New G5 Power Macs "Fastest Desktop In The World" 1283
Beyond the many numbers, the bottom line is that the new machines have a new architecture, and that the memory speed is now the bottleneck, not the processor or bandwidth speeds. So they can have up to 8GB of 128-bit DDR RAM, as it is efficient to keep data in memory. The memory bandwidth is one of the most talked-about features of the new architecture.
USB 2.0 is now included, as are FireWire 400 and 800, Bluetooth, AirPort Extreme, and digital audio in and out. The 4x SuperDrive is now standard, and it can house up to 500GB of internal storage.
For video, the GeForce FX5200 is standard on low-end models, Radeon 9600 Pro on high-end models.
The case of the new machines is redesigned too, from the ground up, focusing on decreasing noise and heat. It is an aluminum enclosure, with ports for FireWire and USB on the front, and a door on the side to get into the box. It has four distinct "thermal zones" with computer-controlled cooling with its nine (yes, nine) independent fans. And it is much quieter than its predecessor.
The G5 is 10 percent slower than the P4 and Xeon in SPEC int scores in single-proc units, but 20 percent faster in FPU scores, and the dual-proc G5 beats the dual-proc Xeon in all SPEC scores.
The models are a single 1.6 GHz ($1999), single 1.8GHz ($2399), and dual 2GHz ($2999). They will ship in August. A 3GHz processor will be available from IBM in 12 months.
Apple notes that recompiling apps for the 64-bit architecture is easy, and in some cases can be done in minutes.
There was no word about the heavily anticipated redesign of the 15" PowerBooks.
Thanks (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Thanks (Score:5, Funny)
Is it really powered by the souls of dead ancestors?
Re:Thanks (Score:5, Funny)
with the Mac OS on, as currently all I've got is a PC (albeit a
pretty decent one) and a MicroVax. In exchange, I'm willing to
consider letting you have my ITT XTRA, despite my irrational
sentimental attachment to it. It's only 4.77 MHz, and the 20MB
hard drive is dead, but it has a full 640K of RAM, and the 360K
floppy drive still works! (Note: This is not the "pretty decent"
PC I was talking about, but my previous one.)
Re:Thanks (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Thanks (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Thanks (Score:5, Funny)
og og urug oo gr oo!
Re:Thanks (Score:5, Informative)
IMHO, the best (fastest, most 'real-time') running transcripts of keynotes are those at MacMinute [macminute.com]. Today's transcript is at http://www.macminute.com/wwdc2003.html [macminute.com].
JP
Knock yourself out! (Score:5, Informative)
Apple store [apple.com]
"Cyclops", now "Cheese Grater" (Score:5, Funny)
Unfortunately, it looks like they've abandoned the easy-access pull-down door that let you add ram and add-on cards with ease. Oh well, at least its *supposed* to be quieter...
Re:"Cyclops", now "Cheese Grater" (Score:5, Informative)
It looks more like an electic razor to me.
Unfortunately, it looks like they've abandoned the easy-access pull-down door that let you add ram and add-on cards with ease.
From the Apple web site:
In other words, they didn't just keep it, they improved it.
Re:"Cyclops", now "Cheese Grater" (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Knock yourself out! (Score:5, Funny)
USB 2.0 (Score:5, Funny)
Re:USB 2.0 (Score:5, Informative)
If that's not the case, I as a consumer would be confused indeed.
Re:USB 2.0 (Score:5, Funny)
Announcing 3Ghz within a year? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Announcing 3Ghz within a year? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Announcing 3Ghz within a year? (Score:5, Funny)
Motorola will deliver a 3GHz G4 in 12 months.
See? You're laughing already.
Re:Announcing 3Ghz within a year? (Score:5, Funny)
Time to start looking for my piggy bank
Re:Announcing 3Ghz within a year? (Score:5, Interesting)
I compared the specs with a Dual Xeon System from dell, and the G5 was almost $1000 less.
It's even cheaper to get a dual 2Ghz G5 than an "Ultimate" G4.
Re:Announcing 3Ghz within a year? (Score:5, Insightful)
I suppose some people might wait, but don't underestimate the pent up demand for a high performance Mac. Apple's customers have already been waiting a looooong time for this machine. I don't think announcing that there will be a speed bump in a year will do much to the short term sales of the new boxes. Maybe in six months people will start holding off for the promised 3GHz boxes, but not now.
Re:Announcing 3Ghz within a year? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Announcing 3Ghz within a year? (Score:5, Insightful)
The G4 used to be very impressive compared to PCs of the time - but it's been around for far too long, with limited speed bumps...
