Slashdot Mirror
New PowerMac G5s: Up to 2.5Ghz, Liquid Cooled
no_demons writes "Apple have just announced the new, completely dual-processor PowerMac G5 lineup. The models all sport an 8x SuperDrive, whilst new the dual-2.5GHz model also features an 'innovative liquid cooled heat sink,' available in July."
That's great that new G5s are out, but am I the only one a little underwhelmed by the increase in proc speed? (Especially considering the "3Ghz in a year" when they were first announced).
:)
Anyway, sorry to be looking at the glass half-empty.
From the Apple link:
Each of the four thermal zones is equipped with its own dedicated, low-speed fans. Apple engineered the nine fans to spin at very low speeds for minimum acoustic output. Using 21 different sensors, Mac OS X constantly monitors component temperatures in each zone, dynamically adjusting individual fan speeds to the appropriate levels for the quietest possible operation. As a result, the Power Mac G5 runs two times quieter than the previous Power Mac G4 enclosure.
Nine fans and 21 sensors, generating half as many decibels. Now I'm not an Apple fan-boy but that's the level of attention to detail that seperates Apple from Dell, etc.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
The dual 1.8 and dual 2.0 GHz machines come with an "NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra" graphics card. Isn't that card pretty low-end (or midrange at best)? Is it just me, or should a 2,000+ dollar machine come with a decent graphics card?
Of course, the whole point of a tower is that you can replace the card, but when you're already paying 2,500 USD, should you have to?
WARNING: If accidentally read, induce vomiting.
And yet AMD64 series has managed to be the fastest out there. For much less too.
They tout it for scientific research applications ... but still no ECC support!
It's hard to imagine any sort of serious scientific computing that is making use of the advertised features - such as 64-bit optimised libraries, 8GB of memory, etc - which wouldn't also feel the lack of any real confidence that the results aren't contaminated by bit errors.
The newest Xserve supports ECC. Whyever do they not support it on their workstations?! It boggles the mind.
...as much as I care about the liquid cooling part. I remember liquid cooling my crappy little celeron, thinking it would never go mainstream because of my belief at the time that water + electricity = bad.
Now, we've got liquid cooled technology backed by Apple. It's pretty sweet, considering you either have to buy a specially designed freon pumping case, or a $500 video card to reap the benefits of this kind of cooling.. Now all you've gotta do is buy a $3000 Mac.
Sarcasm aside, I think this shows that soon, the PC's on the shelves will mostly all be using some sort of heat pipe / water cooling technology.
I'm not a Mac fanboy, don't own one, but this really goes to show that Apple can and does set standards for personal computing. With major backing like this, it's only a matter of time before it trickles down to where everyone can be using it for a relatively cheap price. Way to go, Apple.
More precisesly, Water is a subset of liquid.
Gasoline and alcohol are also liquids, but will have a distictly different effect on you when consumed...
You are in a maze of twisted little posts, all alike.
"two times quieter" would equal 3db quieter. Not exactly revolutionary...
If the G5 is "two times quieter", that means half the noise, right? That seems pretty revolutionary to me. Who cares if 3db doesn't seem like much? In reality those 3 decibels make a big difference.
If your system suddenly became twice as loud, would you just shrug and say "Oh well, it's only 3 decibels louder"?
ich muß mehr Kuhglocke haben
Clock speed doesn't mean "nothing", it's just not the sole- or even the most meaningful- measurement of over-all system speed. People have mearely noticed that, with all the bottle-necks in a system, merely bumping up clock-speeds without improving the over-all architecture gives deminishing returns.
What a G5 2.5 Ghz would be equivalent to in terms of Intel or AMD depends on what you're doing and how you benchmark. It really doesn't matter too much, though, unless you're trying to start a Mac vs. PC flame war. It's like comparing Apples and Oranges.
Everyone's waving the "Innovative" flag about their product design.
I suppose what's really innovative about it is that this is the first time I've ever heard of a major manufacturer shipping systems liquid-cooled.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
It's just to keep it quiet.
It's a common misconception that Apple *needed* the elaborate cooling mechanism they designed for the G5. They didn't design it to keep the chips cool, they designed it to keep the chips cool quietly. The G5, I'm told, actually runs cooler than the high-end P4 chips. It runs hotter than the G4 for sure, but it's not like there's a miniature fusion reactor in your tower or anything.
