# New Power Mac G4 systems to be unveiled tomorrow with speeds up to 1.25GHz



## HyperLiteG4 (Aug 12, 2002)

From MacMinute:


New Power Mac G4 systems to be unveiled tomorrow with speeds up to 1.25GHz

August 12 - 16:33 EDT__Apple will unveil new Power Mac G4 systems tomorrow, MacMinute has learned. Sources inform us that three configurations will be offered: dual-867MHz (US$1,699), dual-1GHz ($2,499), and dual-1.25GHz ($3,299). The dual-1GHz and dual-1.25GHz models will feature ATI Radeon 9000 series graphics cards; additional system-specific details are not available. The dual-867MHz configuration is slated to ship by the end of the week, while the new dual-1GHz model will ship towards the end of the month. Availability of the high-end dual-1.25GHz model is being pegged at sometime in September. Current Power Mac G4 systems will be reduced in price as follows: 800MHz ($1,299), 933MHz ($1,499) and dual-1GHz ($2,199). Additionally, Apple will introduce a SuperDrive-equipped eMac for $1,499, sources say, and will reduce the price of CD-RW and Combo Drive iMacs by $100 to $1,299 and $1,499, respectively.


----------



## jeb1138 (Aug 12, 2002)

Hmmmm...not quite the 1.4GHz or quad-processors that were being rumored...


----------



## fryke (Aug 12, 2002)

But all dual processor machines? That sounds great. Sounds like the entry-level machine will be a hottie, too, ne?


----------



## dave17lax (Aug 12, 2002)

When are they releasing the new xserve (3U)?Tomorrow is my guess.


----------



## alexrd (Aug 12, 2002)

Who cares about the 0.25GHz??

Give us decent memory bandwidth, for the love of god!!!!

-alex.


----------



## MacLegacy (Aug 12, 2002)

I hope they are 1.4 ghz with DDR333, 120 gb hd, better video card..

I guess even 1.2ghz would be damn nice if it used IBM Power4

sorry I made this post quick so it's "worthless" 

lol

I'll keep checking apple site tonight and tomorrow when I get up!


----------



## pezagent (Aug 12, 2002)

> _Originally posted by alexrd _
> *Who cares about the 0.25GHz??
> 
> Give us decent memory bandwidth, for the love of god!!!!
> ...



I totally agree... this is just a bunch of crap. Crap crap crap crap crap. 

PC Users get the option to overclock their machines: .25 GHz is like get a few extra peanuts from the airline snack bar.


----------



## BlingBling 3k12 (Aug 12, 2002)

> _Originally posted by dave17lax _
> *When are they releasing the new xserve (3U)?Tomorrow is my guess. *


I'm hoping you're kidding...


----------



## Matrix Agent (Aug 12, 2002)

I think these new configurations su*k.

What would make me happy wouldd be to catch up with PC's in terms of performance. Again, I can;t help but thing that Apple has come up on empty with it's new pro line, the improvemnts seen here, aren't enough to even keep the line in competition with PC's.

If Mac users aren't even rivited by this news, who will be? .25 Ghz is a measly speedbump. And I don't want to hear about how Apple has never made as large of a speedbump as many mac users before, and that 200 Mhz is about normal. At some point Apple is going to have to make a breakthough, they can't catch up by making 200Mhz speedbumps, and raising the memory bus to the lowest acceptable speed.

I'm dissapointed. They way Jobs and Schiller talk, the G5 must be a big deal, because the power that they keep on hinting at is certainly not evident in this revision.

What I do think is great though is Jaguar, this (I know this gets said everytime, but its finally true) is the version that we've been waiting for. Fully optimized, multi-threaded ect... It makes the old hardware good, and the new hardware a little more competitive.


----------



## BusinezGuy (Aug 12, 2002)

Apple does have a huge point.

Remember, the AMD Athlon, while slower than the fastest P4s on the market today, is a faster processor, when comparing MHZ to MHZ.  If AMD could get the Athlon up to 2.5 GHZ, it would be the fastest processor on the market with ease.  It would leave the P4 in the dust.

One can make a strong argument that the Power PC has an even stronger processor, MHZ to MHZ, than does even the Athlon.  Than you have to consider the fact that your getting 2 processors.  You also have to realize that you have an OS in Mac OS X that takes full advantage of 2 processors and unlike Windows XP, will benefit you even for programs that are not written to take advantage of dual processors.  Than when you factor in the Jaguar using the graphics card, you can make a strong argument that the GUI for Mac OS X is probably faster than the Windows XP counterpart.

There is no doubt that the hardware on the PC end if faster.  Just not as much faster as a lot of you were making it out to be.


