update both the iMac and eMac with either 867Mhz or 1Ghz processors. Right now they are focusing a lot of portable products on those two processors.
I still think a 1Ghz iMac/eMac is very possible. If anyone remembers back when the iMac was introduced the base PowerMac model was a single 800Mhz. The same processor speed as the iMac. Now I am not sure what will be done with the memory or bus speed, but I think Mhz will be matched.
I still predict that Apple will update both the iMac and eMac with either 867Mhz or 1Ghz processors. Right now they are focusing a lot of portable products on those two processors.
They finally caught up with my PC in speed 
After I get my laptop, I'll go for a tower One more month until I can finally be a switcher
After I get my laptop, I'll go for a tower One more month until I can finally be a switcher 
I think Apple should have kept all the machines dual!!
You are getting raped of a semiconductor!!
You are getting raped of a semiconductor!!
I will only say, this is what Apple should have done six months ago to meet reasonable expectations of MWNY announcements. The windtunnels fell short, they bombed. Does anyone have sales figures?
But now, is it six months too late? A lot of us have decided to wait for a 970, if that ever happens... We at least wanted the firewire 2 and Bluetooth on board, and a bus like the Xserve, which this release sort of at least has.
Re: This is just becoming a joke...
I'd like to agree but technology is moving too quickly and I'm just happy that Apple is moving along (with it would have been too strong.)
I have a dual 800 and, while I wish I could always have the fastest, I've resigned myself to the idea that it won't stay that way for long. My machine is now 3 upgrades behind the times. Oh well. It's still faster than my G3/400 and a good machine. Are the latest machines amazingly better? No.
I'd like to agree but technology is moving too quickly and I'm just happy that Apple is moving along (with it would have been too strong.)
I have a dual 800 and, while I wish I could always have the fastest, I've resigned myself to the idea that it won't stay that way for long. My machine is now 3 upgrades behind the times. Oh well. It's still faster than my G3/400 and a good machine. Are the latest machines amazingly better? No.
Now that this has come out, I can really envision new iMacs running at 1.25GHz! Go Apple!!! Maybe now there might even be a 20" iMac if they use that new screen in it! Yay!
Maybe now there might even be a 20" iMac if they use that new screen in it! Yay! These replies go back a ways...
iShater:
I'm a SMP junkie. But I expect the single 1ghz to often be the faster machine.
iJon:
edenwaith:
MacKid:
raintalk:
xrhajj:
stocke2:
iShater:
Actually yes.
I'm a SMP junkie. But I expect the single 1ghz to often be the faster machine.iJon:
Bzzzt! Well OK the FX can defeat the 9700, but at a higher cost in both money and noise.
edenwaith:
The FSB is still the bottleneck as far as the memory is concerned.
MacKid:
Threads are by nature separated for paralell processing. The thing is that most apps are not significantly multi-threaded, and by significantly I mean multithreaded in such a way that the single app can significantly benefit from having two processors.
raintalk:
Yeah this is my question of the day too.
xrhajj:
Too many people probably got the dual-867 instead of the better models. Apple presumably wants to raise ASP's by moving some users up to the 2nd model, while gaining some more sales because of the lowered entry point. It may just do the trick for them.
stocke2:
Damn straight! I wish Apple would match the command-line goodness of Linux, but I don't think that they are headed that way. Oh well...
Originally posted by Le Big Mac
I'm missing this too. [why a single g4 entry model tower] Why not add bluetooth support and FW800 into the "old" Dual 867? Keep the price the same or drop it $100. For $200 less, one gets one less processor, and FW800. Not very impressive.
My guess it is due to educational customers, or others buying several macs at a time. They want access to the PCI slots if need be. They want an less expensive workstation for their cluster, where the heavy chewing is done at a dedicated tricked out workstation, and the rest are kept at 'good enough' level as far as their CPU goes, used for tasks that really don't need the horsepower (but are still machines allowed to talk to the other computers and drives as fast as Papa Bear Big Dog)
Re: Re: Re: Someone explain Apple to me....
Obviously not.
iJon Have you seen the Benches for the FX Ultra? Most gamers are calling it a flop because it barely beats out the 9700 (10% difference or less and it does lose to the 9700 in some benches). It's also big, hot, loud, power hungry, and expensive. The FX is slated to hit stores next month and ATi's next card is due out in March. And even if ATi's next card is only an minor improvemnt over the 9700 it will still kill an FX Ultra.
