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.
PowerMac G5 Update?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
How does this release affect the display promotion? It could be that the new G5 turned out to be ready soner than Apple anticipated and decided to release them before WWDC. Now the speed bumps could assist in further clearing out the existing displays and then after June 26 we will see the new displays.
If this rumor is true than Apple is in trouble. To release any update this late only confirms that the 3 GHZ system is delayed. Apple is simply boosting its profits with their stores and iPods. This will come back to haunt them unless they start selling more PoweMacs soon.
If this rumor is true than Apple is in trouble. To release any update this late only confirms that the 3 GHZ system is delayed. Apple is simply boosting its profits with their stores and iPods. This will come back to haunt them unless they start selling more PoweMacs soon.
This doesn't sound right to me. As some others have said, they surely can't be releasing just one new model? And what's with the graphics cards?
I think they should keep a low-end single (of course more choice is better). This can be the "headless iMac" that everyone goes on about. The current 1.6 is way cheaper than the dual proc models which may be prohibitively expensive for many people who want a G5. However, I think the single proc model should be more aggressively priced.
The biggest problem is that Mac desktops are way too expensive for the main mass market (family PCs, etc). As nice as the iMac is, it's expensive for what you get. The eMac is the only option for many people.
I think they should keep a low-end single (of course more choice is better). This can be the "headless iMac" that everyone goes on about. The current 1.6 is way cheaper than the dual proc models which may be prohibitively expensive for many people who want a G5. However, I think the single proc model should be more aggressively priced.
The biggest problem is that Mac desktops are way too expensive for the main mass market (family PCs, etc). As nice as the iMac is, it's expensive for what you get. The eMac is the only option for many people.
cmoney said:
Of course it does make a difference, I just don't think it makes as much of a difference as most people suppose.
alexf said:
First, since the Dual 2 GHz is the "recommended" system for Motion, Apple certainly thinks people will need plenty of more power.
Secondly, when you have to walk away from you computer for over an hour a couple times a day to render animations and movies, you start to realize that you always need more speed.
Personally, I think that taking the whole line to Dual's makes sense because then Apple can start to develope FCP, DVD SP, and Motion to take full advantage of a Dual system (when they do that you will see serious speed differences between Single and Duals).
klaus said:
maybe the new powermacs will run on new chips (90nm). maybe this was already said, i didn't read all the posts.
Veldek said:
What anyone wants to do with their money is completely up to them. I'm not quite sure how you came to the conclusion that I am preaching to people not to spend their money.
I simply think that if they are not a video professional or someone performing a lot or rendering intensive tasks (such as agreenster) they may be wasting their money. This is all that I meant.
I also happen to believe that many people want a 3.0 GHz machine mainly for bragging rights. This is also completely OK if it makes them happy; however, in MY OPINION, this would be a waste of money.
stingerman said:
Except that it hasn't been 3 months, it has been 12 months. They have already stated they are only going to update the PowerMac line once, perhap twice a year at most.
not under 2
i dont think any new powermacs will be released under the 2ghz mark.... i also don't think we'll see them until next week , OR wwdc? but i didn't think today was realistic, releasing powermacs , and then new displays later? is a rip off for the consumer and just doesn't make sense. I think we will see powermac+displays next week, iMac G5 wwdc, and tiger. obviously. hopefully, kinda maybe, possibly, i hope so? haah, bye.
i dont think any new powermacs will be released under the 2ghz mark.... i also don't think we'll see them until next week , OR wwdc? but i didn't think today was realistic, releasing powermacs , and then new displays later? is a rip off for the consumer and just doesn't make sense. I think we will see powermac+displays next week, iMac G5 wwdc, and tiger. obviously. hopefully, kinda maybe, possibly, i hope so? haah, bye.
please let think secret be wrong for once i just daont want to hear the complaining it looks like it may get worse than theituneseurope/g5powerbook moaning
so, um, one new model? Same graphics cards, same processors (except for the high end)? After a YEAR? I'm pessimist by nature, but even I can't believe it could be that bad. That doesn't even really qualify as an update. Although it would sure explain why the new powermacs are being released before Steve's keynote - because if he got on stage and announced those, he'd be booed off stage.
Well, I guess the good news is that if they release a 2.6 GHz machine soon, the next revision will probably be no less than 3.2 or 3.4 GHz. Keep in mind the diminishing return of MHz as a portion of the total speed.
If they want to increase in speed another 30%, which is pretty normal for Apple between revisions, then we need to increase by 780 MHz to get another 30% out of the CPU. Granted, the CPU is by no means the only performance factor. Here's a couple scenarios:
2.6GHz + 25% = 3.250 GHz (3.2?)
2.6GHz + 30% = 3.380 GHz (3.4?)
2.6GHz + 35% = 3.510 GHz (3.5?)
If they want to increase in speed another 30%, which is pretty normal for Apple between revisions, then we need to increase by 780 MHz to get another 30% out of the CPU. Granted, the CPU is by no means the only performance factor. Here's a couple scenarios:
2.6GHz + 25% = 3.250 GHz (3.2?)
2.6GHz + 30% = 3.380 GHz (3.4?)
2.6GHz + 35% = 3.510 GHz (3.5?)
]Hmmm...
I'm wondering if we're forgetting something...
I see a lot of posts complaining that the rumored lower-end updates are meaningless because we already have 2.0 and 1.8 Ghz systems. Now those might be valid arguments if the entire design was the same, but who knows what is actually coming out?
Isn't it possible that the updates might have a slightly newer processor design that will run smoother or cooler? Or a new case design that has worked out some bugs in the hardware or software?
If it's simply a similar processor upgrade and nothing more, then yes, Apple is simply doing this to pacify the masses who are waiting for the 3.0 speed. But if there are other differences in the case, processor, or such, then I say kudos to Apple. 2.5 is good enough for me!
I'm wondering if we're forgetting something...
I see a lot of posts complaining that the rumored lower-end updates are meaningless because we already have 2.0 and 1.8 Ghz systems. Now those might be valid arguments if the entire design was the same, but who knows what is actually coming out?
Isn't it possible that the updates might have a slightly newer processor design that will run smoother or cooler? Or a new case design that has worked out some bugs in the hardware or software?
If it's simply a similar processor upgrade and nothing more, then yes, Apple is simply doing this to pacify the masses who are waiting for the 3.0 speed. But if there are other differences in the case, processor, or such, then I say kudos to Apple. 2.5 is good enough for me!
if this is true, and rev b sales turn out to be what i think they will be, apple deserves poor sales. they brought it on themselves. new 2 and 1.8 ghz? give me a break.
leo said:
bar italia said:
While I don't argue that what you've said isn't true, I don't think the G5 can be to blame, there really isn't any debate, the PowerMac Dual 2ghz G5 is an insanely powerful machine, if there are speed problems then I hate to say it, but it has got to be the software. Either the OS or the App I don't know which and I won't claim to. I think Apple needs to focus on 'better' as a way to achieve 'faster', not the other way around.
leo said:
Mine can - very smooth. It must be going slow because the poor background compiler is choking on all the errors in your code.
faster=better, no matter what. I doubt grandma will be getting a 2.6ghz G5 for email and word processing. Simply put, don't criticize other people's choices and don't say 'the 2ghz is fast enough for everyone'. Lets just wait till they release them and look at the SPEC charts for speed, shall we?