----------



## pezagent (Aug 12, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Matrix Agent _
> *I'm dissapointed. They way Jobs and Schiller talk, the G5 must be a big deal, because the power that they keep on hinting at is certainly not evident in this revision.
> 
> What I do think is great though is Jaguar, this (I know this gets said everytime, but its finally true) is the version that we've been waiting for. Fully optimized, multi-threaded ect... It makes the old hardware good, and the new hardware a little more competitive. *



You've heard me bitch, you've heard me moan. This is what's killing me all the time--*Apple's hardware/software sync-up.* 

I few years back, just prior to the release of the beige G3, I bought a 9600 604e to handle my <music> studio setup. I needed something to handle Cubase, which was designed to use the CPU rather than resorting to a $10,000 DSP farm--ProTools. 

The glitch wasn't Cubase, nor was it the PowerPC chip. It was Apple's stinking OS.

At the time, OS 8 had JUST been released, so most people were still using System 7. Upgrading to 8 was OK, but the system was so unstable that my mac crashed on me frequently. Eventually I gave up and invested in a ProTools system (which still had problems becuase of the MacOS).

Steinberg, also fed up with MacOS, developed Neuendo for the PC platform to compete with ProTools. The Mac was locked out.

So here we are, years later, and finally we have got our Jaguar.  Now, you know it--I've been a Mac (L)User for a long time, and I've been waiting this baby out for as long as everybody else. 

But g*d d*amnit, *I'M FED UP*. It seems if Apple touts a faster processor it doesn't have the software ready to back it up. Now we have a reverse situation. Everyone seems pleased with Jaguar and the hardware is no where NEAR where it should be in terms of performance. What good is iTunes, iDVD, iMovie, and the slew of other apps (a few things about Apple that I DO like, although they could use some improvement--we'll get to that later) if they don't have the processing speed they need?

Hey Apple, stop trying to wow me "WITH SPEEDS UP TO 1.25 GHZ" 
BFD 

AMD and Intel have broken the 2GHZ barrier and AMD seems to be kicking some royal ass these days. 

I guess I'm just in a state of shock. We've been waiting forever for this new OS to get here and then when it arrives, it still can't take us over the edge.

I've got a personal message for Steve Jobs: You've been a great cheerleader and I appreciate it, but Apple's in 9th place outta 12. Like Merlin said to Luther: *You're not the one.*


----------



## vanguard (Aug 12, 2002)

> You also have to realize that you have an OS in Mac OS X that takes full advantage of 2 processors and unlike Windows XP, will benefit you even for programs that are not written to take advantage of dual processors. Than when you factor in the Jaguar using the graphics card, you can make a strong argument that the GUI for Mac OS X is probably faster than the Windows XP counterpart.



Here's a lesson, don't make stuff up because you'll end up looking silly.  Your post was completely fact-free.

1. XP takes advatage of dual processors just as well as OSX.

2. XP/NT has been taking advantage of the graphics card for years.

3.  Nobody I know would say that the OSX gui is faster than XP's.

Anyway, be careful when making technical statements.  You're going to get busted.


----------



## thisbechuck (Aug 13, 2002)

If this thread has any truth to it, I doubt it would ship how it was posted to. In the iMacs, the top of the line shipped first, the others followed a few months behind. So if these new PowerMacs do ship, they most likely will follow the iMac's wake, with the dual 1.25 shipping first. 

For those ranting about the minor 250mhz increase, you have to remember, this is Motorola we are talking about. They aren't renowned for being particularly fast.

I think I'll skip this revision though. My old cube still has a few months of life left yet... I'm hoping that my the time my baby dies, the G5 will be close at hand.


----------



## pezagent (Aug 13, 2002)

> _Originally posted by BusinezGuy _
> *Remember, the AMD Athlon, while slower than the fastest P4s on the market today, is a faster processor, when comparing MHZ to MHZ.
> *
> First of all, the AMD Athlon MP 2100 is not slower than the fastest P4. AMD started marketing it's chips as 1800, 1900, etc, so that they would be percieved as having a greater speed, when in fact, the actual HZ is rated lower. The speed difference comes from the IPS, or instructions per second. AMDs chips are able to take advantage of more IPS. You see this performance increase when you stick 2 AMDs on a board--AMDs kick ass, and they kick the sh*t out of the dual G4s as well.
> ...


----------



## Excalibur (Aug 13, 2002)

> _Originally posted by pezagent _
> *
> If you hung out with any PC overclocker, you would know that AMD is the chip of choice for overclocking, or increasing the speed of the navi. Certain motherboards on the market have built in overclocking functions, which can even overclock a chip based on it's operating temperature (That's why you see 12 cooling fans stuck in a case sometimes).
> 
> ...



