# Thoughts on latest PM G5 upgrades?



## martygraw1000 (Apr 27, 2005)

Hello all,


I'm curious your impressions on the latest round of upgrades announced yesterday by Apple, with the new "top-dog" G5 tower getting bumped to 2.7ghz.

And, to stay true to this particular forum, I am curious about any speculation you'd care to offer for when Apple will finally be able to deliver the long-delayed 3ghz G5 PowerMacs that Steve Jobs promised oh-so-many months ago.

Specifically, if you have a time frame in mind, I'd love to hear it, and I'd love to read any data, rumors, or just plain-old speculation you'd care to offer in support of your time target.

Finally- and not to over-burden this one little thread- if you'd care to speak to some rumors I read on some other Mac site that Steve and Apple are getting mighty tired of IBM's inability to reach the vaunted 3ghz mark, and are beginning to look seriously at a switch to Intel processors.

I know, I know- that last one seems a bit fantastic to me, too. And it's certainly not a new rumor. But hey- at one time it seemed impossible that Apple would EVER abandon Motorola for their arch-enemy (again, at one time) IBM. So let's not dismiss this rumor out of hand.

Anyway, thanks in advance for your insightful, intelligent, and pithy comments.


Marty Graw
1000


----------



## cfleck (Apr 27, 2005)

Don't know about the rest, but x86 isn't going to happen anytime soon.  

I'm guessing you don't have any sources for that rumor.


----------



## martygraw1000 (Apr 27, 2005)

cfleck,


Well, I guess it's fair enough to call me on the source of that rumor. I guess you're just going to have to trust me that I read it in one of the seven or eight Mac-oriented news/rumor sites I peruse most days.

I did go back through them quickly, but couldn't find it. I fully acknowledge that I'm just repeating a rumor, but - Scout's honor here- I promise I'm not making it up.

If I stumble across the site, I'll post it. In the meantime, you'll just have to take my word for it.


Marty


----------



## martygraw1000 (Apr 27, 2005)

Well, this doesn't exactly vindicate me, but I think I found at least one source of the discussion about Apple wanting/needing/planning to switch to Intel processors:

http://www.cnet.com/4520-6033_1-6213658.html


Marty


----------



## HateEternal (Apr 27, 2005)

It Apple switches over to x86 they are going to have the same problems that Microsoft does with Windows, device compatibility. Right now Apple knows the core components of every Mac out there. With PC's there are infinite possibilities.


----------



## Pengu (Apr 27, 2005)

why would they want to switch from a just-released technology that has legs, and the power of IBM behind it, to a fading technology that has been flawed from the get-go???


----------



## mindbend (Apr 27, 2005)

500 MHZ in a year followed by a mere 200 MHZ the next year is not good. At that rate we might hit 2.75 GHZ next year.

I had definitely expcted 3 GHZ by this summer. I figured at minimum they'd keep pace with the .5 GHZ per year, especially since the transition to 90nm (is that right?) was complete. I have no explanation for why they can't get there. Here's some completely baseless guesses:

1. They just can't pull it off yet
2. IBM is reserving its resources for other things
3. They CAN get there, but don't want to outpace dual core, which may debut at lower than 3 GHZ rate.
4. Apple/IBM have focused on dual core, willing to except snail's pace on the current G5 chip for now

I will place dual core at end of this year coming in at just under 3 GHZ. I have absolutely no evidence for this wild guess.

As for the good old Intel chip thingonce again I will proclaim IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. NOT EVER. There are a LOT of reasons why it won't happen, but let's just go with the most upfront, pragmatic one. Apple invested a boatload of their own cash and resources into developing the system controller for the G5. They're not going to give up on that quite yet.

For now, let's all try to be happy and remind ourselves that these machines are actually quite good. The worst of them is way better than what I'm using now. And, in general, I'm pretty satisfied with what I've got (Dual 1 GHZ G4). But not satisfied enough. I'll be placing an order tomorrow.


