Apple launches the PowerMac G5

[Asher]

I also like how Apple's site discusses how cutting-edge the 130nm process is that they use.

Nevermind that Intel's been on 130nm for ages, and in a matter of months is moving to 90nm...

[Atahualpa]

Asher, isnt it a bit ridiculous to open a thread about the new PowerMac just for flaming it?

I mean, come on, you cant be giggeling around something like Marketing Benchmark Scores. Everyone tricks here thats not just Apple. This is really nothing new.

If you do not like Apple then why opening a thread about it? Just for bashing, oh well....

ata

[Asher]

A correction, as well: http://www.amdzone.com/releaseview.cfm?ReleaseID=1096

The dual Opteron workstations in the same pricerange as the dual 2GHz G5 have been available since June 2nd, 2003.

The G5 is also limited to 8GB of RAM, while the Opteron is 16GB.

What's also interesting is that the G5's PCI-X controller and HyperTransport are both done by AMD, but Jobs didn't mention that for some reason.

Chart1 (spec fp/int base -- single processor)


Chart2 (spec fp/int rate -- dual processor)


As for opening this thread just for flaming -- that was not the point. I posted it as soon as it was unveiled, then checked into it. The flaming came after when we saw that Apple is up to the usual habits, which angers me.

Particularly when they claim that the G4 is a supercomputer, and the G5 is the fastest "desktop" system, and the first 64-bit desktop CPU...it's blatant lies.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Hmmm... I just read something that said that even though IBM made the chips for this computer, Apple will SOON have Intel chips in their computers. Apparently Jobs has been over to Intel and Intel reps have been over to Apple a LOT lately.

I wonder, if Apple's chips are so good, why are they dealing with Intel .

[Mr. Nice Guy]

I think it's pointless to continue this debate until we see some benchmarks on the PowerMac G5 Dual 2.0GHz on the Spec.org site. You can bet that since Steve Jobs mention the Spec benchmarks at WWDC, that it will surely be on there soon.

It's possible that IBM, although not having posted their next roadmap, may soon be moving to a 90-nanometer production as well. There have rumors circulating about this on Mac rumor sites.

Oh, and by the way Asher. It wasn't Apple's fault that they couldn't keep up with Intel/AMD the last 5 years or so. It's Motorola's fault; they cut their R&D and are now looking to sell their Microprocessor business. Apple just tried to do the best they could with the crappy hand that Motorola had dealt them. How did they do it? By innovating their OS and increasing the sophistication of the internal hardware. A spokesman from IBM talked about this at Apple's World Wide Developers Conference (WWDC) yesterday. IBM says that it spends about $5 billion on R&D/year and a huge portion of that goes into it's microprocessor business. I'd say it's highly likely that Apple is going to quickly phase out it's G4 computers and begin replacing them with G5 computers with the IBM PPC 970. It is then expected to end it's contract with Motorola. All I have to say is thank you to Apple for that. And thank you IBM for the PowerPC 970 processor. Cheers to the future!

[Atahualpa]

As for opening this thread just for flaming -- that was not the point. I posted it as soon as it was unveiled, then checked into it. The flaming came after when we saw that Apple is up to the usual habits, which angers me.

tell me you would have expected to hear something different and when you have tell me again

thats just an excuse. basically what you do is make fun of Apple because of their marketing which is the same way with ALL companies.
And when you mention AMD, whats with their model rating? The XP 3200+ that they claim the fastet CPU available. Couldnt even beat the PIV 3Ghz.

C'mon man. Stop being more childish on this subject than the companies are.
Marketing is marketing and thats what it is

[Agathon]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Does anybody know what they're talking about here?

Originally posted by Asher

Xeons and Opterons can.

Yes, but Pentiums can't.

Xeons are the workstation/high-end Pentium 4/5s, Opterons are the workstation/high-end Athlon 64s.

Workstations, not desktops (for whatever that's worth). Anyway I saw the G5 absolutely spank a dual Xeon in the photoshop race. And then hand it its ass in a number of other real tests.