Clock for clock this is a valid thing, HOWEVER they are 2 fold beyond clock for clock so it don't matter. The AMD is the faster process no doubt about it. We wont be seeing the burn baby burn anytime for the next several years at this pace for sure. LOL



> *
> Than you have to consider the fact that your getting 2 processors.  You also have to realize that you have an OS in Mac OS X that takes full advantage of 2 processors and unlike Windows XP, will benefit you even for programs that are not written to take advantage of dual processors.
> * Not true. All software must be written to take advantage of dual processing, no matter if it's on the Mac or not. The myth of dual processing is that it increases system performance: the truth is only apps that are processor-hungry are designed to take advantage of this feature.



It is true. MacOSX ITSELF IS threaded for multiprocessors. If you run a CPU viewer you can find out yourself. Both processors will be used. Only carbon applications need to be coded for MP, I believe. I think depending on the app they can use certain framewroks in OSX for that as well. Native cocoa apps will support MP for sure. However XP is also MP aware at the OS level, (if you get XP Pro) XP Home doesn't support MP.



> *
> Than when you factor in the Jaguar using the graphics card, you can make a strong argument that the GUI for Mac OS X is probably faster than the Windows XP counterpart.
> *
> Considering that Apple uses the same cards as a PC does, XP is just as fast as OS 10.1 if not faster. As far as Jaguar is concerned, so far one user here as reported no increase at all, with still the same amount of BS. [/B]



I think you are right here. XP has a bit less overhead on the GUI speed and I believe it is faster as well. Even more so than Jaguar. But I personlly have NO issues with the Jaguar GUI speed now. It IS much more responsive than 10.1.5 on my machine.


----------



## ksv (Aug 13, 2002)

1250 MHz? Gah!
Which multiplier are you going to use to get 1250 MHz on a 133 MHz bus, eh?  
1200 or 1266 MHz, OK, but I doubt anyone would confuse 1250 with 1266?


----------



## pezagent (Aug 13, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Excalibur _
> *
> It is true. MacOSX ITSELF IS threaded for multiprocessors. If you run a CPU viewer you can find out yourself. Both processors will be used. Only carbon applications need to be coded for MP, I believe. I think depending on the app they can use certain framewroks in OSX for that as well. Native cocoa apps will support MP for sure. However XP is also MP aware at the OS level, (if you get XP Pro) XP Home doesn't support MP.
> *



An application written for OSX will NOT utilize dual processing unless it's programmed to. Yes, OSX is built to take advantage of SMP, but so is Windows XP. This is the myth I'm talking about: that applications automacially use dual processing.

This isn't really a concern, as most companies that need the power use it, and apps that don't need it don't need to bother.


----------



## edX (Aug 13, 2002)

pez - apple has said that jaguar will allow other apps to take advantage of dual processing that weren't written for it. so today your statement is right . in less than 2 weeks you will be wrong if i understand it correctly.


----------



## vitaboy (Aug 13, 2002)

If these specs are accurate, all that comes to mind is:

Too little, too late.

Let me predict 99% of the professional Mac community will be skipping this revision. But that's what you get for half-hearted hardware efforts that is 7 months late at prices that are still a year out of date. Let's remember that the 1.25 GHz (big whoopee!) version won't even be available until virtually September.

Namely, if one already has a dual 800 MHz or 1 GHz desktop, then chucking $129 to get Jaguar makes much better sense than spending $3000+ for dual 1.25 GHz machines. 

I mean, reports indicate that Jaguar will probably make that old dual-1 GHz machine perform like it's been overlocked to dual 1.4 GHz or faster. Why would any professional with a bit of brain spend another $3000 bucks when $129 will easily carry them until a real G5 machine?

Why even bother to maintain secrecy on machines with such underwhelming specs?

Looking at it unemotionally, the low-end is quite an improvement by going from a single 800 MHz G4 to a dual 867 MHz G4. But Apple should have held the price point steady at $1599 instead of raising it to $1699. I suspect pricing was determined by making a complete system (tower + apple lcd) more expensive than the $1999 17" iMac more than anyting else.

The mid config offers less of an improvement over the model it replaces than the entry model, but still a big improvement. Apple still should have held the line against the original price though. I predict the price is about $500 too high for this machine to sell. My instincts say sales will only take off when the price drops to $1999.

