PowerMac G5 Updates - March 23rd?

[clr900]

If Apple makes the dual 1.8 the entry model for 1800 I would highly consider buying it. I would also be interested as to what the discontinued dual 2.0 would sell for, maybe 2000? It would be great if the dual 2.0 were the entry model then it would still qualify for the edu discount and I would buy that instantly. However, I do not think Apple would do that, It would be a huuuuge price drop from the current 3000 it sells for. I really hope these rumors are true.

 

[daveL]

Also, remember the new 90nm G5 has more pipeline stages so don't look for proportionate scaling (i.e. like the G4 733 was only marginally faster than the older G4 version 533).

Not true. It's exactly the same CPU, except PowerTune has been added. This is a die shrink. There's nothing changed in the pipeline stages. Where did you get this information?

 

[sethypoo]

Hey, March 23 is my birthday!

The big 1-9.

 

[sosumi]

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...

I wouldn't expect code comments to get compiled into the binaries. Maybe if it's the name of a function, though... I hope you're right btw.

 

[Rocketman]

French site, MacPlus.org, reports that according to their source, 3 new PowerMac G5 models will be released on Tuesday, March 23rd.

According to their information, the new machines will come in at the following specs:

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

MacPlus.org does not frequently publish rumors, but has published an accurate release date in the past.

That makes this post as close to news as you are going to get pre-release. People can at least start planning purchases accordingly.

If true that makes the low-end far more desireable than the G5 debut release was.

Rocketman

 

[Gaffa Bug]

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.

Hopefully, you're right. Currently the G5 has a 133MHz PCI-X (1.0) bus, hopefully, they choose to go with the 2.0 spec and adopt 533MHz PCI-X.

Here's a link to the PCI-X Roadmap. It's pretty interesting.
http://www.digi.com/pdf/prd_msc_pcitech.pdf

 

[jettredmont]

I wouldn't expect code comments to get compiled into the binaries. Maybe if it's the name of a function, though... I hope you're right btw.

Hardware identifies itself using ASCII strings, most of the time (at least, with most modern hardware). I'm not sure if this is true of PCI Express or not, but I certainly wouldn't be surprised if it were.

If there is special code for dealing with "PCI Express" then most likely that code will contain the identifier "PCI Express" to compare against the hardware ID. Also, if the software is to report a readable string to the human (ie, via System Profiler), then that string would be in the UI's strings list.

OTOH, I'm not sure what precisely this would mean ...

 

[Bakafish]

I wouldn't expect code comments to get compiled into the binaries. Maybe if it's the name of a function, though... I hope you're right btw.

Yep, 'sudo find . -type f -exec strings -o {} \; | grep -i express' gave no love. It was worth a shot though.

 

[johnnyjibbs]

The point about RAM is that the extra customer satisfaction of having twice as much RAM is worth much more to Apple than the pennies they lose in including the extra RAM - this would not increase the price of the machine. It would not hurt crucial's sales either: people would still buy that extra RAM chip but their RAM ceiling would be higher and thus their Mac would be faster and they would be happier. It will also help switchers as most low-end Dells have 512 at least these days.

If we do have a dual 1.8 low-end I would expect it to have the current 970 chip, not the new one. Apple has frequenly done this in the past. Why is it a chilling thought? The main advantage of the new chip is that it allows the clock speed to be increased - not a factor when the current chip can handle 1.8 GHz fine in a PM case. You would not notice the difference between the old and new chip in the 1.8 (except overclocking potential that never really works anyway). Keeping the current chip in the low-end machine (or a mixture of old and new) would help combat possible supply shortages on the new chips also.

 

[Rower_CPU]

One point about Apple RAM "gouging"...it's not just Apple.

Dell charges similar markups on RAM that far exceed market price. The rule of thumb for any computer is to buy your own RAM and install it yourself.

 

[27407]

I thought about that, but the XServes use different CPU's.

I thought the new G5's were going to use the 970FX's? Wouldn't that be the reason for the clock speed increase?

 

[_bnkr612]

I did a no-no.

I purchased a G5 1.6 ghz last Thursday. After reading the "rumor" I feel like I should not even open my G5 (which arrived today) and send it back and wait for this rumor to filter out. Maybe the same price will be for the Dual 1.8.

I do webdesign and graphic design and I didn't think a Dual would even be needed for what I do. But if I can get a Dual 1.8 then maybe I should send it back before I open the box!

Can anyone offer me some suggestions?

Cheers,
Bnkr

 

[IndyGopher]

I thought the new G5's were going to use the 970FX's? Wouldn't that be the reason for the clock speed increase?

That's kind of the point. Unless they can be used in the same motherboards, they have to switch over the production.

 

[deepkid]

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.

Again, if you consider an alleged raw CPU speed increase of 400Mhz small, you must be dialing in from utopia. Overall system improvements are key, not bowing to the Mhz myth. I think there are more legitimate things to complain about. This certainly isn't one of them.

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.