Announcing a 3Ghz model is letting people know that there is a roadmap in place for ramping up the performance...
People want to know that there is a future... with many Mac owners and quite a few potential 'switchers' staying away from the dual G4s as they are past their sell by date, announcing a roadmap for G5 development - and not just new machines themselves - may well see an increase in current Mac sales...
Re:Announcing 3Ghz within a year? (Score:5, Funny)
Okay, you convinced me then -- when the 3.0ghz model comes out, and it's the most super-duper top speed ever -- and not to be surpassed -- then I'll put down my shiny nickels.
You just lost yourself a sale, Jobs!
Image Mirror. (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.beosjournal.org/wwdc/ [beosjournal.org]
for some pictures of the new case.
Re:Image Mirror. (Score:5, Informative)
Apple G5 Gallery [apple.com]
The Dream System. (Score:5, Interesting)
â 8GB DDR400 SDRAM (PC3200) - 8x1GB
â 2x250GB Serial ATA - 7200rpm
â ATI Radeon 9800 Pro
â Apple Cinema HD Display (23" flat panel)
â Apple Cinema HD Display (23" flat panel) + Apple DVI to ADC Adapter
â AirPort Extreme Card
â Bluetooth Module
â SuperDrive (DVD-R/CD-RW)
â Apple Keyboard & Apple Mouse - U.S. English
â Mac OS X - U.S. English
â Logitech Z-680 THX 5.1 Speakers & Monster 2-meter Cable
â AirPort Extreme Base Station (with modem and antenna port)
â APP for Power Mac (w/ or w/o display) - Enrollment Kit
Subtotal $12,632.95
Re:The Dream System. (Score:5, Interesting)
Boy, if SGI and Sun were in trouble before.......
Re:The Dream System. (Score:5, Informative)
Except that the Octane's bus is theoretically much, much faster. It has an end-to-end point speed of only about 3 and half GB/sec, but it can connect any of the individual systems to each other simultaneously at full speed; the memory can talk to the processor while the processor writes to the disk subsystem while the video card...and none of it ever has a collision and can operate at Crossbar's full point-to-point speed without effect from other subsystems.
Not only that, but as you add processor modules(which if I remember right, have memory on them?), you add Crossbar bus bandwidth; adding modules adds extra Crossbar channels(I think. It's been a long time since that technology briefing).
It's a quad-processor-capable system- so I don't think you are giving it a very fair shake; on a 4-processor system, I think each processor would have about +14GB/sec access to anything in the system(including memory), which is just a few GB shy of double the G5 which can only manage 8GB/sec for access to main memory. Oh, and let me remind you Crossbar is 5-6 years old...
Thanks, but if I want to push around multi-gigabyte datasets, I'll take the Octane. I find Hypertransport, at only 16 bits wide, destinctly unimpressive...
G5 System architecture lesson (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The Dream System. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The Dream System. (Score:5, Funny)
With a box like that sitting on your desk, where the hell are you gonna be going? I sure as hell wouldn't be 'mobile' for the next 2 months...
Re:Pfffft... Here's a real system: (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Pfffft... Here's a real system: (Score:4, Informative)
Yours only has 1 flat panel instead of two-- add another $2205. Also, you'll be unable to hook both DVI monitors up via the Radeon 9800-- you'll need to get a slower PCI video card to hook the other up.
Yours doesn't have a 3 year support contract, does it?
Also, the Apple you could get much more cheaply if you were to use third party RAM. Vendor RAM is always expensive.
Finally, as to "2 much faster machines"-- the dual 2GHz PPC G5 is 41% faster in SPECfp_rate_base2000 than a dual 3.06GHz Xeon, which IMO is the most important SPEC benchmark. It's faster in all the others, too, except single processor integer performance.
Let me think-- I could pay $12k and get two of the nicest LCD panels available and the fastest dual processor workstation available in the world made by a vendor with great fabrication quality and customer support. Or I could spend $9k to get two good (but not as nice as the Apple) LCD panels and machines that are only 71% of the speed from a no-name vendor. I think I'd pick Apple.
Worlds first 64bit desktop ? (Score:4, Interesting)
So this is just my imagination ?
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/ [microsoft.com]
Re:Worlds first 64bit desktop ? (Score:4, Interesting)
What PC and Mac users can't seem to understand is that 64-bit desktops were commonplace in the early 90s among the very large technical computing market - everything from universities to engineering firms to Hollywood studios. I am incredulous at all the hype that both Apple and Intel are spreading - for almost 10 years, it's been unusual for me to only use 32-bit processors!
I wonder how one of these Apples would stack up against an SGI Fuel with an R16K.
