Dual 1Ghz G4 PowerMac With Extra Yummy

A huge number of readers submitted the new Dual Ghz Power Mac that Apple has announced. Includes a Geforce 4 and assorted other bells and whistles that will ring and blow for the Mac Junkie. They start at $3k and seriously make me want a Mac.

Comments

Moore's Law in effect?

[toupsie]

I just bought a dual 500 G4 PowerMac about 1 1/2 years ago for $3,000 w/ an ATI Rage Pro 128. Now I can get a dual 1Ghz PowerMac w/ a GeForce4 for $3,000. Awesome!

Re:Moore's Law in effect?

[foobar104]

I just bought a dual 500 G4 PowerMac about 1 1/2 years ago for $3,000 w/ an ATI Rage Pro 128. Now I can get a dual 1Ghz PowerMac w/ a GeForce4 for $3,000. Awesome!

I've heard it said many times, and I'll repeat it myself: the computer you want always costs $3,000.

(I've heard another version that names a cost of $5,000. I guess that guy's computer is just a little more than I really want.)

It needs more features!

[NiftyNews]

Darn, Mac missed a chance to start off a new line of hyper-cute with some quality components.

Where are the crazy features? How about four little feet that walk around to amuse the user? Or a spout that collects humidity to make a wicked glass of iced tea every few hours?

Re:It needs more features!

[foobar104]

Where are the crazy features? How about four little feet that walk around to amuse the user? Or a spout that collects humidity to make a wicked glass of iced tea every few hours?

I just picked one up at the local Apple store. When I got it hope, it jumped out of the box, handed me a card, and ran around my neighborhood. The card said, "I have been trained to gather fruit for you."

*munch, munch* Quite possibly the world's finest dog^H^H^Hcomputer.

Not bad, for starters

[jht]

Well, it differentiates the Pro Macs from the iMac, for the short term. The price has nudged down, and the features have gotten boosted. All this is good.

However, the chipset hasn't been updated yet (ergo no ATA100 or DDR support yet), it's the same FireWire (meaning the newer high-speed FireWire isn't ready for Prime Time yet), and the top-end speed isn't quite as fast as I had hoped/expected. I was thinking the speeds would be more like 933/1000/dual 1133 this time out.

But all in all, it's a good short-term move assuming the G5 is available in the next couple of months. But despite the specs, it reminds me of the original "Yikes!" G4 towers, which were just Yosemite towers tweaked for a G4 to hold the line while Apple got more of the high-speed chips that their real G4 was designed for. Yikes only lasted a few months before the Sawtooth version took over.

This is, I hope, pretty much the same thing.

help save taco!

[flynt]

seriously make me want a Mac.

My friend started saying things like this after he got a girlfriend too. We had to set up an intervention session. I propose we do the same before Taco starts posting reviews of "A Walk to Remember". :)

They do not *start* at $3k

[MatriXOracle]

The lowest priced PowerMac model is $1599 (US, no display). That's with the single-800 MHz processor.

The *top of the line* model with the dual-GHz is $2999.

I know that this article is specifically about the dual-GHz model, but don't give the impression that PowerMacs start at $3k. They're not all that expensive.

"Faster-than-light processor speed?"

[dpbsmith]

The blurb at http://www.apple.com/powermac/ has a section entitled "Cache Advance" that should be good for a smirk, or at least a raised eyebrow.

It says, and I am not making this up, "In the 933MHz and dual 1GHz Power Mac G4 models, faster-than-light processor speed gets an additional boost with [now here comes the technical stuff--DPBS] advanced cache memory architecture that provides ultrafast, dedicated memory with massively enhanced throughput."

You know, as opposed to lesser machines that have only fast, dedicated memory with enchanced throughput.

But, wait, there's more... in this remarkable machine, "Accessing data from main memory is significantly faster than accessing data from the hard drive..."

Re:"Faster-than-light processor speed?"

[gcondon]

How about the first line ...

"With a quantum increase in processing power ..."

As we all remember from our Introduction to Modern Physics courses, a "quantum" is the SMALLEST increment allowed by nature. Not really something to write home about.

If you wish to allude to the largest physical structures, the proper adjective is "cosmic". Perhaps that sounded just a little too groovy - even for Apple.

Editted Summary ...

[tjwhaynes]

For those in a hurry, here is the editted summary ...

A quantum ... revolutionary ... and ... Mac ... floating ... fearsomely fast ... through the ... barrier ... runs ... and crunches ... Pentium 4-based ... super models.

