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

HyperLiteG4

HyperLiteG4

Registered
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.
 
But all dual processor machines? That sounds great. Sounds like the entry-level machine will be a hottie, too, ne?
 
Who cares about the 0.25GHz??

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

-alex.
 
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!
 
Originally posted by alexrd
Who cares about the 0.25GHz??

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

-alex.
Click to expand...

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.

:p
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.

As a side note--all processors have their performance problems. Although the current AMD 2200 XPs are faster than the Pentium4s, it can't take advantage of the DDR RAM as well as the P4s can... so the tweaking continues...



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.
Click to expand...
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).

Currently the fastest AMD 2200 overclock I've seen tested is 1850mHZ, which, being an AMD, is only slightly behind the P4 overclocked to 2200mHZ. Seeing that this is all on an x86, I'm pretty amazed.



One can make a strong argument that the Power PC has an even stronger processor, MHZ to MHZ, than does even the Athlon.
Click to expand...

Not mHZ to mHZ you can't. No way.

You could try to make an argument but it would be better to look at benchmark tests, all which have concluded that both AMD and Intel have faster processors at the moment. If you don't want to believe it, then consider the fact that Apple won't be touting any "Burn baby burn" ads anytime soon.


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.


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.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
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).

Currently the fastest AMD 2200 overclock I've seen tested is 1850mHZ, which, being an AMD, is only slightly behind the P4 overclocked to 2200mHZ. Seeing that this is all on an x86, I'm pretty amazed.
Not mHZ to mHZ you can't. No way.

You could try to make an argument but it would be better to look at benchmark tests, all which have concluded that both AMD and Intel have faster processors at the moment. If you don't want to believe it, then consider the fact that Apple won't be touting any "Burn baby burn" ads anytime soon.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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]
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top