G5 Will Not be Released until Q3 (Score:5, Funny)
G5-based computers previously leaked on the Apple store
Arg! I'm obsolete... (Score:4, Funny)
Oh well. I'm not going to complain... The specs on those machines were unbelievable - I'm just glad Apple is no longer lagging behind in the specs anymore, and the prices on those machines are reasonable to boot.
Gimmie.
are they pretty? (Score:5, Funny)
Hey, SockLegend! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hey, SockLegend! (Score:4, Funny)
For music (Score:5, Interesting)
So, Steve, I'm going to be saving my money again to get one of your products. The last one, a 9500 bought in 1996 has lasted very well. I wish I could say the same for the Pentium PC I bought in 1997.
I look forward to making tons of recordings and music with this new rig!
Re:For music or otherwise (Score:4, Interesting)
That's the painful part about Macs. They keep putting out these machines with a high drool factor that you just have to buy, but the old one is still more than adequate. What to do, what to do. . . .
And so it goes... (Score:5, Funny)
1994: Your peecees suck so bad because they're soooo slow. Our CPU benchmarks kick your butts. We are the speed kings!
1999: So what if your peecee CPUs are faster than ours. It's not about speed, it's about quality. Speed is totally irrelevant. You're all just speed whores.
2004: Your peecees suck so bad because they're soooo slow. Our CPU benchmarks kick your butts. We are the speed kings!
SPEC results (Score:5, Interesting)
However, the most interesting part is that they used GCC to compile the SPEC suite, and not some special compiler to make hardware look good in benchmarks (in contrast to some vendor compilers). Given that all the software I run has been compiled by GCC (with the exception of a few Lisp programs), the numbers are a bit more relevant than the usual SPEC results for me.
On the other hand, you could claim that Apple chose GCC on the Intel platforms to make them look bad in this comparison...
SPEC results are bogus (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:SPEC results are bogus (Score:5, Insightful)
A comparison between ICC on the Intel and GCC on the G5 is interesting to determine how fast your code might run out-of-the-box on a P4 vs G5 but ultimately flawed for comparing CPU performance.
AltiVec (Score:4, Informative)
Looking for a job? (Score:5, Funny)
Apparently someone got sacked over last week's "leak".
Looking for a new job [apple.com] as a Web Publishing Manager? Apply at Apple Today!
Oh, man - about time! (Score:5, Interesting)
From what I can tell of the WWDC pictures, things have finally changed. These things look sweet, even if they do look just like the last 5 years worth of towers. Plus it sounds like they kick ass performance-wise. All I have to do now is convince myself why I should go and drop 3 grand I can't afford for no other reason than to connect with the iPod I don't have.
Apple is claiming Fastest SPEC (Score:5, Interesting)
normally they just brag about photoshop. but this time they're actually breaking out SPEC.
Dual 2.0 GHZ G5 is supposedly 3% faster in interger and 42% faster in FPU than a dual 3 Ghz Xeon. might be worth the premium that Apple charges.
though come to think of it, $3000 is pretty sweet. i can't imagine where you'd find a dual Xeon for $3000.
Watch WWDC before you start making things up... (Score:5, Informative)
Second, the test is of the speed of the processors, not the quality of the optimizing compilers for them.
Third, the "fastest" comment was made with respect to the dual-processor configurations. The numbers you site are for the single-processor version.
Yes, in single-processor land Apple lost in intspec by about 10%, but won in floating-point land by about 30%. This is using a compiler that is better optimized for the competitor. And they still came out ahead.
In dual-processor land they came out ~10% ahead in integer land and over 40% ahead in floating-point land. A tremendous difference.
The real-world tests they performed seemed to back up these results with Photoshop, Mathematica and a few other programs running an average of 2x faster on the PPC 970.
This may sound incredible, but it is just a matter of bandwidth, and the G5 has plenty of it.
The dual-processors have completely independant busses, a 1Ghz FSB, 400Mhz 128-bit DDR memory, two independant floating-point units and two independant integer units. The PPC970 is capable handling over 120 in-flight instructions, that is, instructions which can be worked on and processed in parallel. In P4-land only a few dozen instructions are can potentially be run in parallel.
Do you really think that Apple would hire a company like VeriTest to verify their results and then lie about them? If they didn't actually have better spec scores they just wouldn't have used those tests...
Justin Dubs
Already The Idiots Are Out There (Score:5, Insightful)
For several years, Apple has lagged in the megahertz race. Motorola's G4 processors have only slowly improved in performance, while Intel and Advanced Micro Devices crank out ever-faster chips at a much swifter clip. Megahertz isn't everything when it comes to performance, but increasing the clock speed generally does boost chip and computer performance.
