*DAMN R6 Forum

Not the biggest upgrade ever! :( (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0007OW502/ref%3Dnosim/happygolarry-20/102-5124510-7869744)

Amazon also has listed pages for the new dual 2.0 Ghz & dual 2.3 Ghz machines with the following specs:

Mac OS X10.4, code named Tiger
Dual 2.0 GHz PowerPC G5 processors
512 MB of DDR SDRAM
160 GB hard drive
16x Dual Layer SuperDrive (CD/DVD+RW)

Mac OS X10.4, code named Tiger
Dual 2.3 GHz PowerPC G5 processors
512 MB of DDR SDRAM
250 GB hard drive
16x Dual Layer SuperDrive (CD/DVD+RW)

Where's my damn Dual 3 though!!...arrrr

That's what I'm screaming too.  Guess it will be another 6 months before I upgrade my G5.  :(

Whats wrong with a 2.7ghz GS. Thats a full 1ghz faster then the machine you have now. That is a dramatic increase in power.

Well, .9 GHz faster...but who's counting?  ;)

Something just sounds incredibly shmexy about a dual-3.0GHz G5.  Call me crazy, but I'm holding out for my dream!   ;D

Me to GS me to... that big 3.0 is the one im watching for... only 300Mhz to go and i know it can't be that far along! :D

So they have released the new macs 'officially' now... What i want to know (btw duel layer DVD burners now :D ) is what the hell is the ATI 6950 256 DDR Card? Where the hell did it come from and why the hell is the numbering in reverse - more powerful that the 9800?  EH? WHAT?!

ps... flat screen monitors are cheaper as well :D about £500 for the 20inch model... god i would love on of those screens

Woohoo, I'm really excited to see Apple reach 3GHz in 2007!  That'll be too cool!  :-X

Mmm?  You mean 9650?  Numbers aren't reversed; it's more like 9600 + 50.

oops typo :)

Ok so a top of the line ATI card in the mac is now a 9650?  ... we had the 9000,9200, 9700 9800, 9800pro etc.. and then the X800 as the top of the line ATI card... So what the hell is going on when the top spec G5 now comes with a 9650?!  ... its a 256mb card and it has support for the 30inch display but i can't find any info on it!

re the 'number reversing' - well i was kinda expecting the top macs to now have a 9900 pro or somthing - or rather a X900  ...

Well, apple just released their new baby!!  The new and hopefully improved G5.  One bad thing is that they took out the dual 2.5's which kind of sucks b/c I was hoping they keep them b/c they would be cheaper, but of course apple thought of that to force peeps to get the new 2.7, damn apple!! See now they have the new 2.3 G5, why they do this? do peeps can see the difference in performance b/w the 2.7 and the 2.3 or less, but not much of a noticeable difference from the 2.5.  grrrrr  >:(

Also, they have the new dual layered burning superdrive, guess its kind of cool for those that will utilize it, i can see the benefits, but who here will really neeed that?  And, it is still liquid cooled, nice.

I just like the fact that it ships default with a 256MB card... ;D

It sounds like the 9650 is pretty much a 9600 that's able to drive the 30" monitors.  The X800 is still ATI's top-end card for the Mac (though I don't think it's available through Apple).

Seems strange that Apple removed the 9800XT from the list of choices, since that was a nice card that wasn't as expensive as NVIDIA's GeForce 6800.  There's really no in-between option anymore.  Hmm.

Its because the 9650 is a card made specifically for the Mac and they want to make sure that all the cards get used that were ordered in bulk from ATI. If there were an option to get a 9800xt in the new G5 everyong would opt for that and apple would be stuck with a crap load of mid range video cards that are only compatible with tthe G5. Damn Corporate Americas and there strategic thinking.  >:(

Well Cobra there is still the 9800Pro .. although it will be interesting to see the exact specs of the 9650 and how it compares to the other cards. Tis a bit annoying though :(

N e e d . . .

M o n e y !

BFG, the top end computers have never shipped with the highest end of cards before. I don't see what there is to complain about. You can of course still buy your X800s from a local mac store. When was the last time you saw a PC with a 1.35GHz FSB?

It would seem my G5 has become just a little cheaper... :( I still can't imagine anything being more powerful then my Rev A. So 2.7GHz sounds crazy fast.

Myst...(edited my own sarcasim as to not spawn flames) why dont you do some research on the AMD processors and you will find that there FSB's are right in line with MAC.

Good for them, but I consider AMD worse than intel. Why don't you stop being a PC noob and realize it's Mac (short for Macintosh) not MAC.

Before this drops any further into a bitch fest could we go back on topic?

Apart from the great new duel layer DVD drives (going to make backing up big projects so much more convenient, not to mention HD etc ) Its great to see apple finally pushing some extra ram in their comps - surprisingly though in the form of GPU ram! - i guess this is an effort to really maximize on Core Image in Tiger

Also is the PC3200 DDR SDRAM that the new G5s are packing faster than previous models?

ps voodoo - is this dual-independent frontside busses running at aprox 1.35GHz? - or is it just in SP configurations? 

http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0504newg5.html

Interesting info regarding the next revisions of the G5's and the much anticipated Duel Core Chips (that apparently still havn't made it to production damn it  >:( )

Yeah, as well as offering a much cheaper solution for people wanting to use those monster 30" monitors (add $50 from a 9600 to a 9650, or add $500 from a 9600 to a 6800 Ultra). 