----------



## RGrphc2 (Apr 27, 2005)

I knew Speedbumps were coming, yea we were all wishing for a 3Ghz DP G5, but oh well, stuff like this happens.  Steve Job's Said this was the year of HD, most people don't have anything HD right now, save a TV or iMovie HD. 

Intel claimed their 64 Bit chip was supposed to debut in 2003....it's now when? and where is this chip???

The one thing that kinda ticks me off about the update is the Dual 2.0 can only take 4GB of RAM   ...while the old one took 8, but i'm not gonna be doing something that takes that much RAM, lol.

BTW has anyone noticed the price drop on Monitors the 20" in $799 and the 23" is $1499 the 30" remains the same at $2999

before they were $999 and $1799


----------



## Pengu (Apr 27, 2005)

Two things:

If you hadn't picked it yet, the "middle" G5 ALWAYS gets crippled when it becomes the "low" model (the 2.0 isn't the lowest, but i don't consider the single 1.8 a competitor anyway.) buy a previous gen 2.0 and stick a DVR-109 in it, you get better than the current 2.0 for less (probably)..

what is really interesting: i paid ~$A2000 for a 20" in october last year. (educational pricing) now i can get the same thing for half the price (two price drops)..

makes me think about a second 20" for the g5...


----------



## Ceroc Addict (Apr 27, 2005)

martygraw1000 said:
			
		

> I am curious about any speculation you'd care to offer for when Apple will finally be able to deliver the long-delayed 3ghz G5 PowerMacs that Steve Jobs promised oh-so-many months ago.


It's not months anymore, it's almost a couple of _years.

_Latest speed bump is a very weak statement - almost not worth making. The upgraded Superdrives are bigger news.

Kap


----------



## yanges (Apr 28, 2005)

what gets me is everyone says 'oh, it is only a 200mhz bump for the new 2.7gb machines'...

so when they go to 3gb machines, it will only be a 300mhz bump...

i think that speed gets over-rated sometimes....

and i do not see what is wrong with the sp1.8 if you really do not have the need for dual processors...

i can get a sp1.8 with 512mb ram, Radeon 9600 XT video card w/ 128mb ram and 160gb hard drive for $1528 with an educational discount!  pretty good deal!

i am gonna get me a new G5 by this summer [we will see what is available then] to supplement my dinosaur, my trusty Cube


----------



## mindbend (Apr 28, 2005)

Grabbed a DP 2.7 today. I'm keeping a list of observations as I go through it and reinstall everything. I'll post tomorrow probably. 

I'm pretty critical and demanding so don't expect a lot of "OMFG, it's the greatest thing ever!"


----------



## Pengu (Apr 28, 2005)

they're available already!?


----------



## snapper (Apr 28, 2005)

I had suspected that breaking the 3.0 gigahertz barrier would be long in the making when they had anounced the dual 2.5. So I grabbed the dual 2.0 revb since I was not  too interested in being an early adopter of a liquid cooled machine. Prior to owning a PM, I was using a powerbook TI 400 mhz and compared to that this PM processing power is incredible.I am using this machine to edit videos in FC Express, Photoshop and a bit of protein folding. I can actually run all three simultaneously with decent output. My point is 2.7 gigahertz duals are a lot of machine for anyones needs. For most people's use it's overkill. Much like driving a dragster on city streets. Granted that some program's minimum requirements has increased ,such as iChat for Tiger to name one, it hasn't outpaced the speed increases by IBM. 3.0 will come soon enough and by the time it comes,hopefully there would be a need for it


----------



## Valeriu (Apr 29, 2005)

I have the impression that the new boxes are just overclocked versions of the 'old' models with a different video card and new optical drive.
The old 1.8Ghz has no PCI-X slots - same as the new 2G.
All the others 2.3 & 2.7 have 3 PCI-X slots, so I presume that the upgrade went this way:
1.8>2
2>2.3
2.5>2.7
Stand to be corrected!