Based on hearsay and fear. What's factual? Apple and IBM were able to bring to market a revolutionary new chip and Apple was able to materialize an incredible new powermac which shipped last fall. The machine was able to help Va. Tech rank in the top 5 supercomputer class. Those are facts.

Rival chip makers would love to only achieve a 400 Mhz increase over the previous version of a chip. Again, we don't know because nothing official has been announced, so relax.

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.

Pardon? I don't think anyone is arguing other whether or not a corporation gets volume discounts when buying components, etc. As i said before and has been common place, resellers get the opportunity to make a deal sweeter by adding in RAM, printers and other perks. Could Apple load up all of the machines with RAM? Yes. But they wouldn't be able to sell the machines at the fire sale prices you seem to suggest, now would they? Can't have your cake and eat it too.

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.

Thank God Apple doesn't solely rely upon one specific product in order to survive. Also, with them being debt-free with over 4 billion in cash in the bank, they're in better financial shape than their peers. They're on the right track by pricing their machines sensibly and not at flea market prices. What good is marketshare if you're bankrupting your company? I'm glad they're concentrating on profibility because there's no money in selling cheap crap computers.

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.

This isn't fact, but I bet I'm right. Many who complain and whine on here do so for their own self-amusement. Cronic complainers. Again, I don't know what machine you're referencing but in tests and real world performance the new powermacs are not the dogs you're painting them to be.

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.

Put up what? The current offerings by Apple are arguably the best ever. They have one runaway hit after another and you're still bitchin'? Name another computer maker who is doing better? I don't think that you can. There's no other computer maker who has a better OS, hardware, software combination while being debt free and with an attractive balance sheet.

That's all I have to say.

 

[MacsRgr8]

I purchased a G5 1.6 ghz last Thursday. After reading the "rumor" I feel like I should not even open my G5 (which arrived today) and send it back and wait for this rumor to filter out. Maybe the same price will be for the Dual 1.8.

I do webdesign and graphic design and I didn't think a Dual would even be needed for what I do. But if I can get a Dual 1.8 then maybe I should send it back before I open the box!

Can anyone offer me some suggestions?

Cheers,
Bnkr

Oh dear....

A (almost) victim of the rumorfactory.

Never base a purchase / or wait for a purchase on rumors.
What if this rumor is false. Coming March 23rd nothing comes... then what?

If you think a purchase is good value, then go for it.

If you can wait, and follow rumor sites, making up your own mind when new PowerMacs arrive, then you can be lucky. It is pretty safe to assume that somewhere in between September '03 and September '04 there would be the first G5 update....But let me tell you that many people have waited longer than a year expecting the G5 "anytime soon"

 

[a17inchFuture]

you guys are just masturbating with your finger tips. (typing)

You all say the same things over and over with no true and different point, the same fact gets re-written at least several times a page.

Try some conversation, not just posting the obvious that everyone seems to feel the need to point out themselves.

RAM good, Apple price bad.

Now can we move on to more interesting discussions?

P.S. If you can return that 1.6 Ghz PM, you should do it. The difference is quite great, and if it costs you nothing to wait, then you should. Good Luck!

 

[JamesDPS]

I purchased a G5 1.6 ghz last Thursday. After reading the "rumor" I feel like I should not even open my G5 (which arrived today) and send it back and wait for this rumor to filter out. Maybe the same price will be for the Dual 1.8.

I do webdesign and graphic design and I didn't think a Dual would even be needed for what I do. But if I can get a Dual 1.8 then maybe I should send it back before I open the box!

Can anyone offer me some suggestions?

Cheers,
Bnkr

My two cents: I've been holding off on a G5 for about 6 weeks now waiting for the upcoming revision. While I'm doing pro audio stuff which DOES require a powerful machine, my advice to you would be to get ready to ship your 1.6 back -- even if you don't "need" the power, by getting a dual 1.8 instead, the useful lifetime of the computer will be extended fairly dramatically (assuming you can hold off for another couple weeks!). I've always found that the rule of thumb of "buy whatever the best you can reasonably afford" saves a lot of money in the long run, and I suppose that applies to "wait a couple more weeks" as well (if it can get you another 6 months to a year out of a machine, why not?) After all, my last Mac purchase was a Pismo Powerbook, and I'm still using it! No WAY one of those "toilet seat" iBooks would have lasted 4 years...

As for the updates, they look pretty reasonable to me. Don't forget the other architectural improvements such as the availability of 3 upgraded PCI-X slots in each machine. As for RAM, it's a tricky issue. I think the "standard" for average consumers should be at least 512 for PM's -- for example, my girlfriend's mom knows nothing of computers and was wondering why her PB with 128mb of ram was really slow! Some people buy these computers not knowing what they need in terms of memory, etc., and people will buy a 1.8 with 256 thinking it should be awesome, and will be disappointed, and "strike 1" against their new mac.