I've got more mod points and GMail invi
Thats a completely worthless argument. Mac OS X is designed to ONLY run on apple processors. It is designed to use RISC. Windows XP is designed to work with x86 instructions, which are quite easy to emulate. RISC instructions are almost impossible to emulate on x86 CISC processors. So you can't really use that to say that the Mac is faster.
The anemic RAM included is a good thing. Apple charges far too much for RAM. It's much cheaper to buy your RAM separately instead of upping the RAM on the config you order.
Don't be so quick to devalue this achievement. They've increased its production of thermal energy, yet managed to cut the overall acoustic energy produced by the cooling system and the machine overall in half. Who cares what the scale is.
Of course, Apple doesn't design the processors, they just integrate them.
I think that you should also say that "PowerPC has the advantage of a modern intruction set" rather than "Apple has the advantage of RISC". PPC's instruction set may be classified as RISC but is hardly "Reduced". Besides, the whole RISC/CISC argument was discredited long ago. Processor architectures and instruction sets are not closely coupled any more.
Incidently, the x86 instruction set is, in fact, incredibly efficient. Not ridiculously inefficient as you say. It was designed to be compact and powerful bit is quite hard to decode compared to RISC apporaches. Memory space is not as precious as it once was so x86's primary advantages are no longer valuable.
So, A G5 running at 2.5GHz can't be compared to an Athlon running at 2.5GHz on clock speed alone, for example.
However, if you look at Apple's rigged demo (the photoshop test), there's almost a factor of two difference. It's probably not quite that extreme for the rest of the system, but it looks like G5s are faster than the AMD64, clock for clock. Or, they could be the same speed, but the pshop filter is multithreaded.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
What exactly is "innovative" about liquid cooling? It's been around for nearly as long as solid state computers, and it's widely used with PCs. So are variable speed cooling systems.
And talk about making lemonade out of lemons: Apple used to brag about how their chips dissipated less power and ran less hot, but now literally "sizzling performance" is supposed to be a selling point?
Frankly, I hate the fact that companies are figuring out that there are better ways to cool computers down.
You see, as long as they don't know about more effecient coolers, they keep their heat output much lower. This means two very important things...
First, it means I can spend $20 and replace the crap in my computer with almost completely silent fans, and very effecient heatsinks.
Second, it means that the computers aren't outputting as much heat. Once cooling solutions they use can handle cooling-down a 500WATT processor, you'll see 500WATT processors. This means much more electricity wasted for no reason, and (more importantly for me) it means while your system is running, it's ouputting 500WATTS of heat from the computer into the building where it is held. It's getting to the point where the biggest cost of running computers is the need to have massive air-conditioners installed, and running at their max, all the time.
Frankly, I can see us reverting back to ENIAC times. To run a computer you have to build a whole building for the thing, with massive airconditioners under the floorboards, and you have to notify the power company in advance when you want to turn it on, so you don't cause a black-out. The only difference is going to be inital purchase cost of the processors, which will be low, but on-going costs will be massively high.
Personally, I'm using ducting to limit the need for massive air-cooling here in the 130 degree desert summer, but that isn't perfect. Lots of heat still leaks into the building, but it's an improvement. If heat output levels continue to rise, it will be pointless, and practically impossible to have a server-room, frankly.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
If your consideration is portability, then perhaps bunging an Xserve and Xserve-raid in a rack would be more useful for you ; not much bigger in the end, in fact possibly smaller...
~Pev
pardon me, but where on that picture is a pump?
is the RADIANT GRILLE or the CPU's the "PUMP"?
the text doesn't say there is a pump either, *The dual 2.5GHz Power Mac G5 features an innovative liquid cooling system that's more efficient than a traditional heat sink. This system provides a continuous flow of thermally conductive fluid that transfers heat from the processors as they work harder. The heated fluid then flows through a radiant grille, where air passing over cooling fins returns the fluid to its original temperature.*
all this implies that it is, in effect, a heatpipe without a pump driving the system. the diagram implies it as well.
It makes more sense to not have a pump anyways, besides, if they did use a pump this wouldn't be that innovative at all(because this is exactly where a heatpipe cooler could/would rock).
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Already liquid cooled, and in a cool aluminium case, enough case fans for a hovercraft. What is left to do?
