Jump to content


New G5s! Amazon Leak!


  • Please log in to reply
76 replies to this topic

#61 Lucian

Lucian

    Uberspewer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3028 posts
  • Location:IMG Offices, Fong Kong

Posted 28 April 2005 - 02:59 PM

I'm hoping I can score a demo dual 2.5 for cheap.
I live in Mexifornia.

#62 wilt666

wilt666

    Notorious

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 221 posts
  • Location:Stonedville UK

Posted 28 April 2005 - 05:53 PM

No PCI-E is a real let down. I'm sure its going to be Xmas/new year before we see another model and thats a long time to wait for whats been out on the PC now for quite a while.
Would of been interesting to see what kind of boost to fps the 6800 and X800 PCI-E versions had over AGP cards in Doom3.
The Dual Layer DVD is handy but a cheap thing for Apple to upgrade.
Over all a bit of a dissapointment :(

#63 Arenzera

Arenzera

    Heroic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 495 posts
  • Location:Australia

Posted 29 April 2005 - 02:33 AM

What's the big deal with PCI-e over PCI-X? I mean, how many video cards available on the Mac use either new variants of PCI?

Also, the last I saw, AGP video cards performed better than PCI-X (I don't know anything about PCI-e so I can't say).

Kiel :-)

#64 Space_Pirate_Killer

Space_Pirate_Killer

    above n00b

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2270 posts
  • Location:Under a Crust.

Posted 29 April 2005 - 03:01 AM

Its not a question of how many PCI-e cards are available now, but about future cards.
The official Inside Mac Games forum Space Pirate Killer.

#65 Tetsuya

Tetsuya

    Master Blaster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2172 posts
  • Location:MI

Posted 29 April 2005 - 04:55 AM

for current and probably the next generation of 3D cards, there really isnt anything special about PCI-express.  Basically, its a "16x" slot, which runs about twice as fast bandwidth wise as an 8x AGP Pro slot.  There are other benefits (I'm pretty sure there is more power available to PCI-e) but nothing leaps and bounds better.

The one major benefit is the ability to run two 3D cards off of the same bus - and therefore use the old-is-new-again SLI technology to get super performance by slapping two bleeding edge cards into one machine and having them work together.

Both the curernt generation and next generation cards do and will support AGP... In fact, you cant get an ATI X850 in PCI-e... the AGP market is in so high of demand, that ATI isnt producing those cards PCI-e yet.. which really annoyed my friend when he built his new PC - with PCI-e, becaus the best card he could get from ATI was an X700 Pro.  (some third-party card makers are now making Radeon X850 chipset PCI-e cards, howerver)

some nVidia manufacturers DO make PCI-e versions of their high end cards, but the performance difference currently is nothing to write home about.

Mostly, it is a matter of future proofing.  More upgradeability, since after the next major release, the manufacturers will probably only support PCI-e for their high end cards.  However, since on a Mac you are already accepting an upgradeability deficit, let me remind you that by the time we get to a 3D card generation that really takes advantage of PCI-e, even a G5 Dual 2.7 would need to be replaced to use it anyway... the machine would be your slow spot, not the card, so really, is a wash as far as im concerned.

Would i like PCI-e?  You bet.  Is it necessary in this hardware revision?  No.

My major dissapointment with this hardware revision is the sudden dearth of Video Cards available as BTO from Apple.. holy crap there is NOTHING!

T

#66 simfish

simfish

    Fanatic

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 98 posts
  • Location:New Zealand

Posted 29 April 2005 - 05:16 AM

Everyone should also know that AMD's 64-bit cpu's are only at 2.6GHz so the G5 is now faster. Intel has the first 64 bit processor that has broken the 3GHz mark at 3.??GHz yet it is slower than AMD's 2.6GHz cpu so we shouldn't be to worried about 2.7GHz G5's yet.

PS

I'm sure someone will point out I'm wrong but this is my current understanding.

