PowerMac G5 Updates - March 23rd?

[deepkid]

Well if I was a stock holder I'd be disappointed!! This reflects just a 20% rise in clock rate, no increase in video capabilities to speak of and stingyness with memory. It is not a machine that will change Apples market share condition.

The only way to save this machine would be to drasticlly lower the price of the line. That is like $1200, $1700 & $2200, otherwise it would be foolish to even consider them in non traditional roles. Acceptability in non traditional roles is the only way for Apple to show significant market share gains.

Thanks
Dave

Why would you be? This isn't an official release. You'd be over reacting based on no fact. There are no spec sheets, etc.

Also, drastically lowering the price on the powermacs would INFURIATE ME as a stockholder, because it would slim margins, which would lead to less profits. These machines are selling well, no need to freak out and have a fire sale to attract a demographic that probably hasn't the budget for a machine in its category.

I did not pick to invest in Apple, hoping that they'd turn into the Payless Shoes of computer companies. Considering the overall design, the powermacs are a bargain. The use of an elegant and powerful OS is the cake and the machines are the icing.

 

[ImAlwaysRight]

I am very skeptical of this report.

To me it is more like guessing by some site and we all jump on it like it is confirmed.

Dual 1.8 as base makes little sense, since it is already available.

I forsee a 2.0 Single at $1999, 2.4 Dual at $2799, and a 2.6 Dual at $3399.
The reason I feel optimistic about these numbers is because they would follow a pattern seen in the past with upgrade and IBM is now involved. Steve will shock us with a system pastt 3 ghz come July.

The only part I would hope is true about this report is the release date.

gop007, the report reprinted by Macrumors sounds very reasonable. Apple's past history is to take the previous middle Power Mac and make it the low end for a speed bump. So dual 1.8 for the base makes a lot of sense. Apple has dropped a dual to a single processor in the past, so it would not suprise me if the low end was a single 1.8, but I have no reason to doubt the dual base model as reported.

Your optimistic configurations are based on what? It is much more logical to believe this rumor that may be based on inside information opposed to a consumer's wishful thinking.

 

[Earendil]

Maybe they dont have enough of those chips for the xserve G5 and the powermac. It seems there has been much larger demand for the xserve G5 than Apple were expecting. More likely just to differentiate the models though I guess. Dual 2 to Dual 2.4GHz wouldnt be a very wide spread for the product line, many people would maybe just plump for the dual 2 and stack up the RAM and graphics card rather than go for the top of the line, I sure would.

While I agree with you point, I must ask- When did 400mhz become a "small" gap? That's 1/3 my current proc
It's also more mhz than 3 other computers in our house combined

Tyler
Earendil

 

[RichardCarletta]

ZPerhaps this is Apple's plan

Dual 1.8 GHZ G5 Combo drive Powermacs - $1500
Dual 2.2 GHZ G5 8X Superdrive Powermacs - $2000
Dual 2.4 GHZ G5 8X Superdrive Powermacs - $2700

Single 1.5 GHZ G4 15 " iMac - $1300
Single 2.0 GHZ G5 17 " Superdrive iMac - $2000
Single 2.5 GHZ G5 20 " Superdrive iMac - $2300

Single 1.25 GHZ G4 12 " iBook - $1200
Single 1.5 GHZ G4 14 " iBook - $1500

Single 2.0 GHZ G5 15 " Combo drive Powerbook - $2000
Single 2.2 GHZ G5 15 " Superdrive Powerbook - $2500
Single 2.5 GHZ G5 17 " Superdrive Powerbook - $3000

Single 1.5 GHZ G4 17 " Combo drive eMac - $1000
Single 1.5 GHZ G4 17 " Superdrive eMac - $1299

 

[wizard]

Why is it that everytime someone points out that APPLE is basically screwing their customers with BASE ram installations, we end up hearing the crap that is quoted below?? Come on people I'd really like to know.

Apple is paying the same $$$ as any other major PC manufacture for memory, what they get for expansion memory is another issue. When Apple ships machines with 128 or 256 meg of RAM, when the rest of the industry standardized years ago on 512meg of ram, they are being stingy. Further they are not doing enough to give their customers a good experience with their initial puchase. Being the trailer when it comes to base memory is one of the reasons that Apples market share is shrinking so fast.