Lethal
Obviously not.
iJon Have you seen the Benches for the FX Ultra? Most gamers are calling it a flop because it barely beats out the 9700 (10% difference or less and it does lose to the 9700 in some benches). It's also big, hot, loud, power hungry, and expensive. The FX is slated to hit stores next month and ATi's next card is due out in March. And even if ATi's next card is only an minor improvemnt over the 9700 it will still kill an FX Ultra.
Lethal
the first thiing I will have to do is change to the BASH shell I am sure. However from what I have read about OS X and from playing with OS X on an ibook at the local circuit city(before they no onger sold macs, and before 10.2) it is one sweet system, but what would you expect...it is based off of NeXTStep
Whomever said that multi-threaded processors are faster than just one processor is wrong. At least not all the time. In Maya 4.5, I can render faster just using one processor than I can using two. Maya 4.5 is multi-threaded, and multi-processor enabled in rendering. However, using the test at www.highend3.com, I've found, along with other Maya users on the Mac, that dual processor Macs render faster just using one processor. I don't know why that is, but it's a fact none-the-less.
Actually, when I ran the test, it rendered just under four minutes using 2 processors. When I ran it again with one processor, it did it in less than 3. Which is kinda interestiing especially since it's a 1GHZ processor, when matched to AMD's or P4's, the G4 is actually faster at the same speed (mhz). Makes you think huh? Why can't they use Altivec and actually utilize the G4 for all it's worth?
Actually, when I ran the test, it rendered just under four minutes using 2 processors. When I ran it again with one processor, it did it in less than 3. Which is kinda interestiing especially since it's a 1GHZ processor, when matched to AMD's or P4's, the G4 is actually faster at the same speed (mhz). Makes you think huh? Why can't they use Altivec and actually utilize the G4 for all it's worth?
Pixel response time
Has anyone done a good comparison of the new LCDs against Formacs ?
And what is the pixel response time on apples LCDs ? they dont seem to list it in the specs, they just say they have Lightning-fast pixel response.
What exactly is it though ?
Has anyone done a good comparison of the new LCDs against Formacs ?
And what is the pixel response time on apples LCDs ? they dont seem to list it in the specs, they just say they have Lightning-fast pixel response.
What exactly is it though ?
One thing that I'm impressed with is that this time the high-end PowerMac is not $5,000. Way to go, Apple!
Regarding Multiprocessing and OS X
Ok, for those arguing about the single processor vs. dual processor issue, all I want to say is that an OS (at its lowest level) needs to do resource allocation/management. It's the interface between the hardware and the software.
So, to characterize the scenario, a piece of software comes along and tells the OS, "hey I need to cook this meal, here's the recipe, now off ya go!" And the processor looks and sees, "well I have two ovens, 3 bowls, 5 fridges, etc." and basically it uses whatever it has to get the job done. Ok, enough with this analogy (for now).
So if an OS like OS X is multiprocessor capable, it knows how to distribute its labor so that two processors can do it instead of one. Of course, there is some overhead to multiprocessing, and certain programs will be better suited to multiprocessing than others. But all of this should be invisible to the software.
I'm not familiar with Mac programming though so I'm not sure if there are ways to code "hints" to the OS to indicate that these areas are optimized for MP or not.
But basially, that's how it works. So intuitively, you would think MP is always better, but its not necessarily so due to overhead and the nature of the task.
Also - to the person who said most apps are single threaded - what is your justification for that?
Ok, for those arguing about the single processor vs. dual processor issue, all I want to say is that an OS (at its lowest level) needs to do resource allocation/management. It's the interface between the hardware and the software.
So, to characterize the scenario, a piece of software comes along and tells the OS, "hey I need to cook this meal, here's the recipe, now off ya go!" And the processor looks and sees, "well I have two ovens, 3 bowls, 5 fridges, etc." and basically it uses whatever it has to get the job done. Ok, enough with this analogy (for now).
So if an OS like OS X is multiprocessor capable, it knows how to distribute its labor so that two processors can do it instead of one. Of course, there is some overhead to multiprocessing, and certain programs will be better suited to multiprocessing than others. But all of this should be invisible to the software.
I'm not familiar with Mac programming though so I'm not sure if there are ways to code "hints" to the OS to indicate that these areas are optimized for MP or not.
But basially, that's how it works. So intuitively, you would think MP is always better, but its not necessarily so due to overhead and the nature of the task.
Also - to the person who said most apps are single threaded - what is your justification for that?
I am sorry, but if your total focus on Macs is games, you are a doofus. You are paying way too much money for way too little. If you cannot stand something by Microsoft then buy a PS.
Apple should be creating PowerMacs that address its market strengths. Those are in content and media creation. Those areas benefit the most from dual processors because the applications are multithreaded.