Slashdot Mirror


Apple Updates Power Mac Line

Phreck writes "Apple has announced an upgrade to its Power Mac line today. The new Power Macs all feature dual G5 processors, 512 MB RAM, and dual-layer 16x SuperDrives. On the low end is the dual 2.0GHz with 160GB HD and ATI Radeon 9600. The mid-range includes dual 2.3GHz processors with 250GB HD and ATI Radeon 9600. The top-end system has dual 2.7GHz processors with 250GB HD and ATI Radeon 9650. The processors are not the dual-core variety as has been rumored for weeks now."

9 of 686 comments (clear)

  1. Why 9600 series cards? why not 9800s or X800s? by Shivetya · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I do not understand their choice of base video card. Why would they use a 9600 series when the 9800s and X series are available? From a price concious view I can see it however the top end is Nvidia.

    Also, are they still stuck on PCI-X? Is Apple going to move to PCI-Express anytime soon or will they be left behind for the time being?

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
  2. modems now optional by mblase · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I noticed an oddity on the linked page to Apple's store: the older 1.8 GHz dual had a built-in modem, but the new ones did not. Sure enough, if you actually order one of the newer PowerMacs you find that built-in modems are now a $29 option.

    I suppose nearly everyone who buys these machines is using them in a networked office or can afford broadband at home, and the not-so-recent advent of internet faxing has made the other role of the built-in modem obsolete.

    Still, it's an interesting omission. Like the floppy disk, Apple's opinion now is that the POTS modem is sufficiently obsolete to remove it entirely and free up space inside the box, rather than leave it in and lose the $10 OEM or whatever it actually costs them.

  3. Re:3.0G in Aug '04? by As+Seen+On+TV · · Score: 4, Interesting

    IBM had trouble going from 180 nm fabrication to 90 nm fabrication. We announced 3 GHz by 2004, but internally we were predicting 5 GHz by this summer, based on IBM's projections.

    They didn't pan out.

    For the record, Steve Jobs copped to this publicly during one of his keynote addresses. WWDC 2004, I think it was. Funnily enough, though, it seems like Slashdotters like to remember the initial projection, not the retraction, which is strange because they happened in exactly the same forum attended by exactly the same group of people. It almost seems like ... Slashdotters are less interested in the truth than they are in making a big stink! But surely that's not possible ...

  4. Re:Not a very large update... by jest3r · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Apple seems to be slacking on their PowerMac product line. This is their most expensive product, supposedly high-end .. they are charging premium 2005 dollar for 2003 hardware.

    - The Radeon 9600 was released in 2003 .. Where is the X800??
    - Apple actually launched Dual 2.0Ghz G5's in 2003 (todays speedbump still includes this product)
    - The case is still gigantic (2003 size), and still only sports 1 external drive bay
    - Still only 3 PCI slots (2 if your using the Nvidia Video card)
    - Only 512MB Ram for a workstation?

    If you spend $2000 - $3000 for a workstation you should at least get specifications to match.

    Actually $3000 gets you 6 Mac Minis ... cluster those together and you've got more juice than the PowerMac.

  5. Apple has a different perspective... by nokiator · · Score: 5, Interesting
    This PowerMac revision is obviously not a major upgrade and Apple treated it as such. Apple's home page, is mostly full of Tiger stuff and the new PowerMac intro is just a small image on the lower left corner.

    Lot of people are complaining about the "just 200MHz" speed bump for the high end model. 8% may not be that much of a speed bump, but neither Intel or AMD has been able to pull off dramatic clock frequency jumps lately. Clock speed stagnation seem to be a general problem in the processor design industry.

    As for the dual cores, obviously AMD and Intel have much more incentive. The entire PC world is built around a standard form factors: ATX motherboards and ATX cases. Intel's efforts to move to a new form factor (BTX) has been quite unsuccessful so far. It is very hard to put two "hot" processors on an ATX motherboard in an ATX case. PC market is also driven by cut throat price pressure and low margins. There is a huge price difference between the prices of single processor motherboards and dual processor motherboards. Given the stagnation in the clock frequency, the only practical way for Intel and AMD to drive the mainstream PC to higher performance is the SMP model through dual-core chips. This way, all of the rest of the system components (motherboard, chipset, case, cooling system) can stay the same.

    Apple does not have this constraint. Apple has been manufacturing mainstream multiprocessor desktops for manty years. Overall, it may actually be more cost effective for Apple to ship multiprocessor system. It may be a lot cheaper for IBM to manufacture two instances of a small die like the PPC970 FX (less than 60mm2) than a larger dual core die. As for Apple, having the source of the heat distributed accross two chips makes thermal management somewhat easier than dealing with one extremely hot dual core chip.

    I am sure Apple will eventually move to dual core PPC970MP chips, potentially later this year, but this will most likely be in the context of being able to offer quad systems (two dual-core processors) for higher performance.

    As for the choice of the base graphics card, the 9600 or 9650 is a perfectly reasonable choice. The primary driving force behind high end graphics cards in the PC world are 3D games. PowerMac G5 is obviously not the best 3D game platform. Most people buy PowerMacs to use in professional applications. Many pro applications do not require super-duper 3D performance. For those who are planning to do serious 3D work, the 6800 Ultra upgrade is the reasonable choice. There is no reason to burden all customers with an expensive (and potentially loud) graphics card.

  6. 2.7Ghz model is liquid cooled! by GraZZ · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm surprised that this hasn't been brought up, but Apple is using a liquid cooling system on the 2.7Ghz model.

    Details (including a cutsie animation) here.

  7. Re:250GB? by Espectr0 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's much cheaper to buy the memory elsewhere, like 50% cheaper, and dead easy to install if you aren't stoned

    The point is, that you shouldn't have to. You are buying a very high-end 3000$ machine, and it comes with the same size of RAM 1000$ PC's do. You are also getting a 2 year old video card.

    IMHO only the bottom line power mac should come with 512MB, the middle one perhaps 768 or more and so on, and they should come with GF6800 Ultras.

  8. Why does the 2.7 have such a shitty graphics card? by Chiisu · · Score: 4, Interesting

    oh wait, no games....... :P

    j/k, but seriously they can't even include the 9800 Pro if not the X800? For $3K+ I want a damn good card in there.....

  9. Re:BREAKING NEWS:APPLE SWITCHING TO INTEL AT YEAR by tgibbs · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "Apple is unhappy with the PowerPC production at IBM and will be switching to Intel-compatible chips this very year. ...seriously"

    Actually, it was "Yeah, seriously," which makes the sarcasm more obvious.

    At this point, it seems like nobody is using Intel compatible chips except people who are tied into Windows legacy code.

    GameCube: PowerPC
    Playstation3: fancy multicore PowerPC
    TiVo: PowerPC
    XBox2 (or is it XBox360?) PowerPC

    I'd find it easier to believe a rumor that Microsoft was releasing a version of Windows for PowerPC, especially in the wake of XBox2.