Look at it this way, a customer walks into a store and sees a Apple machine with a slower clock and asks the clerke about it. It is certianly fairly easy to explain the difference in processors. Now the customer asks about the RAM installed, how does the clerk deal with that and remain honest. The fact is that a 128 or 256 meg of ram is an extreme disadvantage relative to the possibilities of 512 meg or 1gig of memory. There is no way to over come this disadvantage by honest marketing.

In my mind the memory issue, along with other key problems, is just driving Apple into the dust left by former great companies. No company can afford to ignore market share; in the case of memory it is almost as if Apple is thumbing its nose at market share.


Thanks
Dave

Frankly, I'm glad that they will have (if they come out) such a low amount of memory. Apple gouges consumers on memory. Take a look at the apple store. To upgrade to the full 8GB of memory on a PMG5 costs more than the computer itself (US$4,950)! Why not just head over to www.coastmemory.com and get the same 8GB of memory for US$2,152? That's less than HALF the price! For the same freakin' memory!

 

[Trowaman]

Dual 1.8 GHZ G5 Combo drive Powermacs - $1500
Dual 2.2 GHZ G5 8X Superdrive Powermacs - $2000
Dual 2.4 GHZ G5 8X Superdrive Powermacs - $2700

Single 1.5 GHZ G4 15 " iMac - $1300
Single 2.0 GHZ G5 17 " Superdrive iMac - $2000
Single 2.5 GHZ G5 20 " Superdrive iMac - $2300

Single 1.25 GHZ G4 12 " iBook - $1200
Single 1.5 GHZ G4 14 " iBook - $1500

Single 2.0 GHZ G5 15 " Combo drive Powerbook - $2000
Single 2.2 GHZ G5 15 " Superdrive Powerbook - $2500
Single 2.5 GHZ G5 17 " Superdrive Powerbook - $3000

Single 1.5 GHZ G4 17 " Combo drive eMac - $1000
Single 1.5 GHZ G4 17 " Superdrive eMac - $1299

mmm, not bad. eMacs and iBooks might be a little fast considering who is buying them. 1.0 and 1.25 ibooks and 1.25 and 1.5 eMacs. iMacs seems a little expensive (but knowing apple, not unlikely), but not bad guesses overall.

 

[RichardCarletta]

Perhaps this is Apple's plan

Dual 1.8 GHZ G5 Combo drive Powermacs - $1500
Dual 2.2 GHZ G5 8X Superdrive Powermacs - $2000
Dual 2.4 GHZ G5 8X Superdrive Powermacs - $2700

Single 1.5 GHZ G4 15 " iMac - $1300
Single 2.0 GHZ G5 17 " Superdrive iMac - $2000
Single 2.5 GHZ G5 20 " Superdrive iMac - $2300

Single 1.25 GHZ G4 12 " iBook - $1200
Single 1.5 GHZ G4 14 " iBook - $1500

Single 2.0 GHZ G5 15 " Combo drive Powerbook - $2000
Single 2.2 GHZ G5 15 " Superdrive Powerbook - $2500
Single 2.5 GHZ G5 17 " Superdrive Powerbook - $3000

Single 1.5 GHZ G4 17 " Combo drive eMac - $1000
Single 1.5 GHZ G4 17 " Superdrive eMac - $1299

 

[VincentVega]

Translation into english please?

Here you go:

Our anonymous Anglo-Saxon insider reconsiders a possible release date of Apple's next professional range of computers.

According to his information, it appears from the internal roadmap of the Cupertino labs that the green light has been given for the range to be announced on Tuesday 23rd March 2004 with immediate availability, though with a delay of one month for the rest of the world for the 2.4Ghz model.

If this rumour is confirmed, this will undoubtedly be the nature of these releases.