Off the charts, with hot ... fluid motion and ... phenomenal ... overdrive ...snap ... three brilliant ... creative professionals.

Faster-than-light ... ultrafast ... massively enhanced throughput ... significantly faster... even faster ... boosting ... for shooting large ... Keyboard features.

What more do you need to know?

Cheers,

Toby Haynes

Macs are comming back (sort of)

[yoink!]

At least Apple has done well in the last few months. Although I don't think I would purchase an Apple desktop computer, their Powerbooks running OSX would make me reconsider buying an x86 compatible laptop.

Unfortanately for us, the mainstay of application toolkit consists of programs designed exclusively for Windows. On the background side, we have confugured our network services exlcusively around linux servers. Sure, maybe OSX is capable of handling such things in the near future, maybe even now; I really don't need a (reasonably) expensive Apple computer to the work an old PII can.

On a more positive side, I have seen the grass on the other side of the fence. My first subject revolves around a family, who for several years used windows. First 95, then 98 then ME. This family had so many issues with their computer system, and no idea how to correct them that they just went out and bought an iMac because "everything worked." Now they want iPod's, iBooks, and the likes because Apple products work both for those without an inkling of knowledge as well as those who know exactly what they're doing.

It is also my opinion that the best applications for sound recording (please read audio, not MIDI sequncing, not waveform generation ala Max/MSP,) but straight recording are available only for the PC (Samplitude 2496 and Sequoia.) As always you are free to disagree. Our studio uses such software exclusively, but a young woman asked us for advice on buying her first computer. We suggested an Athlon-based PC and an inexpensive but high quality recording card (M-Audio, Echoaudio, Terratek etc.) So she buys a Socket 423 P4, with a SoundBlaster live. Needless to say things didn't work right from the start. The system came preloaded with ME, and when we helped her switch to 2K for stabilitie's sake, Dell informed us the warranty was void without the original OS supplied with the system. On top of that this woman's knowledge of computers was non-existent (not necessarily a bad thing, just a drawback.) She is the type of demographic for which the Macintosh is perfect, and it was silly of us to recommned otherwise because we've been back there setting up the computer on many occasions.

Apple's current efforts to provide not just an alternative but a viable one should be applauded. Though Apple is, in business models, equaly monopolistic as /.'s archnemesis (no name required,) the amount of options people have, especially in the day-to-day tasks of word processing, spreadsheets, collecting SPAM etc., are much better now that Apple is putting out products everyone wants to use.

Re:Dual Processors and Software

[LenE]

What he means is that the OS will balance load by divvying up the processes and threads (tasks) between the available processors. Also, if an application is threaded (in any of the supported thread architectures) then it will also automagically take advantage of the available processors.

OS X maps processes and threads to mach tasks, which will get pre-emptively scheduled on available processors. I don't have my docs with me, but there are three different threading systems which will take advantage of multiple processors. The exception is applications running in Classic (MacOS 9 running on OS X) are stuck on the processor that Classic is running on. These apps will run threaded, but are bound by the limitations imposed by the Classic environment.

-- Len

Re:macs

[gamgee5273]

I suggest you go to a local CompUSA or Apple Store and ask them - nicely - to open the display G4. The cooling system is minicule - a heatsink with case fans - compared to what has to be done with Pentium IIIs and IVs (some designs look as though they would make impressive window unit air conditioners).

Again, we bring the argument of CISC v. RISC up, and in this day and age that is of more importance than a chip's megahertz, which is simply a marketing myth (a well-spun one, but a myth all the same). The question should be: "How fast will the system do what I need it to do?" not "How fast is the system?" I suggest taking your dream Intel box and the top Power Mac and benchmarking them - especially looking at apps like Photoshop and Mathematica under Mac OS X. Once you've done that, then you can make the claims you're making and have things to back them up with...

Try to build a comparable Dell for $3000

[z7209]

Just for fun, try to build a comparable brand name PC for $3000.

I tried with Dell and ended up with a $5,071 quote. I'm sure my specs can be debated, but I got:

--Dual Xeon 2.2Ghz (Hard to tell if this is a good comparison)
--512 MB RAM
--80GB HD
--ATI Fire GL2, 64MB,VGA/DVI (Best I could find on their site, besides high-end)
--Sound Blaster Live! Value
--Windows XP Pro

Anyone have any idea whether the Xeon 2.2Ghz is fair to compare with at all?

Less and less BTO - bums me out

[Steve Cowan]

I work in audio. I want raw performance power, and I want style - the equipment I use in my studio has to impress my clients.