Yeah the writer eventually says megahertz isn't everything, but fails to grasp that megahertz isn't anything. The only scale that matters is how much work the system can do. Megahertz doesn't even have to enter into the discussion.
Btw, for the record, I'm a PC owner/user who probably won't switch, but still thinks these new Macs, along with the AMD Opteron chips, are the best news to come along in a good long while for all of us!
"world's first 64-bit desktop processor" (Score:4, Interesting)
Introduced: 1995
Aquired, used, for a few hundred bucks and running on my desktop: 1998
iSight and iPod (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course it would be much easier if you could display color video on your iPod... and generate it on the fly...
The SPEC benchmark comparison is disingenuous (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, the opteron, using intel's compiler, manages to beat the 970 in int and fp.
Fastest desktop processor? No.
Re:The SPEC benchmark comparison is disingenuous (Score:5, Insightful)
Given that if you are comparing Linux vs. OS X, the vast majority of your code will have been compiled with gcc, and the number of man years spent optimizing gcc's x86 performance, I think this is actually a pretty fair benchmark.
Re:The SPEC benchmark comparison is disingenuous (Score:5, Insightful)
not true at all. See below.
I mean, you just have to. Otherwise the test is meaningless. You can only test for one variable at a time if you want to get results that mean something.
Say you have compiler A which rocks for architecture A and sucks hard for architecture B. You run SPEC with this compiler, and A wins.
The next day you have compiler B which rocks for architecture B and sucks hard for architecture A. You run SPEC, and B wins.
How are these results meaningful? They say absolutely nothing about the two architectures independent of the compiler used. If you used completely different compiler brands for each architecture, you'd end up with the same thing: Results that are dependent on the compilers used.
The fact of the matter is, cross-architecture comparisons suck no matter what you do. GCC 3.3 for IA32 and GCC 3.3 for the G5 need to be treated as completely different compilers in any valid testing methodology. It doesn't matter that they have the same name and version number -- if they're compiling for different architectures, they're doing things differently. using "the same compiler" to try to feign fairness is simply a sneaky marketing trick.
So what is one to do? Well it depends on the result you want:
-- if you always use GCC 3.3 to compile your high speed apps and want to know which CPU GCC 3.3 works best for, then apple's (Veritest's) results are perfect for you. However, those results really say more about how good GCC is at optimizing for the separate architectures, rather than anything about the merits of the architectures themselves.
-- trying to compare the merits of the architectures themselves is the tricky part. Generally, modern processors need their code to be very well optimized to fully exploit the power of the processor. Therefore, a fair comparison would be between The Best Compiler for Architecture A vs The Best Compiler for Architecture B. This is the only way to even come close to comparing "What architecture A can do" vs "What architecture B can do". And this is what most people want out of a benchmark.
(Of course one has to make sure that the compilers used aren't cheating on the spec benchmarks to give huge results. This is where the base vs peak distinction is important.)
Finally, on a somewhat related note, if the speed of specific applications is most important to you, then of course you'd be looking at application benchmarks and not SPEC.
The joke around the office: (Score:5, Funny)
Steve: "We WERE going to sell 10.3 for $129, but since one of you had to go and ruin it for the rest of you, it'll be $200."
Attendees: Awwww!
One guy punches another guy in the arm in the back row.
Trolls? (Score:5, Funny)
Apple's G5 Performance Spec Page (Score:5, Informative)
Summary: It not only beats up the P4 and Xeon, it takes their lunch money as well.
It did even better at DNA matching: "Testing BLAST with common searches using a word size of more than 11, the Power Mac G5 far outperformed the Pentium 4-based system and the dual Xeon-based system, and nearly five times faster at the long word length of 40."
Safari 1.0 (Score:5, Informative)
The new version seems noticibly faster and has no bug button, but there is still a "Report Bugs To Apple" option under the Safari menu.
That's great.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Why only 8-gig of RAM? 64-bit CPUs supports terabytes. I guess it's not a server, but 8 gig isn't that much any more.
Some comparisons with the Opteron (or, to be more fair, Athalon64) would be nice. Of course, since you can (or will be able to) select from a slew of motherboards, it will be tough to get a decent comparison.
One other thought just struck me (I can feel a bruise developing) - Apple never releases their stuff to independant hardware vendors. Never seen an Apple product (other than an iPod) reviewed at Anandtech, Toms Hardware, TechExtreme, Ars Technica, etc. Would be interesting to hear what a site like that had to say.
Re:That's great.... (Score:5, Funny)
Okay, that's it. It's now official. I'm old .