Nope.  That's the same RAM I have in my G5 from last fall.

lmao....Your "know it all" mentality makes me laugh Myst. Since its you here that is truly the unknowledgeable noob I will try to explain in your terminology. AMD 2.2ghz owns 3.6 Intel and AMD is truly a gamers/develepors processor.(oposed to "MAC" that is). Again...I will say to research AMD if your going to spat unresearched opinions.

BFG: the AMD Athlon 3500+ has a 1ghz FSB. Single processor=Single FSB / Dual Processor=Dual FSB


Back on Topic:

Dual Layer DVD Burners....I say about freakin time. Once MAC hits the 3.0ghz benchmark I will consider to purchase another one. Otherwise I will continue to just use my G3 powerbook.

It isn't know it all, i didn't say AMD was slower. I said I consider AMD worse. I simply don't like that company. You can't say AMD is better clock for clock than a G5 well simply because of this:

(http://barefeats.com/image05/cin04.gif)
(Barefeats.com)

There is something about AMD that just annoys me, perhaps because the PC doesn't deserve a chip maker more competent than Intel.

And for the record, this is all on topic. The issue was raised by these updates of if these bumps were significant or if the G5 was behind the times.

O...K...for the record I never said AMD was a better chip then the G5. I just said it was the chip of choice for the gaming industy. And also for thw record your graph is putting a low end 2.1 AMD DP against the top line G5 2.5 DP. I would have to say AMD can hang with the big boy's.(ie:G5). I cant believe Im sticking up for a PC.

Anyways, why do you consider the AMD chip to be worse then intel? You must have your reasons but it goes against everyone else in the free world.

Hi, Myst.

Okee dokee.  Seems sorta funny to be antagonistic towards a company as a whole, but da's coo'.

Okee dokee.  And what conclusions can we jump to based on this:
(http://barefeats.com/image06/mvp-doo.gif)
(Barefeats.com)
Can I say it now?  :-X  It's pretty difficult to draw any meaningful conclusions from such narrow and arbitrary benchmarks without doing so myopically.

Why?

I think Apple's inability to get either
  a.) A dual-core, dual processor setup
  b.) A configuration with processors clocked higher than 2.7GHz
is making the PowerMacs risk falling behind in the near future.  As soon as they can do one of these, I'll feel much better, but from here it doesn't seem like that'll be for a while...  Intel has already released their dual-core processors, but for now it seems like there's quite a large premium on those (which keeps the dual-proc PowerMacs sitting pretty for the time being).  If they make good on their estimates to lower prices on dual-core Intel machines to the price of current single-core models, then I'll probably say the PowerMacs have fallen behind.

As it stands, I don't think Apple is behind the competition, but risks becoming so if they don't get their asses in gear.

Voo,

The diagram, also showed a Dual 2.1 AMD lower than a Dual 2.0 G5. Also, if it was the chip of choice for gaming why would the Xbox...er Xbox2? Xbox 360? be using a PPC970 at its core and G5s for game development?


First off, I can't get over your "Free world" reference... WTF does that have to do with anything? I consider AMD worse than Intel because they always had the option of competing with IBM for the mac contract when motorola was terminated from G5 development. I simply cannot support any chip maker that chooses to support the M$.

---

Cobra,

No one in any form of processor power measurement recognizes game FPS. That's very correct though, you have successfully pointed out the flaw in Macs. We have a much more complicated form of graphics integration, and to that end a much less optimized and thus slower for tasks like gaming. Apple has recognized this issue and as a result has recruited a specialized team to work on OpenGL optimization (as seen in recent news).

I don't see this update as cause for concern. I personally don't think we will see the 970MP ever in a consumer level product. The fact remains IBM is still at the POWER4 stage of PPC. With the advancements since POWER4, I wouldn't be too shocked to see the PPC980 make a debut soon. Historically, we saw a 2.0GHz G5 send a 3.6-3.8GHz Intel P4 to hell. I'm not overly worried when I see that 2.7GHz G5. AMD will be the only company to provide the Dual-dual-core Processor setup. That's the only major threat.

The fact remains that this is the first chip ever made in recent PPC Generations entirely by IBM & Apple (without motorola). This is a very impressive chip produced by that partnership. IBM admitted when the first G5 came out, to this very day, they weren't spending too much too much time on this current generation of 970. I personally think that was a mistake. When they looked ahead, they ran into the temporary roadblock of the 90nm problem. That's the only area they have dropped the ball on this Generation.

We've seen the gap close with this Generation (G5) more than ever in recent history. It's closed so much that this very discussion is possible to have. That being that we can have the G5 so close to PC system clock rates. If this Generation was impressive, I think the PPC can carry on and perhaps even pass the PC totally with the 980 version.

Whilst this leaves the present in a bit of a weird state, it could mean that all of this will be for nothing in as short as 8 months.