----------



## Pengu (Apr 29, 2005)

it's nothing to do with overclocking them. as i said before, and as has been the case since the first G5s came out (Single 1.6, Single 1.8, Dual 2.0):


> If you hadn't picked it yet, the "middle" G5 ALWAYS gets crippled when it becomes the "low" model...



The 1.6 had PCI, four RAM slots. When they went to Dual 1.8, 2.0 and 2.5s, it was the 1.8 with the PCI and four slots. now they're at 2.0, 2.3 and 2.7, it's the 2.0 that has PCI and four ram slots. i think it's "good" in a way for us as consumers, as it means my October built Dual 2Ghz G5 isn't considered to be a "bottom feeder"... it gives some product value to things in future (so long as you buy them when they have the extra "features")


----------



## opus66 (May 6, 2005)

It is definitely apple's pattern to cripple the ram slots and pci on the low dual... but it doesn't make it right or fair considering their inability to produce any major innovations... 

They did finally stop crippling the front side bus... but should have not limited the specs on the dual 2.0 as a show of good faith... The dual layer superdrive is really nothing as those drives have been in pc's for months now, and can be had for cheap...

The PM's are good machines, but I was pretty disappointed in the revision after nearly 11 months. I don't think there's a huge performance difference among the machines... so I'd like to buy the dual 2.0... but I'm worried the pci and 4 ram slots will come back to bite me in the @ss. I'll be doing high end photoshop while trying to teach myself FCP and some limited animation.. Since I'm a complete novice, a faster machine would help me see my misdeeds quicker, helping my learning curve.

The monitors are still over-priced. Not so much the 20 inch at $799 (even though the Dell is the exact same screen for about $499)... but the 23" is a total rip-off. For crying out loud...$1499 is crazy since you can almost buy 2 20's at that price... and the 23" has been riddled with complaints and quality problems from day one. The 23 should be $1199-1299 max. 

I'll probably buy the apple 20... but if I really wanted more screen I'd have to reluctantly jump to the Dell 24" at about $1099.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (May 6, 2005)

check the prices on the dell/mac 20" thing.... last i looked (last week) mac was cheaper by £10. for a much better version of the same screen - the dell only won reviews as it was cheaper


----------



## opus66 (May 6, 2005)

keep in mind I'm in the US, so our prices may be different... I can tell you that the Dell 20" is sold here for about $499 regularly... and in some cases discounted further with limited promotions. I've heard of people getting them for a little over $400 with certain coupons...
The apple is $799. 

I've read a review that was linked from apples display support forum... that basically did reverse engineering to both models only to find the exact same LG screen and many, many more identical parts. The Dell offered more inputs, but the Apple had better build quality... but then again the Dell comes with a 3 year warrantee. 

I'm too vain to buy the Dell over the Apple at these price points... but the 23" v. 24" would be another story given the odd troubles with the apple 23.

here's the lengthy review of both 20" screens if you're interested...

http://www.anandtech.com/displays/showdoc.aspx?i=2400

here's the US Dell link for the 20 inch... it's now at $561.75... it must fluctuate weekly... but if you keep your eyes open, you'll see some deals and coupons that drastically reduce the prices...
http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/...=en&s=dhs&cs=19&sku=320-4111&category_id=4009


----------



## Lt Major Burns (May 6, 2005)

what problems with the 23"?


----------



## Pengu (May 6, 2005)

if you want the extra ram slots, buy a refurb or old-stock 2.0 with PCI-X etc...


----------



## opus66 (May 6, 2005)

Lt Major Burns said:
			
		

> what problems with the 23"?



Many users report really poor color due to pink and or yellow casting at different sides of the screen... unfortunately this has not gone away after numerous returns and refurbs...

I've heard some say that tiger has fixed this problem... but hadn't heard much corroboration. 

If you need the screen for color critical work, I'd avoid the 23 until there's a definative track record without these problems... you can check apples support forums for display issues.

Oddly enough the 20" seem to be near defect free and excellent for color.


----------



## applewhore (May 6, 2005)

opus66 said:
			
		

> Many users report really poor color due to pink and or yellow casting at different sides of the screen... unfortunately this has not gone away after numerous returns and refurbs...