The G4/DP 1 gig is a very appealing option, except:

1. I don't need a SuperDrive. I don't want a SuperDrive. Apple won't give you a 933 or 1GHz DP machine without a SuperDrive. Sorry but I'd rather save hundreds of dollars by simply not buying one!

2. ADC (Apple Display Connector) still really bugs me, and now they've really made it ugly. For those of you who aren't aware of Apple's hardware decision here I'm going to sum it up:
   • Apple created a proprietary connector, "ADC", for displays.
   • This connector carries power, DVI and USB along the same cable, reducing cable clutter.
   • The video card is a special one, with an extra set of pins at one end which connect to a separate power socket on the motherboard.
   • Without this power socket there is not enough juice fed to the card to power an entire display.

     THEREFORE Your system can only work with one Apple display, because only one card slot has this power connection.

   • If you wish to power an Apple Display using a system with no ADC port, you can, but you need to buy an external solution worth hundreds of dollars, which plugs into a video card's DVI output, a USB port, and into mains via a line-lump style power supply; and combines all these signals into an ADC connection.
   • Such adaptors require a DVI output from your video card.
   • The new video cards available on these Macs have one ADC output and one VGA output. There is absolutely no way to connect any current Apple display to that second monitor port.
   • There is no less-expensive, single-port card available for your Power Mac G4.
   • If you want a second Apple display you would have to purchase a video card with a DVI output to go into an un-accelerated PCI slot, and the special multi-hundred dollar adaptor described above to connect to the second Apple display's ADC connector.
   • If you want to use a non-Apple display on the ADC port you must buy a sub-$100 adaptor which breaks the DVI video signal out of the ADC connector for a 'standard' DVI flat display.
   • To my knowledge there is no adaptor that will give you a VGA output from the ADC port.

   What I'm getting at here is that Apple boasts that all the new Power Macs have support for dual monitors built in, but for a company who puts so much work into beautiful designs, they expect me to use two different, cosmetically mismatched displays! I don't believe that a VGA connector belongs on a flat panel due to inherent flickering issues, so that means a flat display on the ADC and a CRT on the VGA port. Ugly!

   If I want two displays that look the same, I have to enter into an imposing combination of needlessly wasted PCI slots, buying redundant cable adaptors, and spending a lot of money!

   I would love to have a DP 1 GHz with dual Apple 17" Studio displays. I really would. But the premium is too high.

   Apple should bury ADC now and issue an admission of stupidity.

   Apple did a great job of embracing standards with USB, and is arguably responsible for its success. Why they chose to suddenly abandon the DVI connector on Yosemite and original Sawtooth computers is a mytery to me. DVI was just catching on as a standard way of connecting flat panel displays. If Apple hadn't moved to ADC, we would have seen more Wintel video cards with DVI conectors on them now, because there would be more DVI-connected monitors on the market.

   Apologies for the rambling post... ADC has bothered me right from the start and now these new dual cards seem like the ultimate inconvenience.

Enough!

[schvenk]

Every time someone posts a new Mac product announcement, we get these two ridiculous comments:

(1) "I could build a comparable Athlon box for way less money."

Yes, you probably could. But Apple is a premium brand. Think Sony. You do pay extra for an integrated software-hardware package, good industrial design, 90 days free tech support, etc. You may not need or want these things but some people do. In particular, Apple's ease of use is somewhat predicated on the OS knowing exactly what hardware configuration to expect, so the user doesn't have to mess around with device drivers and kernel extensions.

(2) "I can't believe Macs still have only a one-button mouse. What a bunch of morons. When will they get with the program?"

Buy a Mac. Then spend $15 and buy a 2-button scroll-wheel mouse. You won't have to install anything because OS X already supports it, context menus and all. My Mac's mouse has 4 buttons and a wheel. Macs come with a 1-button mouse for good reasons, like ease of use for first-time or novice users and purity of the original mouse metaphor (point at things and click on them). There are actually users out there (including PC users) who find the second button confusing and may not know what to do with it.

Sorry for the lengthy rant. But I just keep seeing these comments over and over again, and they miss the point.

Re:Talk about misinformation!