More impressive benchmark numbers (Score:5, Funny)
However SCO has sued to challenge these results.
I'm Jealous (Score:5, Insightful)
With Mac OS X, it's all there. The complete Unix toolset and environment comes standard, the Macs are good for graphics as it is (which is what all these new design tools focus on anyway), and the UI is a dream to use. It's simply a better platform in a lot of different ways. Check out Sun and SGI's third party applications pages, then look at Apples. There are whole industries missing.
Here's where Apple needs to come in and sell these people on their product. Users want better software, software companies want a larger use base and better product and Apple wants to ship more units. Why is this not being done?
The funny thing is that in-house ASIC design at Apple is probably done on Solairs, HP, or NT. I'm sending e-mail Cadence and gang. Everyone who doesn't want to see this whole industry to be swallowed by NT and wants to move to OS X should do the same.
Academic prices for G5 Powermacs... (Score:5, Informative)
1.6GHz - $1,899
1.8GHz - $2,299
Dual 2GHz - $2,849
The discounts are consistent with previous Apple academic discounts. These are the same configurations as the corresponding non-educational priced retail systems:
1.6GHz - $1,999
1.8GHz - $2,399
Dual 2GHz - $2,999
Comparison for Mid-High End Gaming machine? (Score:5, Interesting)
$85 - AMD XP 2600+
$140 - 1 Gig (2x512) Kingston 2700 DDR ram
$150 - Chaintech Nforce2 board (raid 0, surruond sound, ethernet)
$160 - 160 GB (2x80) Western Digital Special Edition drives, 7200rpm, striped raid 0 for speed
$360 - Radeon 9800 pro 128
$230 - Sony DRU-500A mutliformat DVD burner
$120 - some descent computer case
$180 - Win XP
$50 - Descent keyboard and mouse
Total - $1475
A comparable (except obvious diff of OS and processor) 1.6 Ghz Apple system comes to $2820, and that's without the raid harddrive setup. How much better is the apple system going to do at games? I realize that's not the entire (or even a big part) of the computer market, but it is MY market
The base model is actually $1799... (Score:5, Informative)
Combo Drive (CD-RW/DVD-ROM) [Subtract $200] [apple.com]
G5 configurations just an overclock? (Score:5, Insightful)
Given that BusSpeed * ClockMultiplier = Processor Speed
Apple's three configurations:
1.6 Ghz - 800 Mhz bus
1.8 Ghz - 900 Mhz bus
2.0 Ghz - 1000 Mhz bus
Means that all three systems have the same multiplier on the chip. Which strongly implies to me that they're all the exact same chip. We'll have to wait and see how easy they are to overclock, but if you could just change the 800Mhz bus system to 1Ghz bus, you'd save yourself $1000 in the process.
Mind blowing stuff (Score:5, Insightful)
You have to watch Steve in QuickTime to fully appreciate how many amazing things Apple has done. Panther Developer Preview has already left Longhorn (Windows 2005) firmly in the dust bin: the new user-centric Finder, search-as-you-type, Expose, fast user switch, iChat AV, FileVault, Xcode, FontBook, and so on.
The PowerMac G5 is just amazing, 2 GHz 64-bit CPU with 2 independent FPUs and Velocity Engine, 1 GHz FSB, PCI-X, Serial ATA Drive, FireWire 800 & 400, USB2, Bluetooth, 802.11g, etc.
In terms of SPEC2000 floating point performance, the 2 GHz G4 is 21% faster than the 3.06 GHz P4, and the dual 2 GHz G5 PowerMac is 41% faster than a dual 3 GHz Xeon Dell which cost $1000 more. In real world tests (PhotoShop, Mathematica, 3D rendering, music), the PowerMac is more than 200% faster than the Dell.
It's clear that Apple has all the vital pieces nailed - harware, OS, applications, developers, Apple Retail Stores, iTune Music Store, iPod. It's time to buy some more Apple shares.
Where is the PB G5 15"? (Score:5, Interesting)
1. The 12" (or perhaps the 17") motherboard could fit in the 15" case, so from a tech standpoint, I can't see the motherboard design being 6+ months behind that of the 12" (or 17"), it would be nearly impossible to be that far behind.
2. Steve wants to be the first to ship a 64 bit portable. (No one is closer than Apple now).
3. Bluetooth, AirPort Extreme. Plenty of people want those in a portable, but don't want a 12" screen or a 17" screen. (me for one
All this points to the fact that something significant is going on. It is something like the G5 or, perhaps, a higher-density screen. I doubt it would be the higher-density screen because that should NOT be that huge a tech issue, and I can't believe they'd delay the product 6+ months for that when they could've shipped it with a regular screen and then updated it now.