;-)
May I ask a serious question? Why mod it in the first place? I can understand that it's fun to make cases fit a "theme" (i.e. If I've got a bunch of racing memorabilia, I might want my case to have flames and exhaust pipes), but outside of that, what's the point? It's just a box. You might as well mod your dishwasher with a plexiglass window in front, and neon lights that catch the water sprays while it's running.
Beyond that, a computer is a machine that you usually don't want to be visible. You see the screen, you see the mouse, and you see the keyboard. Put the mobo in a closet or a hole in the wall for all I care. The only thing I need it for is to insert a CDROM drive or plug in a USB device.
(Insert comment about Real Unix Geeks keeping their machines in climate controlled rooms.)
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Macs are something you want seen. They're always used as movie props, and very pleasing to the eye. You might not want your beige box PC in plain view, runing your decor, but an iMac might be nice touch to a room.
As for the Apple coverage on /., well I think that is attributable to Apple getting it right (tm). Specifically, you have Unix with a GUI you don't have to dick around with to get working. They have achieved the holy grail of Unix+Usability and that is very attractive to, at least IMO, the people that care about computers, e.g., slashdotters. *shrug*
-truth
I had a steady B+ in my AI class until I failed the Turing test...
Looking like OSX isn't the point.
The user experience is what Macs are all about. Running OSX, not just looking like it, and having a wonderfully engineered case.
A PC running any OS it is capable of is like a bitching Camaro kicking ass in the straight-away.
A Mac is like a BMW z4 taking on a winding road.
You either get it or you don't.
they are still impressive machines, save for the GPU
I know, the GPU's in these things suck. The Radeon 9800XT is a toy, just because it was released more than a month ago.
Released yesterday would be too old if a new generation had since then succeeded it soundly. Which is what has happened. Compared to the X800 cards, 9800s are mid-range. Not "suck", just unimpressive.
Here's a better thing. How about they don't overcharge so much for RAM?
Jack Valenti and Orrin Hatch will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
A good deal of modders seem to be the computer equivalent of ricers. They generally make a decent looking car uglier while not making the overall system any better.
I think we're better off if the ricers, er.. modders stay away from these systems.
well it's also the chip's design. the Apple (and IBM/Moto) designs (and AMD to some extent) "do more work" per clock cycle. that's part of the reason some are better for some processes (though software is key too). think of it like a racecar vs a truck. a racecar revs really fast and flies, but carries one passenger. a truck revs lower but can tow a house. if you had a relay race of the two that had to transport 300 people across a distance the truck could win since it could haul everyone in one or two trips. it's the same way the G5 (or G4) tries to "do more" with every clock cycle compared to Intel just trying to go really really fast.
it really comes down to attacking the same problem from different methods.
It would seem these updates arent the 970fx's where hoping for.
Looking here and hereit seems there still using the 130nm process. If they were putting in the 90nm chips you would think this is something they'd highlight.
Don't be an ass. Yes, the 9800XT is fast, but:
- It's Build-To-Order only
- It takes up an extra slot
Apple's top-end stock GPU, the 9600XT, is mid-range at this point. The other G5s still use the FX5200, which SUCKS HAIRY GOAT these days and does not belong in Apple's officially designated "Pro" machines.The "rigged demo" when it comes to Photoshop is that they cherry pick the operations they use to give the best advantage to the Mac. Invariably one of these operations is going to be CMYK to RGB conversion, which single handidly wins it. If you look at third-party Photoshop benchmarks, the results tend heavily to the x86 architecture. Plus, any "benchmark" that isn't repeatable (such as they don't tell you exactly what has been run) isn't worth the harddrive space it's stored on. And if they heavily skewed one test, it's reasonable to assume they skewed the others. "Rigged" is a very apt description of Apple's tests. Always wait for the third parties to get their hands on the product.
That's the same way we count summer here. It's from June 21st to September 21st, or approximately, depending on when the summer solstice and fall equinox occur.
If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.
Modding is (usually, I'm sad to say) not about getting "better", but about getting "flashier" (at least in some 1337 g4m3r teenagers' eyes).