As for the content of the updated range (I emphasise again: this is a rumour, continue to take it with a pinch of salt) the following machines will be released:

1. Entry to the range - a Power Mac G5 with dual 1.8Ghz CPUs, 256Mb of DDR400 (no longer DDR333), a 80Gb Serial ATA hard drive, three PCI-X slots (instead of the "traditional" PCI slots of the current model) and a GeForce 5200 Ultra video card with 64Mb of RAM.
2. Middle of the range - a Power Mac G5 with dual 2.2Ghz CPUs, 512Mb of DDR400, 160Gb Serial ATA hard drive and a Radeon 9600 video card with 64Mb of VRAM.
3. Top of the range, a Power Mac G5 with dual 2.4Ghz CPUs, 512Mb of DDR400, 160Gb Serial ATA hard drive and a Radeon 9600 video card with 64Mb of VRAM.

And finally, a BTO (built to order) option, the possibility of a Radeon 9800 Pro video card, currently sold for $350 USD.

If this rumour proves to be true (you never know) we would note that only the entry-level model of the range changes to any great degree, and would thus to my mind possess the best price-quantity ratio if the current prices are not changed. These are the rumours, now wait patiently to see what the Apple labs are preparing for us for spring.

This is a human translation (i.e. by me, not by Google/Babelfish) and my French is a little rusty, but the basic gist of the article is there.

Edit: fixed typo ("quantity", not "quality", i.e. bangs per buck).

 

[MrSugar]

I am glad someone mentioned that the Pmac 2ghz and the Xserve 2ghz are different chips, don't forget that. That means that the current 2ghz Pmacs are going completely bye bye.

But this makes sense, look at the current lineup, we have a 1.6 followed by a dual 1.8. To keep a nice gap between mid and low line a dual 2.2 would make sense.

I am curious to what other updates we will see, faster DVD super drive, new HD spaces, another optical drive slot, maybe new HD's? Really, there has to be something beyond what this report says. In the past it always seems that Apple never just updates the processor, they always have a few neat nice tricks they throw in. I'm EXCITED!

 

[3.1416]

I would HATE it if the base model did not have the update 970 FX chip, and was just continuing with the original 970.

AFAIK the only advantage of the 970FX is that it's smaller and cooler than the original 970, allowing it to run at higher clock speeds. It doesn't do more per cycle, so it really doesn't matter which version the hypothetical 1.8 would use.

 

[3.1416]

But this makes sense, look at the current lineup, we have a 1.6 followed by a dual 1.8. To keep a nice gap between mid and low line a dual 2.2 would make sense.

Exactly. It's clear that the iMacs have to get G5s very soon, and the obvious way to differentiate the towers is to make them all dual. Given that, Apple doesn't want to have the low end too close to the midrange. They've almost always arranged the tower lineup so that the midrange has the best price/performance ratio, leaving the low end for the budget-conscious and the high end for those who need every bit of performance.

 

[MrSugar]

Exactly. It's clear that the iMacs have to get G5s very soon, and the obvious way to differentiate the towers is to make them all dual. Given that, Apple doesn't want to have the low end too close to the midrange. They've almost always arranged the tower lineup so that the midrange has the best price/performance ratio, leaving the low end for the budget-conscious and the high end for those who need every bit of performance.

BOOYA!!!! nicely said.

 

[wizard]

Hey all,

Speculation:
First of all, keep in mind that this is speculation. This is not an official release by Apple.

CPU and other gains:
Some of you seem to think that a 400Mhz CPU speed increase is mundane. Are you nuts?? If the rumored line-up is true, the top end machine would boast of an incredible speed increase not only in terms of raw CPU speed, but a faster system bus and likely improvements. Think about total system improvements, over just raw CPU gains. Forget the Mhz myth.

The above is totally bogus. We are talking about the same CPU family, clock rate increase are everything in this case. And yes 400Mhz increase is sad taken in the context that it has been stated that we will hit 3GHzin a year.

There also is some concern that IBM/Apple are stuck with the ebus clock rate and that we are not likely to see a FSB increase that allows a 2:1 ratio all the way up to 3GHz. If this is true (remember it is a rumor) then that is a real perofromance concern. Being only able to hit 2.4 GHz could be an indication of ebus problems. OR maybe not but if Apple is not scaling the machines becuase of ebus then it is worth noting.