My scenario about the 15" delays is this:
They intentionally held back on the 15" in Jan/Feb 2003 and kept it as it was so that if there were huge problems with the 12" and 17" (e.g. long(er) delays, engineering/manuf issues etc) they'd have a proven machine that was shipping. They were planning that the PB 15 was supposed to be updated in May at WWDC with a G5 (or very shortly thereafter) and so didn't waste any design and engineering resources on updating it to the specs of the current 12" and 15" because (back then it would have been May 2003 for WWDC, so only about 3 months wait for it). They intended to make it the 1st 15" G5 and have it ready with the PM G5s.
However, they are a little behind for some reason, just like they were with the PM G5s - that's why they pushed back WWDC a month.
Until they know when they can ship them in volume they're not announcing it for at least two reasons: avoid killing 12", 15" and 17" sales; and so they'll get even more bang for the buck when the announce "the world's first 64-bit portable," just like they got with the "world's 1st 17 inch portable". It will be on its own and won't get overshadowed by the PM G5s.
Face it, Apple loses sales because of some of the factors above and they don't want to lose sales. Therefore there is some BIG reason for the delay. The only logical one is a 15" PB G5, followed as quickly thereafter as possible with a 17" ("The world's 1st 64-bit 17 inch portable) and a 12" ("The world's smallest 64-bit portable). Followed thereafter by G4 iBooks.
I can see a 15" PB G5 announcement within 1-3 months (e.g. by the end of the summer). Apple *has* to do something to update the 15" PB to current specs (speed, AEX, Bluetooth) and if they've invested engineering in the PB G5 they don't have time to go back and do the engineering to make it a G4 - which is why I think it will be soon. If it was going to be > 3 months then they'd have time to do a 15" G4 to match the 17", BUT then they would've done it well before now.
I don't think it is wishful thinking because Apple is not dumb. They wouldn't hold up 15" PB sales for more than 6 months without a great reason. (Plus I read somewhere that 15" PB supplies were low.)
My only concerns (Score:5, Insightful)
Still, there are a few things I would like to have seen different, that I think are a step back from my Sawtooth:
1) Only one outward-facing drive. My Sawtooth can only have one optical and one 3.5" (A now-nearly-useless Zip drive for me), but the last generation of G4s had those dual optical drive bays. Given how cheap standard IDE CR burners etc are, it would be great to have that upgradeability option. In my quest to convert my friends, this has been a sticking point for many of them (most have at least two optical drives). Externals work, yes, but are much more expensive, and take up much more space.
2) Two hard drive bays. Even my Sawtooth has room for four internal hard drives. Again, IDE hard drives are cheap (Serial ATA not as much, but still....) and not everyone wants to pay a $100 premium for an external firewire box, just to do a drive upgrade. In many cases, that doubles the price of the bare drive. There are PC cases out there (ugly ones, natch) which give six front-facing bays and as many hard-drive bays.
3) The G4s were notoriously easy to access. The one side just flipped down and BAM! there was your whole motherboard. While the side of the G5 may be easy to remove, you still have to cram your hands into that tiny space to reach anything. Having everything fold out was a great innovation that I'm sad to see go.
4) The handles look OK in my opinion but are fairly thin metal. I can't imagine these things not hurting your hands if you're carrying a G5 around. I know you don't move a tower case that much, but if you're going to bother putting on handles, at least put on comfy ones.
5) As others have said, it would be nice to see a 128MB graphics card in the high end. But that's a minor quibble, really.
6) No reset button on the front. I know OS X crashes quite rarely, but sometimes this thing comes in handy. And it's a lot easier and more intuitive than holding the power button.
That said, I think these are fabulous machines, and will do Apple proud. Aside from the obvious blazing speed, a few other touches I liked:
1) front-mounted USB & firewire. Finally!
2) Optical digital audio ports. Also finally! Crossing my fingers that this means there's a 5.1-enabled DVD player app en route.
3) I think the cooling system is a stroke of genius. Nine fans sounds like a lot, but it gives much more custom air circulation patterns.
4) Eight RAM slots! I will likely never need 8 gigs of RAM (at least not before the Power Mac G7 in 2008
All my whining aside, this is a great machine! Now if only I had some money...
Re:DDR? (Score:5, Informative)
RDRAM last time I checked had higher total bandwidth than DDR, but fails to be faster where it counts - latency. Latency on non-sequential read/write is where the memory bottle neck is.