The reason you very rarely find dual processors in most consumer PCs is, well, you don't need it. The PC's CPUs are so fast by themselves they're unnecessary. Apple had to do dual G4s as a pathetic attempt to keep up, and they're doing the dual 2GHz right now to try to capture the audio nuts/graphics nuts that have started jumping ships in hordes to faster PCs.

This is just stupid. Why should it matter how many processors one has as long as the performance is what you want and the price isn't prohibitive. And the G5 is not a consumer PC. Apple has a consumer PC, the imac. If you are a hard ass graphics professional the G5 is for you.

And are these the graphics nuts who are shifting to Linux.

As if you can see into the mind of Apple's design team as to why they use dual processors. This isn't even up to your usual low standards.

And as for the sites you linked to, if you bother looking around their claims are dubious. I mean the guy on haxial talks about comparing it with a 3.2 ghz Pentium, only a day after that chip was announced.

I'm really not prepared to endorse any inflated claims for any computer. All the G5 shows is that Apple has emerged from the bad period with Motorola. We'll see what happens next.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Cloud9
I think it's pointless to continue this debate until we see some benchmarks on the PowerMac G5 Dual 2.0GHz on the Spec.org site. You can bet that since Steve Jobs mention the Spec benchmarks at WWDC, that it will surely be on there soon.

It's possible that IBM, although not having posted their next roadmap, may soon be moving to a 90-nanometer production as well. There have rumors circulating about this on Mac rumor sites.

Oh, and by the way Asher. It wasn't Apple's fault that they couldn't keep up with Intel/AMD the last 5 years or so. It's Motorola's fault; they cut their R&D and are now looking to sell their Microprocessor business.

Apple just tried to do the best they could with the crappy hand that Motorola had dealt them. How did they do it? By innovating their OS and increasing the sophistication of the internal hardware. A spokesman from IBM talked about this at Apple's World Wide Developers Conference (WWDC) yesterday. IBM says that it spends about $5 billion on R&D/year and a huge portion of that goes into it's microprocessor business. I'd say it's highly likely that Apple is going to quickly phase out it's G4 computers and begin replacing them with G5 computers with the IBM PPC 970. It is then expected to end it's contract with Motorola. All I have to say is thank you to Apple for that. And thank you IBM for the PowerPC 970 processor. Cheers to the future!

This about sums up all the facts (especially the bolded parts). Just accept it Asher.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I still want to know what THIS means :

There has been speculation that Apple would eventually use Intel chips and the announcement on Monday does not chance that, Enderle said, adding that he still expected Apple to announce next year it will use Intel chips.

"I think chances are like 8 out of 10 they will go with Intel," Enderle said. "I know that he's (Jobs) been over at Intel an awful lot and Intel has been over with him quite a bit."

A spokesman for Apple declined to comment.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/ptech/06/24/apple.g5.reut/index.html

[Drake Tungsten]

Asher, isnt it a bit ridiculous to open a thread about the new PowerMac just for flaming it?

It is a bit ridiculous, but did you really expect anything different? Jobs are getting scarce in Redmond, so Asher needs to strive for even higher levels of zealotry to keep his paycheck.

[monolith94]

http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125,59373,00.html

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I still want to know what THIS means :

There has been speculation that Apple would eventually use Intel chips and the announcement on Monday does not chance that, Enderle said, adding that he still expected Apple to announce next year it will use Intel chips.

"I think chances are like 8 out of 10 they will go with Intel," Enderle said. "I know that he's (Jobs) been over at Intel an awful lot and Intel has been over with him quite a bit."

A spokesman for Apple declined to comment.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/ptech/0...eut/index.html

This kind of speculation has been floating around for years, and fortunately for Apple it has never happened. There are some sources that say it will eventually happen someday and some that refute it. But since it hasn't happened in all this time, I refuse to believe that it will ever happen. JMHO.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Atahualpa
tell me you would have expected to hear something different and when you have tell me again

thats just an excuse. basically what you do is make fun of Apple because of their marketing which is the same way with ALL companies.
And when you mention AMD, whats with their model rating? The XP 3200+ that they claim the fastet CPU available. Couldnt even beat the PIV 3Ghz.