#67 MacProject

MacProject

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1320 posts
  • Location:usa

Posted 29 April 2005 - 12:03 PM

Minor point, but I just noticed that the new Dual processor G5's do not come with a 56k modem built-in.  
Minor inconvenience for those who don't have broadband access in their areas...

#68 placy

placy

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 900 posts
  • Location:Eastern Washington state

Posted 29 April 2005 - 12:40 PM

tiskippy, on April 28th 2005, 03:38 PM, said:

The other thing is something Apple hasn't changed for a long time.  The G5 doesn't ship standard with a 56K modem installed.  You can BTO one for $29.  In the past, it was always an option that you could remove.  I guess they decided that most people don't use the modem anymore, and that's one way to cut costs.  I'm glad to see this change.

View Post


Actually the low end single 1.8Ghz system does come "standard" configured with
a modem (at least on Apple's website); the higher end models don't.  They should
have it standard with or without the modem across the board.

I'm kind of waiting for them to start offering the refurbished G5s with Tiger as an
included update disk.  For now they just come with 10.3.4

#69 Joshua

Joshua

    Heroic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 368 posts
  • Location:Illinois

Posted 29 April 2005 - 02:17 PM

placy, on April 29th 2005, 12:40 PM, said:

Actually the low end single 1.8Ghz system does come "standard" configured with a modem (at least on Apple's website); the higher end models don't.  They should have it standard with or without the modem across the board.
That makes sense though, because the 1.8GHz box is an old configuration. So that change in the standard was not realized in the 1.8GHz box.

I think its a fascinating change. Just like when Apple killed the floppy. It's their way of saying, "Ok people, let GO of this dying technology already," yet not without totally irritating people, since you can still acquire floppies and 56k modems, just not as part of a standard install.

Josh
QuickSilver G4/1.4GHz - GF4Ti - 1.12GB RAM - OS X 10.3.9
Dell P4/1.4GHz - GF4Ti - 512MB RAM - Windows XP SP2

#70 tiskippy

tiskippy

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 528 posts
  • Location:Ames, IA

Posted 29 April 2005 - 04:42 PM

Shade, on April 28th 2005, 02:17 PM, said:

I'm just wondering how your benefiting from it...

I was looking into buying the Dual 2.7 but should I go with the Dual 2.3 instead?

View Post


Because the dual 2.0 is still a current model, I'm not feeling like I have an outdated machine, even though its now 2 revisions old.  That means that I don't have this urge to trade my machine in towards a new G5.

If I were you, I'd probably get the 2.3 right now.  Personally, I bought the high end machine because it was the only dual processor model at the time.  If there had been a slower dual machine, I would have gone with that.
Brandon
MacBook Pro, 2.16GHz Core Duo, 2GB RAM, 15" Glossy Display

#71 Eric5h5

Eric5h5

    Minion Tormentor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7160 posts

Posted 29 April 2005 - 08:34 PM

Joshua, on April 29th 2005, 03:17 PM, said:

I think its a fascinating change. Just like when Apple killed the floppy. It's their way of saying, "Ok people, let GO of this dying technology already," yet not without totally irritating people, since you can still acquire floppies and 56k modems, just not as part of a standard install.

I would love to stop using the 56K modem in my G5, but there are still many areas where broadband isn't available or is too expensive.  Maybe Apple could arrange something with telecom companies to fix this situation, but until something happens, I'll still probably be using the same modem years from now.  Unfortunately.  (Although, to be honest, 90% of the time, it's fast enough.  It's actually the tying-up-of-the-phone that bothers me more.)

--Eric

#72 iEvan

iEvan

    Heroic

  • IMG Writers
  • 357 posts
  • Location:Ontario, Canada
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 08 May 2005 - 09:00 PM

A note on Barefeats.com today reads...