Re:First? As if! (Score:5, Funny)
I am quite sure there are some people out there who used Alpha-based workstations back when Digital made them.
I'm sorry there appears to to have been an error. Please check all power connections and restart your computer. If you are still experiencing trouble with your Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field please contact Apple and marketers will be on hand to help you with any problems you may be having.
Re:First? As if! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Dual 2GHz 970s for $2999 (Score:4, Informative)
"
Oh DO try to at least pretend to keep up.
$5,795 for sun's dual 1GHz 64-bit system (with 2GB of RAM, not the 512M G5 Macs start with).
Out of interest, how much is it for the 106-CPU version of the Mac, again?
Clue - Sun and Apple are targeting completely different markets.
I guess you don't actually read. (Score:5, Informative)
The Single 900MHz is 7,595
The Single 1.2GHz is 9,995
The DUAL 1.2GHZ is 13,995 (whoops off by 7.5%)
What about Dual 2.0GHz don't you understand? They may not have been in the same market before now. However, that will soon change (there is your clue). As far as the 106 CPU Version Cluster the XServes the same way Sun does it. I said Sun should be scared. They no longer have a lock on the 64bit market.
I guess things never change in your world. Look out someone may be moving your cheese.
SUN's vs Apple's Markets (Score:5, Funny)
They are in totally different markets!
SUN is in the "We sell really expensive hardware with pain in the ass UNIX software to anyone buying." market.
Apple is in the "We sell hardware for anyone up to any reasonable size, and it comes with friendly UNIX software. Some of it is a little expensive, but it all kicks ass." market.
Re:Dual 2GHz 970s for $2999 (Score:5, Insightful)
For the workstation market, it doesn't matter very much.
I have been a Sun fan for some time, now, but I see the dual PowerPC 970 Mac and dual Opteron workstations coming down the line and wonder. These, feature-for-feature, make Sun Blade, IBM RS-6000, SGI Fuel, etc., much harder sells.
The G5 is gorgeous and powerful (like a Bond girl). The Opteron will be white-box and powerful (like the neighborhood geek-girl:). There's probably something for everyone, here. For completeness, I suppose Windows on Itanium would be like some sort of beast woman who still gets guys, because she is easy (blecch).
Sun and Apple are targeting completely different markets.
This was very true three years ago. However, what would happen if PTC released Pro/E for OS X? It's really a matter of the applications. Not only that, but I would bet getting Motif on OS X isn't too hard (suddenly lots of UNIX applications on OS X becomes plausible).
The workstation is going through serious evolution, right now. 64-bits is no longer the domain of the "big guys." The next two years will be very interesting.
Enterprise versus Desktop (Score:4, Insightful)
You cannot just take an enterprise machine and replace it with a desktop, because eventually the desktop will fail, usually unexpectedly and usually at the worst possible time.
Desktop PC's are meant to go on DESKTOPS, where if they fail, the most you've lost is a few man-hours of work. Enterprise machines go in server rooms where if they fail you might have just lost a few million in sales, and pissed off your customer base.
Re:Dual 2GHz 970s for $2999 (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm no Sun evangelist (as a matter of fact, I hate their products lately), but let's at least stop displaying our abject ignorance. What's a Sun box good for? How about naming me a high-end manufacturing/engineering design package that runs on OS X first, then we can talk about what a Sun box is good for.
- A.P.
Re:Dual 2GHz 970s for $2999 (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Dual 2GHz 970s for $2999 (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Yeah right. (Score:5, Informative)
I'd like to see some independently-verified benchmarks before I believe that it's the "Fastest desktop in the world". I seriously doubt ol' bullshitter Stevo would tell the full truth.
Well, the problem is... Steve is telling the truth.
Go to www.spec.org and look at the SpecINT and SpecFP ratings for the Power4 (single core benchmark).
Okay, the PPC970 is based on this core and yes, at 1,6 Ghz it runs around an 3 Ghz P4.
Okay, now take a look at the SpecINT and SpecFP ratings for the alpha 21264 and 21364.
Those processors are a real match for the P4.
With a 1.5 times slower clock they are as fast as most 1.5 higher clocked P4's.
The thing is, that intel doesn't have a decent 64 bits processor.
Their itanium II is a joke with a performance which is equal to most 64 bits processors 2 or 3 years ago.
Contrary to intel ibm knows how to build fast 64 bits processors without all the tradeoff's intel had to make with the P4.
Second, if you look at the price of the PPC970 and compare it with the P4 you will see that the P4 is almost 2 times as expensive as the PPC970.
Let's face it, at the moment there is no 64 bits or 32 bits processor available which is faster than the PPC970 (i mean for desktop systems).