Hey! I completely agree.

In fact I had a thread on that very thing yesterday.

Give me points for consistency, woman!

[Asher]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Does anybody know what they're talking about here?

Originally posted by Agathon
Yes, but Pentiums can't.

Ohhh, Agathon thinks he's being clever while being pedantic.
Take a dose of your own medicine: Pentiums were discontinued over 6 years ago.

Workstations, not desktops (for whatever that's worth).

It's not worth a damn thing. Workstations are high-end desktops -- the dual G5s and dual Xeons are in the same pricerange and cater to the same markets, so why is it that Apple zealots insist Xeons are workstations and dual G5s are desktops? Is it because it's a convenient way to ignore competition?

Anyway I saw the G5 absolutely spank a dual Xeon in the photoshop race. And then hand it its ass in a number of other real tests.

Photoshop results from Apple with selected filters and optimizations settings -- the most credible benchmark anyone could ever use.

This is just stupid. Why should it matter how many processors one has as long as the performance is what you want and the price isn't prohibitive. And the G5 is not a consumer PC. Apple has a consumer PC, the imac. If you are a hard ass graphics professional the G5 is for you.

By consumer PC, I mean desktop.

So which is it? Is the PowerMac a workstation or a desktop? If you're insisting the PowerMac is not a consumer PC, then it is thereby a Workstation, shattering dozens of Apple's marketing claims.

And are these the graphics nuts who are shifting to Linux.

No, there are no competent general purpose graphics programs for Linux.

As if you can see into the mind of Apple's design team as to why they use dual processors.

Um. Do you think they used dual processors because it's fun to use more electricity?

They used them for marketing (2 processors is better than 1) and to cater to the Workstation market which are fleeing to the PC (look at the PowerMac sales statistics for the past 2 years, truly pathetic).

And as for the sites you linked to, if you bother looking around their claims are dubious. I mean the guy on haxial talks about comparing it with a 3.2 ghz Pentium, only a day after that chip was announced.

This is dubious way? Everyone knew the 3.2GHz would be out on this very day for months, and 95% of stock 3.0GHz P4s hit 3.2GHz with ease. It's dubious to use a 3.2GHz a day after it came out and to compare this to a chip that won't be out for months? I agree. The least Apple could've done would compare it to the estimates SPEC scores for Prescott, which are in the 1500-range.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
This about sums up all the facts (especially the bolded parts). Just accept it Asher.

1) I know whose fault the G4 ****up was. It was Apple's for choosing Motorola (an embedded chip company? Hello! They don't give a sh*t about desktop performance) over IBM, and it was Motorola for not giving a ****. It takes two to tango.
2) The lack of dual 2.0GHz PowerPC 970s on the spec.org site is simply an obvious delay tactic on your behalf. I even posted very liberal numbers for the dual 2.0GHz which are, without a doubt, at the maximum possible score for the 2.0GHz PowerPC 970s, and you still ask for me. A chip with a 10% higher clockrate on the exact same architecture as another chip will be, at a maximum, 10% higher. Wishing & hoping isn't going to change this, it's simply delaying the inevitable so you can have peace of mind. Ignorance is bliss...
3) As for Apple doing the best they could with the limitations -- is that true? Apple's OS X was one of the worst things they couldn't done with regards to the hardware -- the G4 was already pathetically slow, and then Apple replaced the rather neat & tidy & efficient MacOS 9 with a bloaty, eyecandy-with-software-rendering OS like OS X? If anything it entrenched the idea just how slow Macs are compared to PCs because the OS was so slow on the G4 hardware.

This kind of speculation has been floating around for years, and fortunately for Apple it has never happened.

I agree it's unlikely Intel will make Apple chips -- Apple isn't that smart.

Apple instead leaches PC hardware like mad -- SerialATA, PCI-X, AGP 8x, USB 2.0, HyperTransport bus, etc. and then at the same time insists everyone is copying them (while at the same time adding **** like videoconferencing to iChat ala MSN, and fast user switching ala XP...)