No 3GHz Soon and No G5 Laptop

[csimmons]

A little perspective

I know many of you were "disappointed" by today's announcement, but it amazes me how quickly you all forget where the Mac was less than a year ago. Last year at this time, the top-of-the-line shipping Mac was a DP 1.42GHz G4 with a 167MHz SHARED system bus! Today we have a DP 2.5 GHz G5 w/ dual 1.25 Frontside Busses, and liquid cooled to boot , and you guys are bitching?!?!?

No wonder why PC users think we're a cult...

 

[pjkelnhofer]

I don't understand why people keep coming this this conclusion. The iMac is not an inch thick like the PowerBook so why would there be a problem? It is being redesigned specifically for the G5 anyway. A 1.5/1.6 G5 iMac is entirely possible.

I love it when some one actually makes sense in these threads.

The iMac was significantly redesigned when it went from G3 to G4, I would expect a similar redesign moving to G5. The design with be predicated on keeping a 1.6GHz G5 chip cool. I think that the folks at Apple are up to the challenge. The PowerBook is much, much trickier because you are locked into the basic notebook form factor.

 

[triton]

Hell with it. I'm still waiting!! I wanted a 3ghz, and dammit, I'm going to just buy it when it comes out. I have an imac right now anyhow to keep me going. This update seems a little weak to me -

 

[seraphnyc]

Apple just loves to piss me off this is why I am just going to Build a PC , **** Apple , atleast they could have put out something better in the lower models. a single/dual 2ghz and Dual 2.2 low and mid end would have been great. and come on $3000 for a comp and all we get is a 2nd rate soon to be outdated and replaced Radeon 9600XT that should be minimum . a 9800XT should be standard on a 3K machine , i'd love to see Dell , HP or AlienWare try to pull this Bull **** off. ALL APPLE HAS DONE IS UPDATE 1 MACHINE AND NOW IS TRYING 2 SELL US IT'S OVER STOCKED CRAP AT A DISCOUNT.

While i like the Liquid cooling alot i'm disappointed to see it's only on the High end. NOTE TO APPLE: AMD NOW HAS AN ATHLON 64 +3800. They will have a +4000 by Oct/Nov or sooner.

Also Why did they ever bother to put in a PCI-X Slot in. this is a complete waste as PCI-X will be used Exclusively for the Server Market, The PC Industry has already Picked the Better and faster PCI Express as the new Standard to replace PCI making PCI-X a total waste unless ur running an X-Serve. Doesn't Apple Realize i can Biuld me a Spanking new +3800/FX-53 system for under 2K , and don't let me jump on those Phoney Benchmarks where the new G5 2.5 beats the AMD 64 FX-53 by 93% .....LMAO yea right.

My... how fickle the crowd can be. Tell me tho, what use is an AMD chip if the OS running it (that is, if you are not running Linux) is lackluster, barbaric and generally a throw back in the evolution of an operating system?

In all reality, the thought that someone would be so quick to drop ANYTHING so flat over something, yes disappointing, rather trivial is frightening. It is like being a fan of a band and dropping that fandom due to a bad single. Just strange to me.

 

[DMann]

3 Ghz by years end is not so bad

Considering the unforeseen delay of the 970 FX,
the early June release of the 2.5 Ghz is likely
a positive sign that we will be seeing the
promised 3 Ghz sooner than the routine
6 month cycle. Since IBM has not encountered
delays with the fab of the 975s, there is no reason,
other than marketing, to delay the announcement
of the 3 Ghz beyond a four month timeframe.

 

[utilizer]

Short on time but really want to say...

Don't know if someone already said it but...
Alright, I'm just as shocked as all of you are. But here's the deal: OS X Tiger will probably make the G5s twice as fast as they are now in Photoshop and Lightwave type deals. Plus, Adobe and the others involved in high-end computational software development will most likely release 64-bit editions of their software later in the year. I bet we will hear something along these lines from these folks at WWDC and possibly even a preview of it in action.
That would more than make up for the lack of not reaching 3Ghz and also explain why they are so forthcoming about the wall they've run into with 90 nm G5s. Just my take, but take it as you will!