It will take intel at least more than a year to get the itanium near the PPC970 2 Ghz..
But then they are no match to the PPC970 3 Ghz. which will be available then.
Re:Yeah right. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Oh come on! (Score:5, Informative)
Also, with SMP you can't just double the speed of one chip to come up with a benchmark. You double it, and take 10-15% off the top. You see, there is overhead in SMP because the two processors need to communicate to make sure they are on the same page, so to speak.
Re:Oh come on! (Score:5, Informative)
Gee why could that be?
BECAUSE you can't have anything BUT a single P4 machine. There are no dual P4's - the chip just doesn't support multiprocessing.
Re:For what? (Score:4, Informative)
- FinalCut Pro [apple.com]
- Logic Platinum [apple.com]
- Shake [apple.com]
When you're throwing around cinematic quality film clips, the more power the better.Photoshop, for one thing (Score:5, Informative)
Well, Photoshop, for one thing...yes, Macs are still used for graphics, dontchaknow.
Try editing CMYK graphics at 600 or 1200 dpi for high-end print work sometime. With layers. And masks (which are essentially added layers). Running filters. The whole she-bang.
Such a file can easily get into hundreds of megabytes in size, and Photoshop generally needs 2x to 3x as much RAM as the actual file size to efficiently work; even then it starts to bog down at those file sizes.
My dual G4/450 with 1.5 GB RAM and Radeon 9000 already gags on that enough so that it's a hassle when I have to design and edit that kind of stuff. Believe me, I'm going to be first in line as soon as I scrape together the $2500 or so for a new G5 system with added RAM (the more RAM, the merrier -- Photoshop is VERY hungry for RAM).
Not to mention video editing and 3D, both of which are markets that the Mac has generally been strong (if not dominant) in for some time.
I might add that you could ask the same question about P4-based PCs. Who needs that kind of firepower? Not many (mainstream) people, really -- aside from perhaps gamers. The vast majority of users just do e-mail, web surfing and word processing, maybe a little photo editing. A P2 or P3 running Linux or an older version of Windows would be more than enough in those cases. Hell, even an old Pentium with a smallish Linux installation would be enough in many cases.
OTOH if you give users and developers the added power of new processors and mainboards (strange that HyperTransport hasn't gotten much mention here), people will find a way of using it. One example: Apple's predicted that video editing will be the next mainstream computing revolution, like desktop publishing was twenty years ago. If you think about it, they're probably right.
Most newer computers can easily handle basic video editing now; the question is just how to make it easier for Joe Sixpack to edit his family videos (and maybe make Junior a budding David Lynch).
Cheers,
Ethelred
Re:SPEC scores.. Xeon? (Score:5, Informative)
See for yourself [apple.com].
Re:SPEC scores.. Xeon? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:If it's that fast... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Why only 8GB RAM?! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Speed is good... but price? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's as easy as that.
Re:Speed is good... but price? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Speed is good... but price? (Score:5, Informative)
Guess what, the Mac is over 1k cheaper! That's why... better performance, and a cheaper price...
_CMK
Re:Speed is good... but price? (Score:4, Insightful)
You know, I think that's one of the most ignorant comments I've heard on Slashdot-- and that's saying something!
I certainly don't consider myself braindead and I love using my Mac. I think the user interface of OS X is leaps and bounds beyond that of Windows or any of the latest Linux desktops.
I also know of plenty of very intelligent people who use Macs simply because they are easier to use and it allows them to focus on the task at hand. Not everyone takes the slop they're fed and feels that it's "good enough" (which is basically what you are saying). Some of us actually don't mind paying a little bit extra-- if even there is any extra to be paid. $3,000 for a dual 2GHz 64-bit machine is pretty damn low IMHO.
Of course, my guess is your needs are different than mine. My needs dictate that I have a fast and easy to use UNIX system. The cheapest computer meeting those needs is a PowerMac.
Perhaps instead you are interested in playing the latest whiz-bang gaming title-- in that case you want a Pee Cee.
Re:Speed is good... but price? (Score:4, Informative)
I went to Apple's site and configured dual-processor 2GHz G5 with 250 Gigs of 7200RMP IDE disk, DVD-RW, anda Gig of RAM. Cost: $3,374
So, let's see, the Mac is 10-25% faster, and costs 30% less.
If you care about bang for the buck, you should buy a Mac. (Of course, after replacing all your software, you'd be behind. See if they'll let you switch platforms on the next upgrade cycle.)
Re:Typical Mac (l)user (Score:5, Informative)
Dude, ain't no such thing as a dual processor P4. They. Don't. Exist.