On the flip side, I agree that it would be sweet if they sold "bare bones" G5s (for cheap) with no vid card, no HDs, and no RAM for people that wanted to customize everything (not that it would be good business for Apple, it probably wouldn't). Chances are, if I get a PM it will be with 512 which I will probably either throw away or eBay or something, since I plan to stick 8 DIMMs of 512 in there for around $700 (from crucial or some such "top tier" manufacturer). It's not even worth getting 1gb direct from apple if you know how to plug in some memory (a simple task!), unless their "BTO" prices drop a LOT (as we've seen with these promos). Of course, someone pointed out (correctly) that low memory configurations give apple resellers a bonus in terms of being able to bundle in "free RAM" with their sales (which unfortunately kind of makes academic discounts, at least in CA, a little pointless, because of taxes &c.)

Bottom line? I think 256 in a dual 1.8 is doubtful... 128meg modules are basically worthless in a powermac, and average consumers who didn't know to upgrade would be very disappointed with the performance of their new machine. (especially if they're switchers). bad business, so i don't see why we wouldn't get 512 at the low end, at least in powermacs. I DO agree that 1.8 is fine for the low end (rather than 2.0), to agree with someone who pointed out that apple generally has a greater gap b/n the low and mid level than mid/high, and that the mid-level is generally the best power/cost option, with low end for the extremely frugal, and high end for the power-demanding pros. (As for me, mid-level with tons of RAM should do the trick, probably)


EDIT: people will doubtless point out the inherent contradiction in my advice to ship back the 1.6 -- that i've been waiting 6 weeks, so clearly one shouldn't make purchasing decisions based on rumors... however, i thought SIX WEEKS AGO that a revision would be coming soon, just common sense. i think some time in the next month is nearly a certainty, regardless of ANY rumors. and, btw, if they DO come out this month, i will be glad for having waited this long, i think, even though the original machines seem to be generally stable etc. basic premise: don't want to pay day 1 prices for a 6-month-old (therefore obsolete) computer.

 

[afields]

Zzzzzzzzzzz

 

[Sabbath]

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

Nice but very wishful thinking. Also I can't see the processors in powerbooks or iMacs ever being faster than the top of the line powermac, even if thye PMs are duals and the PBs/iMacs are singles. Well unless we all go to portables and never buy another desktop again.

 

[a17inchFuture]

Waiting is always best, if you can. I have been waiting for a pbook for several months too, and I am willing to wait several more.


I had an idea for new powerbooks that might be bad or good, so tell me what you think: Since people are always complaining that the new pbooks mke your palms sweat, what if apple were to put the new g5 powerbooks grid holes on surface where one would put their hands(assuming they have them like the PM's) ?

Would that be uncomfortable, or could they put it just off to the side off the palm placement for better cooling of that palm issue?

 

[concentricity]

Somehow I doubt.

I do find it interesting that they are all duals, this might be to distance them from the new G5 iMAC!

Well, looks at this...

• Dual 1.8GHz PowerPC G5
• 512MB DDR400 SDRAM (PC3200) - 2x256
• 160GB Serial ATA - 7200rpm
• NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra
• 56k V.92 internal modem
• SuperDrive (DVD-R/CD-RW)
• Apple Keyboard & Apple Mouse - U.S. English
• Mac OS X - U.S. English

Subtotal $1,999.00

That's copied and pasted from the U.S. Developer's store. I'm sure they're at least breaking even (probably banking a little something) on these machines. So take away 256MB RAM, 80GB of HD, and you've got a Dual 1.8 for $1799. (Keep in mind the 'old' 1.8's are PPC970's, whereas the new ones would likely use 970fx's which are smaller, therefore cheaper). Also, initial R&D expenses have been recouped by now, adding some more breathing room.

 

[Moonlight]

Hmmmmmm

you guys are just masturbating with your finger tips. (typing)

You all say the same things over and over with no true and different point, the same fact gets re-written at least several times a page.

Try some conversation, not just posting the obvious that everyone seems to feel the need to point out themselves.

Ahhhh...have you been around here long, that is mostly what we do...

 

[ZildjianKX]

Ahhhh...have you been around here long, that is mostly what we do...

This would be a very dissapointing update if it were true. The DP G5 was introduced in late June of 2003... then 9 months later the best they have to show is a DP 2.2 GHz G5? Way to pave the road for the DP 3.0 GHz G5...

I thought with the new G5 processors Apple would be making great strives into the future... not baby steps like they did w/ Motorola.

 

[michaelal]

Maybe they limit the speed to 2.4 Ghz on purpose now, so when they introduce the 3.0 Ghz it will look like a nicer upgrade.

Early rumors of the rev B going all the way to 2.7/2.8 Ghz would make the introduction of the 3.x Ghz machine in August/September a less impressive update, while going from 2.4 to 3.0 of maybe even 3.2 will be great.

We sure have come to expect very little from Apple. I really believe this latest powermac update should be at least 3.0 Gig with high end video that is equal to the task of the PC market. Why is it that we have to settle for 2nd best. Sometimes being a MAC person really feels like I'm getting screwed.

 

[JamesDPS]

Is it just me, or is the macplus.org site down right now? (pls note date and time as of this post)... are they suddenly getting bombarded because of these kinds of "news" posts? if something like this can generate this much network traffic, maybe we shouldn't give it as much credence...