 

[alexf]

I know many of you were "disappointed" by today's announcement, but it amazes me how quickly you all forget where the Mac was less than a year ago. Last year at this time, the top-of-the-line shipping Mac was a DP 1.42GHz G4 with a 167MHz SHARED system bus! Today we have a DP 2.5 GHz G5 w/ dual 1.25 Frontside Busses, and liquid cooled to boot , and you guys are bitching?!?!?

No wonder why PC users think we're a cult...

Good point

Yet in my mind the real disappointment is not the lack of a 3.0 GHz machine, which was obviously not going to happen anyway, but the fact that the two starting models have now been downgraded and the prices have not been lowered accordingly.

 

[Mac|caM]

You are not looking at the facts:

The dual 1.8 GHz and 2.0 GHz machines are actually DOWNGRADES from the previous models.

The dual 1.8 GHz model no longer has PCI-X, only has half of the previous hard drive size (80 GB), is now only expandible to 4 GB RAM, and ships with only 256 MB of memory instead of 512 MB.

And the graphics card of the dual 2.0 GHz machine has been downgraded to the NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra.

Sure, the prices have been reduced and they now all have 8x superdrives (about which I could really care less), but the two starting models have nonetheless been downgraded - the dual 1.8 GHz machine quite significantly.

Yes, but you are comparing the dual 1.8 and 2.0 machines to their previous incarnations (i.e. high-end and middle machines), instead of what they are replacing (i.e. middle and low-end machines). You can't compare differently priced machines from different generations. You should be comparing these to the 1.6 and 1.8 machines from Rev. A.

 

[furrina]

mac pricing

You're still confused.

For years, Apple has had a 3 tier system.

Low end - $1999
Mid range - $2499
High end - $2999

Each of those systems has been significantly improved.

This is interesting --- I was looking around an "apple history" site the other day and they had the avg. prices of all the models way back to the beginning, and even during the times of the Quadra/Centris/LC (over ten years ago) the price of a low end consumer machine was around $2k to $2.5k(WITHOUT the display) and back then that was a lot more money.
Of course the price of home computers has fallen drastically since then, and apple has always been a significant percentage higher than the average pc product, but allowing for those two factors, it's been quite consistent. And at the moment we're getting a lot more machine for a little less.

 

[macrumors12345]

NOTE TO APPLE: AMD NOW HAS AN ATHLON 64 +3800.

Dude, get a clue - the 3800+ number is AMD's "performance rating", not the actual clock speed (apparently their little slight of hand worked quite well on you, however). The fastest Athlon-64 is clocked at 2.4 Ghz, which is 100 Mhz slower than the fastest G5 (and if you want to try to actually do any real kind of performance comparison, at those speeds in general the G5 will be substantially faster than the Athlon at floating point and vector calcs, and somewhat slower at integer calcs). And the Athlon's not going to get faster any time soon...unlike Intel and IBM, they still have yet to even make the initial transition to 90 nm (but don't worry, AMD's partner at 90 nm is Motorola, and we all know how reliable they are... ;-) ).

But I guess in your world neither the G5 nor the Athlon 64 nor the Pentium 4 can match the power of my midrange video card. After all, I have a "9600" video card, whereas the fastest Athlon 64 is only "3800"...so my video card is over twice as "fast" as an Athlon 64! And man am I glad that I have the Radeon 9600 instead of the GeFX 5200, because 9600/5200 = 1.85, so according to you my Radeon is 85% faster than the NVidia card would have been...

 

[alexf]

Yes, but you are comparing the dual 1.8 and 2.0 machines to their previous incarnations (i.e. high-end and middle machines), instead of what they are replacing (i.e. middle and low-end machines). You can't compare differently priced machines from different generations. You should be comparing these to the 1.6 and 1.8 machines from Rev. A.

Yes, but as I mentioned before, if one is to go to the Apple store and buy essentially the same dual 1.8 GHz machine as was previously available (meaning upgrading the hard drive, memory, PCI, etc.), the price would come out to be only about $200 less... and you still would have only 4 memory slots instead of 8, which to me is a big disadvantage since you willl probably have to get rid of the memory it ships with when you upgrade.

 

[pjkelnhofer]

You are not looking at the facts:

The dual 1.8 GHz and 2.0 GHz machines are actually DOWNGRADES from the previous models.