The high-end system probably provides the worst value. Not much of an improvement of the previous high-end, and although it's cheaper, let's face it. Paying $3300 for a dual 1.25 GHz machine is ridiculous considering what Apple has to compete against. This machine should be priced at $2999 - at most! And even that may be too much. Really, this is a $2499 machine and unfortunately, I don't think it will sell until it hits that price point.

This model will be an instant bomb. Apple won't have to worry about constrained supplies of 1.25 GHz G4s. And no one in their right mind is going to wait until September for delivery when January MacWorld Exp will be just 4 months away by that point.

Let's hope this is all a bad dream and the real desktops will have some nice surprises (and actual value-added enchancements) up their metaphorical sleeves.


----------



## fryke (Aug 13, 2002)

Don't forget that the PPC 7470, the bus speed and new graphics hardware will make these new PowerMacs much more attractive than the last revision. Compare a Dual 867 MHz machine to a single processor 800 MHz machine for the _entry_ level. This is the _right_ choice right now, if Motorola can't deliver faster processors than 1.2(5) GHz.

Gosh, I miss the time when Apple didn't market MHz at all. I wanted a Quadra 840av because of the 68040 processor AND the AV features, not because it ran at 40 MHz.


----------



## vitaboy (Aug 13, 2002)

I agree the low-end is the best value model by far (again assuming these specs are accurate).

But seriously....if I had a dual 500 MHz G4 tower and for $129, I can get a 30% speed increase across the board, more if I had a good graphics card, why would I want to spend $1700 getting a machine that probably won't be even twice as fast? Especially if I realize that in 6 more months, we may finally see G5 desktops or at least get mandatory things like USB 2.0, integrated Bluetooth, 800 Mbps FireWire and upgraded wireless by then (which I doubt this round of revisions have).

I think the soft sales for the last 2 quarters show that people are making do quite fine on existing machines, thank you. They're itching for a great excuse to upgrade, but these aren't it.

Jaguar provides so much more bang for the buck that it's going to seriously kill the sales of these half-hearted machines. In one of those unintended ironies, Jaguar looks to be so good that *it will actually make holding out a viable strategy* against weak efforts like these.

These revisions reek with the smell of compromise instead of the shine of innovation. Mac users will pay for innovation, but will chuck compromise out the door faster than a woodchuck can.


----------



## fryke (Aug 13, 2002)

Well, of course Apple is taking too long. A dual 500 MHz G4 tower is still quite a viable machine, even more so with Jaguar, you're right here.

I don't think people who're running a Dual 1 GHz machine will upgrade straightly. But if you're a video or 3D pro and just _need_ every lil' bit of power you can have (and want to use a Macintosh), you will go from a Dual 500 MHz Mac to a Dual 1.2(5) Ghz, definitely.


----------



## Edge100 (Aug 13, 2002)

I have to agree with all of the above sentiments.

These revsisions are some what underwhelming ("if that's a word").

But lets not forget that none of us have actually HEARD Apple talk about these new machines yet.

The FSB will definitely be up to 166Mhz at least on the top two models (166.67 x 6 = 1000, 166.67 x 7.5 = 1250).  If that is using DDR, then we are looking at an effective 333MHz FSB.

These machines look to be a stop-gap measure until IBM can fill the void with a decent PPC chip.  I wouldnt be surprsed if this is Motorola's last Mac.

Taken by themselves, the machines arent too bad.  Running 10.2, with DDR and duals in all of them should make for some competitive machines.  However, they will still come out behind AMDs offerings.

The real problem is that in order to SELL any of these, Apple has to distance them significantly from the older PowerMacs.  And that just doesnt look to be the case.  

C'mon Apple, get a good chip maker and innovate again.  We know you can do it with the software.


----------



## serpicolugnut (Aug 13, 2002)

Man, am I disappointed...

This is one upgrade I can not defend in any way shape or form. They have given Pro Mac users with 1 year old hardware no reason to want to upgrade. 

If this is the best Moto can do, I really hope there is salvation in the new IBM Power4 inspired desktop chip they are set to unveil in Oct. 

Apple has really got most of the other elements of it's strategy working right - Jaguar is the best OS available today on any platform, the iApps are a great incentive to jump to the Mac, the consumer machines are innovative and exciting, but the damn pro line is just stagnating...

If Apple wants to sell hardware to pros, it has to give them a reason to want to upgrade their machines every 12 months, as most pros will do. Unless these machines have 4MB L2 caches, I doubt the speed increases will be such that there will be significant incentive for someone with a dual 800 or dual 1ghz G4 to plunk down $3300 for a 1.25ghz G4 - just because it has cooling vents on the front...

Very, very, very disappointed...

Help us IBM, your our only hope....