[TheCrazyFinn]

Ummm....NO. What a longer pipeline does is allow you to run a higher clock speed. The P4 explicitly gave up IPC (Instructions per clock) and took a big hit for pipeline stalls (What happens when the speculative execution unit guesses wrong) in order to hit 1.5 GHz and above. The Athlon XP does this as well, but it's a much smaller hit than the P4, due to a shorter Pipeline (About 10-12 stage IIRC). In fact the Current G4 (PPC7450)made the same trade off, to get to 800+MHz, but it still only has a 7 stage pipeline, vs a ~10stage one for the Athlon and 20 stage pieline for the P4. The IPC on the G4 is higher than any current x86 processor, this gives the G4 about a 130% advantage over a similarly clocked Athlon, or a 150% advanyage over a P4. The G4's big advantage is Altivec. The G4's Altivec Unit is so much faster than the P4's SSE unit it's not funny, the G4's are also FPU monsters. This is where the big performance for Graphics and DV work comes from, otherwise, the Macs are still a bit slower than a top end PC overall, but since the G4 is the fastest thing out there in its target market, it doesn't matter.

The Crazy Finn
(Note that performance margins are guesstimates based on Benchmarks and relative IPC)

The point, as they say, has been missed

[Brat Food]

I see a lot of price comparisons going on here, and while that's all well and good, people are tending to glaze over a few important facts.

1- These are workstation class machines (as far as Macs go). 2mb L3 cache per proc, 64-bit pci, 1000/100/10 NICs, superdrive, etc. Apple knows its target audience and delivers what they need.

2- Once you're up in this price range, the price is usually moot for the buyer. The people buying these machines will drop 10k for one box (for CPU, software, monitor, etc) and don't bat an eye. I mean, do you think the average consumer would shell out 600+ bucks JUST for Photoshop if they had no viable means for a Return on Investment? That's what a Mac is to the people who buy their high end machines - a way to get work done NOW. Any downtime means they don't get their RoI, and that's why these people don't usually build their own boxen, and why they will pay a premium for a Mac.

3- To respond to a few earlier posts.

--Macs are the deFacto standard for professional audio, and will only become more so. Id say 80% + market share for this. I've been to many recording studios, and without fail, they have a Mac or 2 hooked up.

--64bit pci.. Well, there are only a few kinds of cards you'll find in the average Mac. High end video, ultra160 SCSI, high end audio and special purpose accelerators (encoding, graphics effects, etc). All of these are high bandwidth tasks.

Yes, you COULD build a PC that has faster specs for less. But you'd be missing the point. Computers are tools. If you're making money with your computer, and you're in one of the businesses where Apple products excel, you're shooting yourself in the foot to go with anything else. And I imagine with OSX, that the sector where Apple products excel will only be getting bigger.

Here's a Pro Mac purchase for Graphic Design / ProSumer Video/ audio. Feel free to make up a comparable PC.

Right from the apple store... I know I could save money buying HD and ram elsewhere, but I am shooting for convenience. Make sure PC has - sound card, 64bit pci, firewire, case, motherboard, dual head support, and an OS (that has all the comparable apps)

(1 GHz PPC G4) x 2
1.5 GB dram
22" cinema display
iPod
SuperDrive
GeForce4 MX
56k modem
10/100/1000 NIC
keyboard/optical mouse
AirPort card
OSX.1
Dual channel ultra160 card
(72 GB ultra160 HD) x 2
AppleCare plan (3yr hardware replacement)

TOTAL............. $8,845.00

Now, the software....this is usually full retail, not going to look for deals.(mostly right from apple store)

DVD Studio Pro .. $999.00
FinalCut Pro3 ..$999.00
MS Office..$459.95
FileMaker Pro...$249.00
AfterEffects Pro..$1499.95
Illustrator...$399.00
InDesign...$699.95
Photoshop...$649.95
GoLive...$399.95
BBEdit...$119.95
Flash5...$399.95

That's enough to do most tasks......not going to look for pro audio equip or a pro video capture card (add about $3-6k for that at least)

TOTAL.........$6875.65

Time for the pro Audio and video cards

ProTools HD 1 ...$7995.00
Protools 192 IO ... $3995.00

Can't think of a video card Mfg ATM, ill go with

Media100 for ~ 4,000

Add in some accessories

Graphics tablet..$400
Speakers...$600 (reference monitors)
17" studio display...$999 (definitely need a second display)

TOTAL....... $17,989

I'm sure im missing a few things, and this hasn't even included the supporting equipment that I would need (cameras, sound recording equip, scanners, etc, etc.)

So, for pretty much what you would have stuck inside the box, or hanging directly off of it, you have a grand total of..........

GRAND TOTAL......$33709.65

Can most people personally afford 7k+ for software alone? No. So now you see the market Macs are often used in, and the money generally tied in to them, and why people choose Macs to get work done. Fast. Efficiently. It has to be easy; it has to work, because they need to make back such a huge amount of money.