The dual 1.8 GHz model no longer has PCI-X, only has half of the previous hard drive size (80 GB), is now only expandible to 4 GB RAM, and ships with only 256 MB of memory instead of 512 MB.

So this proves that they are not the same machines that were sitting around. Clearly, if it went from the PCI-X to PCI and 8 RAM slots to 4, the Dual 1.8 has a different motherboard.
As for the processor, some people are claiming it is the same old chip but according to this they are using 90nm technology. So it seems there are 970fx chips throughout the line.
As for the video cards, until something faster is actually availible for Mac they would be stupid to put the 9800XT standard in the G5, how then would they make money on BTO upgrades (not to mention the number of people who would "downgrade" to the 9600XT to save $300 off the price).

 

[centauratlas]

He never said no iMac G5. I bet it will be released at WWDC with Mac OS 10.4 installed on it. I am going to put that on my site. (apple.gq.nu)

I will be REALLY REALLY REALLY surprised to see 10.4 shipping on anything at WWDC.

WWDC is a developer's conference. Yes, they *show* the OS but the fastest they've shipped (recently) afterward was Oct and that was with a May WWDC.

Likewise given Apple's recent comments about it being longer between OS X revisions, seeing it *sooner* that previous revisions is REALLY wishful thinking.

So, if you think you'll get an announcment of OS X 10.4 shipping in June, you'll be disappointed.

 

[Bhennies]

So this proves that they are not the same machines that were sitting around. Clearly, if it went from the PCI-X to PCI and 8 RAM slots to 4, the Dual 1.8 has a different motherboard.
As for the processor, some people are claiming it is the same old chip but according to this they are using 90nm technology. So it seems there are 970fx chips throughout the line.
As for the video cards, until something faster is actually availible for Mac they would be stupid to put the 9800XT standard in the G5, how then would they make money on BTO upgrades (not to mention the number of people who would "downgrade" to the 9600XT to save $300 off the price).

Hi there...I'm just curious. I couldn't find an info about the 90 nm chip. Which page was it on?

 

[centauratlas]

Hopefully this will stop the "Apple will release 3GHz machines next week" speculation

arn

But what about the week AFTER next?

 

[Mac|caM]

Well, since everyone else is complaining , I thought I'd get in as well.

I think you should just be happy with whatever you get. Right now, the high-end G5's clock speed alone is over 6 times faster than my poor old first-gen "Yikes!" G4's. I can't do any kind of AGP graphics in this this, I can't put in AirPort, etc. I'm not even mentioning the bus (12.5 times faster than mine) or anything else. I'm hoping soon I can get something new.

 

[gloftis]

Everybody else?

Not if we are shooting for 3GHz? The sad thing is... what's next? When everyone else is shooting for 4 and up apple is scrathing their heads.

Ahh! I'll bet you mean those people who write "Intel inside" on the front of CPUs.

Let's see, would that make you a video or audio creator? No, the existing 2 X 2.0 PMs already own that segment.

Are you in graphics or publishing? Odds are, no, because the industry standards already are faster and more reliable on G5s than on boxes using the other operating system.

Possibly you need more speed to manage your photos and tunes. Naah!

Well, that leaves gamers, and if Ghz are the new equivalent of effective slide rule length, DEFINITELY go buy a computer with 4 Ghz! You can use the "Blue Screen of Death" time to ponder your Ghz.

 

[itsa]

All-in-all, no we are not getting to 3GHz anytime soon, but what we are announcing today is a very significant upgrade in performance and its something that our customers will be very happy with.

Not too many happy yet!

 

[pdxdeano]

Only half way thru the year

Can't we all just get along

As of today we are barely over half way thru the year.

Imagine what could still come at WWDC or later in the year.....

60G iPod with video out?
A redesigned iMac G5
A Mac Tablet... the iPad
Fire-wireless
3GHz G5 in time for Xmas

I know some of you are dissapointed by today's release but let's look forward to the rest of the year and rumor on.

Happy 20th Mac

 

[ingenious]

NICE!! it is Water cooled and also their is a better graphics card u have the option of a 9800 XT 256mb.. also the FSB at 1250mhz is crazy... must be very quiet.. aswell so i think this is a step up and it is 90nm ship aswell!!

Good job Apple!