*snip*
Tomorrow we will post an article comparing the speed of the G5/2.7GHz Power Mac to the previous fastest G5, the G5/2.5GHz Power Mac. The results will underwhelm you.
*/snip*

Remember guns don't kill people... Pfhor do.


#73 Lucian

Lucian

    Uberspewer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3028 posts
  • Location:IMG Offices, Fong Kong

Posted 08 May 2005 - 09:23 PM

That's not surprising. The theoretical difference between 2.7 GHz and 2.5 GHz is under 10%. The real world difference will be even less.
I live in Mexifornia.

#74 iEvan

iEvan

    Heroic

  • IMG Writers
  • 357 posts
  • Location:Ontario, Canada
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 09 May 2005 - 12:52 PM

Lucian, on May 8th 2005, 10:23 PM, said:

That's not surprising. The theoretical difference between 2.7 GHz and 2.5 GHz is under 10%. The real world difference will be even less.

View Post



Benchmarks are up at MacWorld

Interesting tidbit...

*snip*
The one test result that puzzles us is the top-of-the-line dual-2.7GHz modelís Unreal Tournament 2004 score. With 256MB of video memory, we expect the ATI Radeon 9650 to beat the older 128MB Radeon 9600 XT found in the dual-2.5GHz system. But even after removing the 9600XT from the dual 2.5GHz Power Mac and installing it in the new system, the older card still bested the new one, even at higher resolutions.
*/snip*

Remember guns don't kill people... Pfhor do.


#75 Lucian

Lucian

    Uberspewer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3028 posts
  • Location:IMG Offices, Fong Kong

Posted 09 May 2005 - 02:26 PM

Read AJ's comments in the comments section of that article. He hit the nail on the head.
I live in Mexifornia.

#76 Eric5h5

Eric5h5

    Minion Tormentor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7160 posts

Posted 09 May 2005 - 05:53 PM

iEvan, on May 9th 2005, 01:52 PM, said:

Interesting tidbit...

*snip*
The one test result that puzzles us is the top-of-the-line dual-2.7GHz modelís Unreal Tournament 2004 score. With 256MB of video memory, we expect the ATI Radeon 9650 to beat the older 128MB Radeon 9600 XT found in the dual-2.5GHz system.

That doesn't puzzle me at all...what puzzles me is why some people always put way too much importance on VRAM.  Apparently including people who really ought to know better.  That would be similar to running some benchmarks and being puzzled as to why a 2.7GHz G5 with 1GB of RAM is faster than a 2.3GHz G5 with 2GB of RAM.  Except in extreme cases, the extra RAM will *not* make up for the difference in CPU speed (or GPU speed as the case may be).

--Eric

#77 PeopleLikeFrank

PeopleLikeFrank

    Uberspewer

  • IMG Pro Users
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2690 posts
  • Location:The Republic of Soviet Canukistan
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 11 May 2005 - 12:20 PM

Eric5h5, on May 9th 2005, 06:53 PM, said:

That doesn't puzzle me at all...what puzzles me is why some people always put way too much importance on VRAM.  Apparently including people who really ought to know better.  That would be similar to running some benchmarks and being puzzled as to why a 2.7GHz G5 with 1GB of RAM is faster than a 2.3GHz G5 with 2GB of RAM.  Except in extreme cases, the extra RAM will *not* make up for the difference in CPU speed (or GPU speed as the case may be).

--Eric

View Post


It's annoying, but the VRAM on a card is the only number that's well publicized for most cards. They mention the core and memory clock speeds in reviews and such, but then the memory size is pasted in big numbers on the front of the box. People then latch on to the easiest way to classify the cards. Why the card manufacturers do this I don't know.
The dork formerly known as nobody
---
MBP: C2D @ 2.66 Ghz | GeForce 9600M GT 256Mb | 8GB RAM | 120GB SSD + 500GB HD | 10.6.2 / W7 x64
PC: Q9550 | 6950 2GB | 8GB RAM | 80GB SSD + 750GB HD | W7 x64