Complaints about low RAM:
Often times Apple will release machines with low memory configurations in order to give resellers a selling opportunity to bundle free RAM. I'm sure it's a small concession. If you're buying directly from Apple, don't waste your time buying memory from them. Check out pages like ramseeker.com for more sensible pricing.

Same old crap about Ram. People PLEASE realize that Apple does not pay list or retail prices for anything it installs in the MAC's. Further the RAM is the same as the equivalent going into i86 PC's, if the PC manufactures can offer a reasonable RAM installation there is no reason Apple can't on their machines. What is so frustrating about this is that Apple has an OS that really can make use of the RAM and provide a better user experience.

iPod mini click wheel, stupid headless iMac, never-ending and pathetic PDA rumors:
You have to give it to Bill Palmer for articulating how stupid these never-ending headless iMac and PDA rumors are. Please, just let them die. Come up with something much more interesting to ponder than rumor remakes. A note of interest and I've not seen anyone mention this... but do you remember the patent filing that was discussed a while ago that had the rotating, clicking wheel? Many thought that this was a new Apple pro mouse, but I've not seen anyone link this to the new scroll wheel on the iPod mini.

A headless IMac is about the only hope that Apple has of recovering makret share. Letting this speculation die along with the pressure it puts on Apple is to let the corporation itself die. Apple simply can not afford to continue to ignore market demand and the corresponding lost of market share. Moving only 200,000 units per quarter is pathetic and not sustainable.

Apple needs new machine that open up new markets. Currently the PowerMac is only selling well into a dying market share. What good is that?

3.0Ghz powermacs, when?:
Apple has a few months left to deliver these machines. And if they're late, so what? Look at the tremendous gains that the company has made in the last two years. A stronger alliance with IBM has completely changed the pro landscape. Honestly, there are few of us on these boards who really *need* a dual 3.0Ghz, so let's cut Apple some slack. However, I would love one of those to render video for a feature length film.

Well being late would not be an issue if it weren't for the fact that there has been a commitment made to the market. Mis to many commitments and the market response like a spurned wife.

Besides who are you to say that we don't need dual 3.0GHz machines. Frankly the current G5 only perform well in "tests" that target specific feature of the processor. Many of us want all around good performance. We also don't ant to buy a machine today that chokes on software released tomorrow.

The last organization that needs to be cut any slack is Apple. They have had years of excuses allowed, it is time for them to put up or shut up. The problem is that I believe that they can put up if they really want to, especially with IBM on the team. The question is can they or are they being guided by other issues.

 

[Soire]

Arrival Date?



Could somebody educate me as to how soon the updated PowerMacs would ship? The posting of the french article said "immediate availability" for the US. Are most new products available right away? Or if this update even occurs are we going to be stuck waiting awhile, much like the Xserves. What's the dilly-yo?

 

[mac-in-fool]

new line up

Although I read these forums almost daily waiting for the new G5, I resisted the urge to become a GULP...member. The march 23rd release date rumor seems close to what may actually occur, with a few caveates. March 23 is a tuesday, which from what I have read, is a traditional release day for Mac, (And for CD Music releases). However it is also a week before their RAM promo ends. The next logical tuesday is March 30th, the tuesday after the RAM promo ends. As for the line up, The Dual 1.8, Dual 2.2 and dual 2.4 make sense. If you take the current price of the 1.6, and 256 of mac ram and a 160GB hard drive it comes up to $1,999.00 the exact price of a current re-furbished Dual 1.8 mac. They can't really offer a Dual 2ghz on the lowend, they will be burning clients who recently purchased a dual 2ghz as a top of the line model. ,

 

[wizard]

Why would you be? This isn't an official release. You'd be over reacting based on no fact. There are no spec sheets, etc.

Well you did notice the if didn't you. Sure this is not official but that doesn't mean that we should not be shocked and extremely idsappointed iwth the data. Using your logic I should be satisfied if this hwere official Apple documentation. The point I'm trying to make is that the offered cofigurations are unacceptable and should be unacceptable to anybody that sees them.

Also, drastically lowering the price on the powermacs would INFURIATE ME as a stockholder, because it would slim margins, which would lead to less profits. These machines are selling well, no need to freak out and have a fire sale to attract a demographic that probably hasn't the budget for a machine in its category.

