Rev. A or Rev. B G5 1.8?

[alexf]

I am considering getting a refurbished G5 1.8 and was wondering whether I should go for the Rev. A or Rev. B model (from the specials area of the Apple store).

With the Rev. B model, for $100 more I could get a 160 GB hard drive, 8 RAM slots, etc.

Is the architechture, etc. of the Rev. B models improved enough to warrant getting it instead of the older model?

Any advice would be appreciated.

 

[Elan0204]

I assume you are referring to the dual 1.8 G5s. I thought it was the Rev. B model that was crippled not the Rev. A, making the Rev. A dual 1.8 G5s the better of the two.

 

[jsw]

Almost every thread on this subject recommends buying the Rev A. Same warranty. 80 GB more disk space. Usually 256MB more RAM. Twice the RAM slots. Usually a better graphics card.

All told, for that $100, you get a lot. Remember, the 'old' dual 1.8 wasn't replaced by the 'new' one - the 'new' one replaces the old 1.6. The 'old' 1.8 was a nicer, mid-level system.

 

[alexf]

Yes, it does sound like the Rev. A would be a better deal.

Yet the question is, to what extent has the architecture, chip, etc. been improved? I have heard many conflicting reports on whether the chips in the new models have been improved...

Is everything else virtually the same in the Rev. Bs?

 

[jsw]

Yes, it does sound like the Rev. A would be a better deal.

Yet the question is, to what extent has the architecture, chip, etc. been improved? I have heard many conflicting reports on whether the chips in the new models have been improved...

Is everything else virtually the same in the Rev. Bs?

A late-model Rev A has essentially everything a Rev B has except for the G5 chips, which I think are the newer ones even on the 1.8's and 2.0's. Same specs, though. Minimally less power consumption. Still, the Rev. A's work phenomenally well, have the same warranty (i.e., if it breaks, they'll fix it, likely with newer components), and come with more than their Rev B siblings (comparing dual 1.8's).

 

[DEXTERITY]

what about the old 2.0 vs the new 2.0's? there are some refurbs on the apple site but I am not sure if they are the rev a's or rev b's? Would appreciate any help.

 

[Brize]

Most of the rev. B Dual 2.0 G5s (up to now, at least) utilise the 130nm processor, rather than the 90nm version. With that in mind, the only difference between the two is a faster Superdrive on the rev. B (8x rather than 4x) and a better graphics card on the rev. A.

 

[Brize]

By the way, to answer your question, those refurb G5s at the US Apple store are undoubtedly rev. A models. I can't find any detailed specs, but they appear to ship with Jaguar installation/restore discs, which would mark them out as rev. A machines. They also ship with a Panther upgrade disc if required.

 

[iBert]

By the way, to answer your question, those refurb G5s at the US Apple store are undoubtedly rev. A models. I can't find any detailed specs, but they appear to ship with Jaguar installation/restore discs, which would mark them out as rev. A machines. They also ship with a Panther upgrade disc if required.

Last week I bought one of those refurbs, a 2.0 GHz. They say that about shipping with Jaguar and the upgrade disc for Panther. I got Panther installed. I think they just upgrade it, they might say that to specify what rev. Probably!?!?!?

 

[DEXTERITY]

thanks for your help. too bad the education discount doesn't apply to refurbs. Do the refurbs usually look brand new (no scracthes, dust, etc)? the apple site is kind of vague with the specs of those computers. thanks again.

 

[alexf]

thanks for your help. too bad the education discount doesn't apply to refurbs. Do the refurbs usually look brand new (no scracthes, dust, etc)? the apple site is kind of vague with the specs of those computers. thanks again.

Yes, I was also wondering this also... Do the refurbs generally seem like new or is is acceptable if they appear slighty worn?

 

[jsw]

Yes, I was also wondering this also... Do the refurbs generally seem like new or is is acceptable if they appear slighty worn?