I've got a relatively new (4 months) 23" Apple monitor - it's pixel perfect and no problems with colour casting...

It's WAY better than the "old style"  22 and 23" screens I've got... (I was using the 23" in the UK two Summers ago and the perspex got filled up with thunder flies!   

The HD QT movies on the Apple site look amazing on it!


----------



## opus66 (May 6, 2005)

that's encouraging news... i hope it's a trend that continues everywhere (especially when the prices come down again)...


----------



## ex2bot (May 22, 2005)

200 Mhz doesn't sound like much, but there is a corresponding increase in FSB speed. 1.25 GHz for the DP 2.5 and 1.35 GHz for the 2.7. It does make a difference.

It's the same thing with any processor upgrade. Do you think there's a huge performance difference between the P4 3.4 versus 3.6?

Doug


----------



## Lt Major Burns (May 22, 2005)

there's always been an FSB of exactly half the processor in the machine with the PowerMac G5s.  Dells biggest fsb was 800mhz the last itme i looked. on a 3.2ghz machine...  it was the same on their 2.2ghz machines... crippling.




			
				applewhore said:
			
		

> It's WAY better than the "old style"  22 and 23" screens I've got... (I was using the 23" in the UK two Summers ago and the perspex got filled up with thunder flies!



what do you mean? i was about to seriously buy a 23" old-style to replace my alu 20" cinema display. it was like $600 on ebay, and would give me so much more room. but i don't wanna buy a lemon...


----------



## Convert (May 22, 2005)

Hey Lt Major Burns, would you sell your 20" display if you brought a new one?

If so, how much for?


----------



## Lt Major Burns (May 22, 2005)

probably about £450, depending on whether i go for a single 23", or just get onther 20" and have them dualled up. the choice being motion work (long timeline/many palettes/inspectors) or design/print, which i want to see a full A3 page at 100%


----------



## Oscar Castillo (May 23, 2005)

I recently thought about buying a 23" ACD to replace my Samsung 21" LCD, but after measuring the screens, you just don't get enough screen area to justify the cost, so I went with dual 20" and am really glad I did.  Wouldn't go back to using a single screen.  Now a 30" ACD, perhaps, but not until another round of price drops.


----------



## fryke (May 23, 2005)

I have absolutely nothing against speed bumps of 200 MHz. As long as Apple starts doing them every three or four months at least - instead of every 9-12. Actually, I'd love the buying experience to be _this_ way: "Yes, Sir, we'll build that dual PowerMac for you. *Let me check the newest G5 modules list from IBM.* O-okay. Do you want two 3.2, 3.4 or 3.6 GHz SINGLE core processors or two 2.8, 3.0 or 3.2 GHz DUAL core processors in that machine? ONE dual core 3.2 GHz processor? Very fine, Sir. Good choice."


----------



## ex2bot (May 23, 2005)

Lt. Major Burns,

Good point.

I didn't want to say anything about Intel's 800 MHz fsb because I haven't been keeping up on Intel processors for the last several months. I wasn't sure if they had gone beyond 800.



Doug


----------



## Oscar Castillo (May 25, 2005)

High end P4s have a 1066MHz FSB. I think that it's odd that the x86 side can crank up the clock speed of the CPU, but still be limited somewhat by the FSB.  It's always been slow to catch up.  Running a 3.2Ghz P4 with a FSB at 1/4 the speed has be holding back the P4 unless it simply can't saturate the bus enough data at higher speeds.  It doesn't get mentioned much in CPU comparisons.  And that the Mac has such high FSB speeds which seem to increase without any difficulty doesn't get mentioned much either.  I think the FSB on the Mac is being held back on purpose so that it doesn't step on the next generation.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (May 25, 2005)

is there a reason why it's never higher than half? i mean, even on the high end models, it's still half? is there some theory that negates this?


----------



## Oscar Castillo (May 25, 2005)

Not knowing the intricacies of chip design, my best guess would be it has something to do with slow RAM access.


----------