What should infuriate you is the continual decline in market share due to extremely high prices. Especially considering that the prices Apple charges are for configurations that should have been on the market a year or two ago.

As a stock holder you have to realize that market share is important but an even begger concern is the continual decline in unit shipments. The evidence is pretty clear that the machines are not selling well I'm not sure where you get the idea that they are.

In any event I'm not talking about fire sale prices, I just want to see Apple in acompetitive position. If you believe that $1200 dollars is a fire sale price then you really need to look at the PC market. The hardware does not need to be expensive to be profitable!

I did not pick to invest in Apple, hoping that they'd turn into the Payless Shoes of computer companies. Considering the overall design, the powermacs are a bargain. The use of an elegant and powerful OS is the cake and the machines are the icing.

I'm not sure how a reasonable person could ever make the statement above. If they where the bargain that you describe we would see much better sales by Apple. We would also see sales to non traditional markets in much larger numbers.

I look at the current configurations of the the PowerMac and I see just the opposite. I see a huge rip off. I see a machine that instead of being configured with leading edge hardware is populated with second string components and sold at leading edge prices. So guy but there is no bargain here.

 

[morkintosh]

Music Music Music

Well, i guess the recent rise in the Apple stock reflects some insider info leaking into the financial market!

I suspect the stock price increase reflects recent success in the online music sector, trivial hardware updates aren't going to have a noticeable impact on stock price.

 

[whooleytoo]

The above is totally bogus. We are talking about the same CPU family, clock rate increase are everything in this case. And yes 400Mhz increase is sad taken in the context that it has been stated that we will hit 3GHzin a year.

I don't follow..

A 20% speedbump in March, another 25% speedbump in 6 months, and we have 3GHz PowerMacs a year from the original release.

(edit oops! fixed typo)

 

[a17inchFuture]

I don't believe that Apple will update the imac's with a g5 any time soon. Maybe early 2005, but I doubt before that. ANd for those projected specs someone gave for all comp models, I think that is way off as far as imacs are concerned. There is no way the imacs will match the powerbooks in every facet. Not gonna happen. The new motorola g4's will be in the imacs and ibooks for a year, I feel.

As far as the updated models, didn't a new release for pm's happen in november that everyone kinda ignores? And wasn't it somewhat mundane as well? So couldn't this mean that this update will be slightly mundane in favor of the great 3.0 unveiling at the end of the summer? Me thinks so.

Finally, I would like to say, that powerbooks need SO much more attention that powermacs, its ridiculous. Apple is the pioneer, and yet there pbooks are painfully behind, with the potential for weak updates on the horizon? Please. Apple, this is pathetic. Put the damn 970FX in pbooks, and then we'll see if the xserves' or the g5 pbooks' sales are the ones holding up the line.

I think most would agree it wouldn't be the Xserves.

 

[dongmin]

Why do people sound so surprised and disappointed? Apple is still on target to hit the 3 ghz mark by the end of the summer (mid-September).

2.0 --> 2.4 ghz (20% increase)
2.4 --> 3.0 ghz (25% increase)

2.0 --> 2.5 ghz (25% increase)
2.5 --> 3.0 ghz (20% increase)

Apple is following the same old pattern they've always followed: 20-25% upgrade every six months with the middle dropping down to the low-end. These new specs would basically fall in line with their pattern.

Now I agree that the graphics specs aren't too exciting, but the report seems pretty vague in that regard.

Remember that the 2.2 and 2.4 ghz will be the new 970fx. The 1.8s may be the old 970s leftover. They're probably skipping the 2.0s because there aren't too many of them around or they're saving them for another model.

 

[MadMan]

20%

Well if I was a stock holder I'd be disappointed!! This reflects just a 20% rise in clock rate, no increase in video capabilities to speak of and stingyness with memory. It is not a machine that will change Apples market share condition.

Well, I AM a AAPL stock holder and am happy as a clam.

I think those folks that are complaining about "just a 20% rise in clock rate" have VERY short memories! "Shades of Motorola"? No way!