Ah, good! Another "glass is half full" person! I personally think that while dual 3.0 GHz would've been wonderful, you've got to admit that dual 2.5 GHz is very, very good. AMD, AFAIK, is only at 2.4 GHz, so we're faster than some PC processors. I only hope that Apple doesn't fall from its great high on this update.... WWDC better be really, really good, or we're going to see some awful repercussions.

 

[Lanbrown]

The iMac was quoted without a timeframe, was with the same cooling issues as the powerbook. So don't expect a G5 iMac anytime soon as well.

I would disagree; it said "similar challenges." The iMac needs a facelift; the current form factor is 30 months old. They could change the form factor and put a G5 in it. Liquid cooling at 1.6 or 1.8 GHz would work. The bus also doesn't need to run at half clock speed. Doing that in a PB would be harder to do. The question is, has IBM fixed their yield problems?

 

[Spazmodius]

I have to wonder what will come next for the Powerbooks, iBooks, and iMacs. The 744x and 745x iterations of the G4 seem to be pretty well maxed-out, and I don't think we're going to see much above 1.5GHz.

Am I wrong, or did the Motorola/Freescale PPC roadmap indicate some time this year there would be perhaps another G4-like chip (including AltiVec and built around their new(er) e600 core), which supposedly will make it up to 2.0GHz, and support multithreading of some form or another. There may even be dual-core versions, I don't know.

Anyhoo, what's the likelihood that we'll see one of these puppies in the portables and iMac before a G5? Frankly, I'd be pretty happy with that. It's not like I really need 64-bit on an iBook, but I would like plenty of speed for 32 bit apps. What with the 750vx being DOA, I'm crossing my fingers we get at least another good boost in portable performance before 2004 comes to a close...then I'll be ready to buy.

The only way I can see that happening is with this e600-based chip. It's either that, or nothing, it appears, and nothing would be kinda bad, IMO.

 

[mikefl420]

Hmmm.... Ponderings...

Let's take a journey to the magical world of What-If?

What if on this stange planet in an alternate universe, rather than risking brain hemmorage over leaked photos and the like, Stevie J had learned the technique of disinformation. He says to VP of Such-n-Such, "Tell 'em we just can't do it. No 3.0GHz, no PB G5s... Mention production issues." Stevie J then turns away grinning and releasing a hideous laugh as he rubs his claw-like hands together... Statement goes out, and of course the rumors boards are in a flurry- Apple users are infuriated! Steve lied! He promised something he couldn't deliver! (Regardless of the fact that the problem was more on the side of IBM- but hell, we'll blame him anyhow) Then at WWDC Stevie J takes his revenge... He releases the PM G5 2.8GHz immediately, he releases iMac G5 1.6 and 1.8GHz models, he then hideously laughs while announcing the PM G5 3.0GHz Dual shipping "Around September... About a year from when I said. <insert evil laugh>" And then he turns to the crowd, eyes aglow and snickers "...but you can wait till January for new PowerBooks you doubtful little idolitors! <evil laugh> Now go and spread rumor and innuendo, for waiting shall be you most torturesome punishment! Ha Ha Ha!"

My point being, what if it's all a ploy. Get some suit to look teary-eyed over not meing able to get to 3.0GHz and then stick it to em, but holding it in waiting til WWDC. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but anything is possible. Think Different.

 

[michaelal]

I know many of you were "disappointed" by today's announcement, but it amazes me how quickly you all forget where the Mac was less than a year ago. Last year at this time, the top-of-the-line shipping Mac was a DP 1.42GHz G4 with a 167MHz SHARED system bus! Today we have a DP 2.5 GHz G5 w/ dual 1.25 Frontside Busses, and liquid cooled to boot , and you guys are bitching?!?!?

No wonder why PC users think we're a cult...

We were all hoping that Apple was changing with the G5 series and would get out of the dark ages. Its very disappointing that so little changed with this update even if the processor speed could only be bumped to 2.5 Gig. Its just too much money to throw at a machine when one was expecting more.

 

[Krrill]

I probably shouldn't be complaining... But looking at the prices, they didn't really go down, they went up. And for me and for a lot of us, it was the hopes of the prices going down that was a big deal. But now it costs more for a dual 2 with the upgrades I want, then it did before the update... All well, hope Apple gets on track with price difference...