Make the RF-shielding case useless, it looks so much flashier with a frigging HOLE in the side. Fans with LEDs inside aren't more quiet nor do they push more air, they're flashier. UV-lighting inside your case doesn't push more data across the buses, it's there to be flashy. A fan grille in the shape of a biohazard sign doesn't obstruct airflow any less than a normal grille, but it's flashier. The graphics card with a stupid dragon / monster / anime babe printed on its fan casing is more expensive than a more normal looking computer component, but it's flashy (if you lie on the floor looking up, so you can see it when it's installed and turned upside down).
Though personally I think it all looks more ridiculous and stereotypical than "flashy".
Help savingAmigaOS and a free PowerPC market
Lol that was a picture a friend took on his girlfriends camera, as a joke while on vacation. Unfortunely for him the camera ended up in somebody else's luggage, and I subsequently posted it on the 'net, cause hey, why not?
Not to mention all the software loaded on it?
It's one thing to spec-out a bunch of parts and call that your 'cost'.
It's quite another to hand build a 100 machines yourself...
It just seems to me you forgot your labor costs...
I don't know about you, but my consulting rate is high enough that the Mac is already cheaper when assembly time is factored in.
Thank you.
Some people know the value of time, and can get someone to actually pay it.
Sometimes, buying the very first product you find that will solve your problem is the most economical solution.
(Not to be confused with the optimal or best solution.)
And, if you are doing it to make money... that is the "right" solution.
--Phillip
Can you say BIRTH TAX
Not to sound like a troll, but modding my dishwasher sounds like a pretty cool idea. Too bad my landlord would kill me :-( That would be sweet to see what's going on when I clean my dishes. Modding is all about being different and having fun when you do it. Since it doesn't hurt anyone, what's the problem? I say if it's fun to do go for it.
This is a sig, there are many like it, but this is mine.
It's not so much that PC makers don't build things "beautifully", it's that most PC makers care more about functionality and price than asthetics. Open any recent Dell case and you'll see much of the same design (wires put off to the side, drives in easy-to-manage trays, etc).
If you're doing a comparison between a quiet, nice-looking Apple and a slightly-noisier, yet more functional PC, most businesses will take the PC. It's just not economical to buy Macs for business.
you left out firewire 400/800 card and modem (don't believe that these are on the mobo).
does this support digitial audio i/o?
how is WiFI supported? (can it use a card, or does it have to take up a PCI slot?)
how much to add software equivalent to the following:
iLife (includes iTunes, iPhoto, iMovie, iDVD and GarageBand),
Art Directors Toolkit, EarthLink TotalAccess 2004, GraphicConverter, OmniGraffle, OmniOutliner, QuickBooks for Mac New User Edition, Zinio Reader, Mail, iChat AV, Safari, Sherlock, Address Book, QuickTime, iSync, iCal, DVD Player, Classic environment, Xcode Developer Tools
esp: iMovie, iDVD, GarageBand, QuickBooks
also, if you're using windows that cost should be added in
also, there's the warrantee and online service with the G5.
finally, you left out shipping costs (unless you can get those prices locally)
this narrows the gap somewhat.
Now, I read some Mac websites, and occasionally there and elsewhere, get trolled into the Mac vs. PC debate. I don't care much about it, but I will defend the Mac platform against falsehoods and bad arguments. One example of this is that people claim that Apple charges a premium for their machines.
So, about once a year, I do the following configuration exercise: Start with the base high-end Mac. Configure a high end Dell to match, modifying each to allow for configurations that are as similar as possible. The goal is to stick as close as I can to the base model, but make the two machines as identical as possible.
To do so, I use the online stores made available by each company, and try not to work with a bias that will create a cheaper Mac. Every year, the results are about the same... The Dell is a smidgeon more expensive. Let's try it again today, with new G5s just announced...
PowerMac G5, Dual 2.5 GHz G5, 512 MB DDR400 RAM, 250GB SATA HD, ATI Radeon 9600 XT (128 MB), 56k Modem, 8x SuperDrive. $3099.
and
Dell Precision Workstation 650, Dual 2.4 GHz Xeon, 612 MB DDR266 RAM, 250 GB SATA HD, nVidia QuadroFX 500 (128 MB), 56k Modem, 8x DVD-R, 48x CD (No CD-R). $3300.
This is just about the closest I could get. The software bundles are both the minumim, both have keyboard, mouse, etc. Neither has a monitor.