It took MOT YEARS to get a 20% speed bump on the G4, yet IBM (by the looks of it) will do at least 20% in 6 months. That's a 400Mhz speed bump!!

When was the last time Moto (ever) did a 400Mhz speed bump?

I understand being a bit disappointed, because 2.5 is half way to 3, but please stop bashing this bump... You could always stick with a G4

MM

 

[blackfox]

I am curious to what other updates we will see, faster DVD super drive, new HD spaces, another optical drive slot, maybe new HD's? Really, there has to be something beyond what this report says. In the past it always seems that Apple never just updates the processor, they always have a few neat nice tricks they throw in. I'm EXCITED!

In relation to this, what are the chances of a case revision already? I have no problems w/ it now, but to possibly accomodate another drive slot or to handle cooling the cpu differently...might this happen? I do not remember Apples' history on this...personally, if it was to happen, I believe it would be with the next revision...but they have had the better part of a year (since rev a release) to put something together...
On a different note, I know everyone wants speed, but a 400MHz boost (800, if you count both processors)in a revision is spectacular for Apple (when was the last time that happened)...also, it is approximately halfway to 3GHz halfway through the year...assuming listed specs, so why is everyone dissapointed? I am thoroughly pleased...

 

[Frobozz]

Dual 1.8GHz G5, 256MB DDR400, 80GB HD, GeForce 5200 Ultra
Dual 2.2GHz G5, 512MB DDR400, 160GB HD, Radeon 9600
Dual 2.4GHz G5, 512MB DDR400, 160GB HD, Radeon 9600

I see this line up as a little strange. Why is there a 400 MHz gap between the low end and middle machines, but only a 200 MHz gap between middle and top end?

Seems to me that it should be either:

-- dual 2.0, dual 2.2 dual 2.4, or
-- dual 1.8, dual 2.2 dual 2.6.

I know it's minor, but gives me pause about the validity. They may be mostly right... but if I've seen it once I've seen it a hundred times. Rumors usually have a grain of truth and a little embellishment on them. I think the processor speeds were guesses based on solid facts. That doesn't mean they're accurate, though.

 

[Veldek]

256 MB RAM in a DP Power Mac? Can't be true, think about it. As the DP Power Mac needs two RAM chips, this would mean two 128 MB RAM chips. I can't believe Apple would do this!

 

[Bakafish]

Talk about uninformed....

Ah when an idiot cant see, NVidia has not even announced the NV40 and Ati the R420, March 23rd is two weeks away, i almost guarentee that you wont see an nv40 in the next g5, maybe the r420 for the high end, but not the 9600 pro as the bottom end for sure
Grow up, think logically and do not be stupid

Um, a sign of maturity is not to call people stupid for expressing their thoughts. But I digress... It is my feeling that this is exactly what has been holding up the release of new G5 machines. PCI Express is the new serial based high speed expansion architecture that will replace AGP for graphics cards. PCI Express will also provide ridiculous amounts of throughput for other expansion cards, and since Intel is switching all of their new chip-sets to no longer support AGP, it is a good idea to start supporting it now rather than later. Apple has always been an early adopter of cutting edge technology standards, and with ATI announcing recently widespread adoption of native PCI Express support (no PCI translator chip) I think Apple will be releasing the rev2 G5's with ATI R420 series cards. Not to start an unrelated flamewar, but nVidia has not been competitive as of late, and I very much doubt that Apple would trust them to ship anything on time at this point.

So the big question has always been, "Why, with faster 970fx chips in the pipeline, has Apple not announced upgrades?" They must have had enough volume of the chips in inventory, as Apple would never have wanted IBM to make announcements about the 970fx without having a good supply on hand or in production.

The delay could be due to a couple of things:

1) The 970fx chip availability could be constrained.
2) The lower heat output allowed Apple to redesign the internal layout, reducing heat sink size and providing more space for additional drives or an additional Optical drive unit.
3) New PCI Express motherboards are waiting for ample supply of ATI graphics cards.

Although, I could be talking out my ass. I am going through the 10.3.3 seed with strings (a Unix tool that finds human readable text in binaries) looking for 'PCI Express' as that would be a smoking gun for my theory. We'll see what comes of this...