Generally, they look like new or are in excellent shape. It's luck of the draw though, and some have minor scratches. I recall no posts where people received a refurb product which was visually damaged. Obviously, the internals are all OK and, if not, are under warranty. Given that a new purchase will probably look like a refurb within a week, it's not a big deal. And I don't mean it'll look abused - just thet, for example, the G5 cases, though stunningly sturdy, scratch easily.

 

[keysersoze]

I will confirm that the "new" or Rev B. G5 Dual 1.8's are still using the 970 (130nm) chip and NOT the wonderful 970fx (90nm) chip.

If the processor matters to you, and you have to have the 90nm 970fx's and a new Dual 1.8, wait until it's confirmed that they are shipping together.

Right now you'd be screwed with the old processors.

Like me

 

[keysersoze]

Yes, I was also wondering this also... Do the refurbs generally seem like new or is is acceptable if they appear slighty worn?

The Dual 1.8 is my work machine and is new, not a refurb.

My personal computer is a refurb 1.6 G5, straight from Apple's refurb department. I can confirm it looks brand-spanking new. Not a scratch. I went over it with a fine-toothed comb and it's a beauty.

 

[alexf]

I will confirm that the "new" or Rev B. G5 Dual 1.8's are still using the 970 (130nm) chip and NOT the wonderful 970fx (90nm) chip.

If the processor matters to you, and you have to have the 90nm 970fx's and a new Dual 1.8, wait until it's confirmed that they are shipping together.

Right now you'd be screwed with the old processors.

Like me

Thanks for the tip. Any idea when the 1.8 GHzs might start shipping with the new processors?

Also, do the Rev. B 2.0 GHzs have the 970fx or are these also the same processors as their predecessors?

 

[keysersoze]

Thanks for the tip. Any idea when the 1.8 GHzs might start shipping with the new processors?

Also, do the Rev. B 2.0 GHzs have the 970fx or are these also the same processors as their predecessors?

This is the topic of another thread. I wish I could say, but I don't think anyone can. I think you are more likely to get a Dual 2.0 with the 970fx processors (I think they are actually shipping with them). Try and hunt down that other thread. Good luck!

 

[alexf]

Thanks for the info.

Just what is the advantage of the newer processor anyway? 1.8 GHz is 1.8 GHz, whether it's the newer or the older processor, right?

 

[keysersoze]

Thanks for the info.

Just what is the advantage of the newer processor anyway? 1.8 GHz is 1.8 GHz, whether it's the newer or the older processor, right?

I believe it saves you on energy consumption, because the distance is shorter, and will also (because of that) keep heat levels lower than the 190nm processors (and therefore Apple can ultimately speed up the processors in higher end models, without cooking everything).

I am no expert though-- maybe someone else can offer more.

 

[alexf]

Do you (or does anyone) know how much more energy efficient the 970FX chips are? Would it really be noticeable?

BTW, I'm surprised that Apple is not shipping all the new G5s with the new chips...

 

[keysersoze]

Do you (or does anyone) know how much more energy efficient the 970FX chips are? Would it really be noticeable?

BTW, I'm surprised that Apple is not shipping all the new G5s with the new chips...

Ahhh! The crux of the G5 issue! Apple would ship them if they could (and they really, really want to with school coming up), but IBM has been having a number of issues with the new chip. Apparently the yields have not been up to par, and that is a main reason the iMac G5 has not come out yet. It's also a reason the recent updates to the PowerMac line came in June, when it was anticipated they would be out much sooner. Apparently moving to the 970fx and 90nm process is a very difficult thing to do (for IBM, Intel or anyone else). The 970fx doesn't reduce the amount of heat enough especially when the processors are jacked up-- the new Dual 2.5's have the liquid-cooling/radiator system to disperse heat, generated by the 970fx's. And the crappy yields and heat generation tie into why Steve's promise of a 3Ghz G5 didn't happen-- Very hard to do-- one issue generated was that IBM's wafers would crack. oof.

Hopefully that sums it up... please take it all with a grain of salt. I gave it my best shot. If anyone else wants to delve further into this, please do. Again, I'm no expert, just another interested party.

 

[alexf]

Thanks for the informative summary...