----------



## Edge100 (Aug 13, 2002)

> _Originally posted by serpicolugnut _
> *
> Help us IBM, your our only hope.... *



Oh how the world has changed!


----------



## BusinezGuy (Aug 13, 2002)

> _Originally posted by vanguard _
> *
> 
> Here's a lesson, don't make stuff up because you'll end up looking silly.  Your post was completely fact-free.
> ...



Yes, Windows XP DOES take advantage of dual processors.  I kind of made that apparent in my original post.  You should need to read some other sentences.

Windows XP does not give a dual processor user the benefit of faster processes when using Outlook or Word or the GUI interface--period.  Mac OS X does.


----------



## BusinezGuy (Aug 13, 2002)

Man!

So many misconceptions.

The P4 2.53 GHZ with a 533 system bus and 1066 Rambus is faster than the fastest available AMD processor.  It's really that simple.  It is faster in EVERY function and that is because it is clocked higher and has more memory throughput.

Take a look at hardware reviews at www.tomshardware.com, www.anandtech.com, www.hardocp.com, etc, etc, and you will see that ALL of them have benchmarked both processors and came to the same conclusion.

There is a time to defend AMD and say it is faster, but I suggest you wait until the Hammer series comes out.


----------



## edX (Aug 13, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Edge100 _
> *
> 
> Oh how the world has changed! *



i hear you!! remember when you either bought an IBM (or IBM compatible) or a mac? once upon a time they were the only competition. kind of reminds you of international relations, doesn't it?


----------



## BusinezGuy (Aug 13, 2002)

Let me just clarify my statement regarding XP versus OS X.

I am a Windows user and I am seriously considering purchasing a Mac rather than an extremely fast PC.  One of the things that has me so interested in the Apple versus the PC is the operating system.

Apple DOES have the better operating system in OS X.  It has many more features, I like the way it is setup more than with XP, and it takes much better advantage of dual processors.  XP does take advantage of dual processors, but ONLY if the application is really designed to take advantage of dual processors itself.  Sure there might be a SMALL different on programs that are not optimized for dual processors, but it really isn't going to be a very impressive difference.

I have seen the benchmarks for a dual processor running Mac OS 9 versus Mac OS X, and it is quite obvious that the dual processor Macs are faster in EVERYTHING in Mac OS X.  In this particular review I read. a dual processor G4 running at 800 MHZ was smacked down by a single processor 867 MHZ G4 in OS 9.  However, as soon as the benchmarks went over to OS X, the dual processor system was faster in every benchmark, by far.  That is a very impressive operating system that Apple has developed.  It is arguably the most advanced operating system every put into the hands of the general consumer.


----------



## mindbend (Aug 13, 2002)

First take: Underwhelmed. Not disgusted by any means, just not elated.

Second take: That dual 867 is a real bang for your buck winner. I mean, it's nearly as fast as my DP 1 Gig and at half the price I paid for mine. Not bad at all. That's the one the average semi-serious user will buy and be quite happy with.

Third take: As always, it's the high end pros that pick up the tab. The premium on the upper machines is a bit much, but pros that need that speed are usually willing to pay for it. I, however, will pass on this round and wait for the next. I'm hoping Jaguar will give me an artifical speed boost for a while.


----------



## solrac (Aug 14, 2002)

> _Originally posted by pezagent _
> *What good is iTunes, iDVD, iMovie, and the slew of other apps (a few things about Apple that I DO like, although they could use some improvement--we'll get to that later) if they don't have the processing speed they need?
> 
> Hey Apple, stop trying to wow me "WITH SPEEDS UP TO 1.25 GHZ"
> BFD*


*

You're so completely way off. First of all iTunes and other iApps don't even need all that power to run so smoothly. The beauty of Apple, Mac OS X, adn the software will shine through anywhere from a 500 mhz G4 to the newest G4.

Refer to my post:
http://www.macosx.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21205
(10th post down from the top)*


----------



## dave17lax (Aug 14, 2002)

I have a dual g4 500, 832ram, and for my uses right now, this mac screams. Other than some issues that are supposedly going away with 10.2, I feel like any extra speed will just be "bonus". My next mac purchase won't be bought based on the processor, it will only be based on its graphics card, and other internal crap (dvd burner, for instance). 

I am basing this on my present situation, which is a total hobbyist and occasional gamer. Anyone out of these categories are sure to have their own opinions.

PS. I don't have the money for any new computer, period, so Apple's costing a little more doesn't bother me or affect whether or not I'm getting one.

On that note, however, I will head to ebay to see how much i might get for my present mac.


----------