Of course, this is comparing a lower-end processor on the Dell with Apple's top of the line, to keep GHz closer, and Dell won't sell you a machine that burns both CDs and DVDs. Try configuring this with the dual 3.2 GHz Xeons at the top of the line at Dell, and using just a Combo drive in both, and the prices end up at $2999 for the Mac, and $5149 for the Dell. I still can't get a Dell with RAM as fast as the G5's, or with the equivalent of the SuperDrive, or with optical audio standard, and available fiber channel for storage. They also don't seem to offer liquid-cooling, bluetooth input options, etc.
Why do people always say Apple charges a price premium?
My Photography - http://ian-x.com
The Deathlings (comic) - http://thedeathlings.com
I use my Mac for actual work. I'm waiting for the PS3 to buy a console, and I've even put an Ethernet port next to my cable jack for it. Until then, I'm happy to play WarCraft III and UT2K4 in my spare time. They run wonderfully on my Powerbook. Through college I didn't have any trouble finding games to waste lots and lots of my time.
I would rather buy third party RAM than have Apple's profit margin cut. It's that 30% that allows them to put so much into hardware development. Sure, a $1600 G5 would be nice, but if it hurts development and bundled software (iLife is worth a whole lot more than $400), I will be patient.
I'm sure you could pick up a refurb, but that would involve extra effort, and you don't want to actually have to look for products, you just want them to be available.
I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
Why mod it in the first place? ... It's just a box.
Physically, it's just a box, but psychologically, it's an extension of yourself. And as part of youself, you want it to reflect your unique tastes and values.
The Model T car suffered (and Oldsmobile boomed) because Ford refused to sell cars in any color but black. The color of car doesn't affect its function. But for the consumer, whether they like the color of the car has a big impact on whether they like the car in general. Choosing the appearance makes it your car rather than a car.
The same thing goes with cell phone faceplates and desktop wallpapers. Since the device is personalized, it pyschologically becomes and extension of yourself, rather than merely a beige hunk of plastic in your pocket or on your desk.
On another note, the fact that you may need to plug in USB devices or change CDs means that the computer should be near your desk, in arms' reach, rather than in a closet. So it most likely will be visible.
...what about DVD+R? Why the heck isn't Apple installing drives compatible with the "other" DVD standard?
That's why I wouldn't recommend this sort of thing when a new tech first comes out -- but the G5's have been out for a year, already!
And yes, Apple make money from high-paying customers, but think of what higher volumes could do to thier bottom line?
And what about businesses? In my company, all the artist-types want Macs, but they get Dells because they're half the cost. One guy who did make a case for a Mac was given a Dell LCD monitor because the Apple ones are too expensive. A sensible model like the one I described would be fantastic if aimed towards businesses, and paired with $400 17" LCD monitors.
Lex orandi, lex credendi.
It stays liquid; no phase change.
The expensive argument comes from the fact that Apple does not make an entire range of commodity machines. They make machines to meet certain markets. They target those markets, and, when they do a good job, the company makes money. They also use the best technology available to meet customer needs. The seldom skimp on technology to meet a price point.
The first mac was expensive. However, if you did not have skills and were trying to computerize a bussiness, the Mac was worth every peeny. I know this from direct experience.
The mac continued to be relitively expensive until the commodity market matured and created suitable and reliable products. This took about 5 years of so. At that point Apple could, for example, replace SCSI drives, which were realy elegent devices, with commodity drives. This allowed them, for example, to produce desktops for $1000 in the early 90's and, in the mid 90's, very credible laptop for about that same amount. Like now, there was really nothing else that met it's size, weight, and battery. Of course they also had the really expensive nice laptops for $4000.
To give you more data points, my early model G4 tower(2000?) was around $1200. I have upgraded it to OS X with 512MB ram and about 100GB HD. It is fast enough. Sure I could have bought a name brand PC for 2/3 as much, but it would have maxed out at 384MB ram and have no room for a second drive.
The quality price issue is still very real. A good example of this is firewire. Everyone laughs at firewire now, especially with so-called USB 2.0(now is that regular, hyper, or superduper?), but USB 2.0 is pretty new, isn't it? I certainly paid extra for Firewire, but not only do I have a daisy chain plug and play interface, I also do not have to upgrade my old machines just to achieve the performance that was economically availbe 3 or 4 years ago. The fact that I can keep reliable machines in service greatly decreases my strees level.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black