[Metropolis Man]

http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0504macs.html

This is really exciting stuff, especially the iMacs. I can't afford a PowerMac and an iMac would be my next purchase. I have a few questions —

1. First off, how does Ryan Katz protect himself legally from this kind of article? I'm married to a lawyer so I think about this stuff. It's not like Apple is afraid to go after Think Secret. We all want to know about Apple's new offerings in advance (myself included), but they are so protective by nature, I wonder if Ryan or Think Secret will be in deep doo doo. I hope not — thanks for the article, Ryan!

2. I purchased the 800mhz G4-iMac when it first came out with the 5200 32 MB graphics card. What is the performance difference between the 5200 and the ATI 9600?

3. Would the type of Ram be different than the G4 iMacs?

Thanks.

[abraham]

it is interesting that they still can't get a 3.0 Ghz Powermac... hmmmm
And I am glad they updated the Imac G5 videocard..
And it is good to see on the superdrive emac that they bumped the standard ram to 512.

[Gizzer]

Gaaah!! I don't mind the speedbumped processor - that's to be expected for a new rev. I'm glad they've done something useful with the video card & given it 128Mb & a better GPU. But I'm gutted now because I've got an "old" iMac G5 with cr@ppy video card!

I used to think my iMac G5 (1.8Ghz) was quick until I bought World of Warcraft! My Powerbook (1.5Ghz) plays it faster, at higher resolution, and with more effects switched on! Curse that cr@ppy GPU Grrr!

Still: At least new owners will have more fun with them!

[thegelding]

1. no idea
2. it is the same card they are putting in the powermac...it is a good card with 128...your iMac FP (same as mine) is 32...the ATI 9600 will be a big big jump
3. different ram from the FP...different bus speed (huge jump there also)
iMac G5--PC3200 (400MHz) DDR SDRAM---iMac FP PC133-333

me...can't wait...come on apple, make me spend some serious change

g

[Dave J]

Originally Posted by abraham it is interesting that they still can't get a 3.0 Ghz Powermac... hmmmm

Now there's a euphemism for you. If the processor in these "updates" isn't an MP, what are the chances we'll get a real update at WWDC?

[Crusader]

<Sigh>

Looks like it's time to go get another summer job so I can go buy one of these suckers...

[yanges]

well, now my decision is made now that i see the new specs!

i have been thinking about getting the iMac 17" 1.8 model and now that it is getting bumped to 2.0ghz with 128mb video ram, 528mb ram and 160gb hard drive, that is definitely the one i am going to get! :smokey:

let's hope those specs are correct and i hope the price remains pretty much the same....

[ASZ993]

I'm suprised no one brought this one up.

Think Secret has reported that two new eMacs, code-name Q86J, will have speedbumped processors up to 1.42Ghz, and a new 64MB Radeon 9600 video card. Here are some details on the new configs:

Low End:
1.42Ghz G4
256MB DDR SDRAM
80 GB HDD
Combo Drive

High End:
1.42Ghz G4
512MB DDR SDRAM
80 GB HDD
SuperDrive (possibly capable of dual layer burning)

There are no details about pricing yet.

[SpecMode]

Well, someone brought it up on Slashdot, if nowhere else. TS seems to be getting a lot of attention from them as of late...I'm sure glad I'm not paying the bandwidth bill.

I guess this sorta kills the idea that Apple was phasing out the eMac line, doesn't it? I have never particularly cared for the eMac, personally, but I suppose that given their price point, they're really aimed more at schools than the typical end-user (the prime target of the iMac G5).

[rollercoaster375]

Originally Posted by yanges well, now my decision is made now that i see the new specs! i have been thinking about getting the iMac 17" 1.8 model and now that it is getting bumped to 2.0ghz with 128mb video ram, 528mb ram and 160gb hard drive, that is definitely the one i am going to get! :smokey: let's hope those specs are correct and i hope the price remains pretty much the same....

528 Mb ram? Wow... What an... *interesting* number =D

[yanges]

Originally Posted by rollercoaster375 528 Mb ram? Wow... What an... *interesting* number =D

oops!!

i guess i meant 512mb ram

http://thinksecret.com/news/0504macs.html

[Wrao]

Welp, it's not as big as I was hoping for, but it's pretty much everything I was holding out for (better video card, more standard ram, bigger HD standard at the same prices) So, I'm stoked to get a 20" iMac when they come out, welp... if aapl goes back up again that is

[Luca]

I have merged the iMac and eMac threads together since they're basically talking about the same thing.

TS's speculation on graphics cards seems... off. In the linked article, they say that:

- The iMac's GPU will remain unchanged, the FX5200 w/ 64 MB
- The eMac will get a Radeon 9600 w/ 64 MB
- The PowerMacs will get Radeon 9600s w/ 128 MB on the low end, and the top dog will get a 256 MB Radeon 9650.

First of all, they don't mention which variant of each card will be going into each model. That makes a HUGE difference, especially with ATI. There is a significant performance difference between the Radeon 9600, 9600 Pro, and 9600XT. There's also a difference between an FX5200 and an FX5200 Ultra. The 9600 and 5200 are about equal, as are the 9600 Pro and 5200 Ultra.

So, if the iMacs are using the 5200 Ultra and the eMacs are using the 9600 plain (non-Pro), then I guess the eMacs will still be behind the iMacs in graphics capability but they'll be much more capable. The confusing thing is the PowerMacs. Do the low end ones use the 9600, 9600 Pro, or 9600XT? And what's a Radeon 9650? There's no mention of the 9650 anywhere on ATI's site, and one of the top hits for it (first page of English-only Google results) is actually a link to TS's speculation.

I call bullshit on at least the PowerMac GPU. Even if ATI does come out with a 9650, if it follows their naming conventions it won't be any better than the 9600 and not an upgrade at all, just a slightly modernized replacement. ATI's Radeon 9200 and 9250 are virtually the same, and in fact the 9250 is a bit slower. Then again, ATI does have about the most confusing naming scheme on the planet so you can't say anything for sure.

Oh, and without major improvements in other areas, a 200 MHz speed bump for the PowerMacs is pretty lame.

[MCQ]

You need to brush up on your reading skills Luca:

As first reported over a month ago, the updated iMac G5, code-named Q45 C/D, will reach 2GHz, while video memory is doubled to 128MB and the card itself upgraded to ATI's Radeon 9600.

I assume you did read the part about the speculation that the reports point to the 970MP as opposed to the 970GX. Obviously, dual dual-core processors would be a significant improvement, if multithreaded code can take advantage.

[Wraven]

Yeah Luca, WTF man???

[Luca]

Ugh. Stupid ThinkSecret.

"Other specifications will remain unchanged..." appears after a list of the different models and their specifications, and no video card information is shown there. I didn't notice that it was mentioned ABOVE the list.

And yeah, I said that without any big improvements in other areas, a 200 MHz bump would be silly and embarrassing. I would consider a move to dual-core processors to be a pretty damn big improvement .

[Jootec from Mars]

Originally Posted by Luca The 9600 and 5200 are about equal, as are the 9600 Pro and 5200 Ultra.

You are completely wrong. A FX5200 Ultra is only slightly faster than a Radeon 9200. The Radeon 9600/Pro/XT is in a completely differerent ball park.

Take a look at this video card comparison posted on 29th Dec 2003 at tomshardware.com.

http://graphics.tomshardware.com/gra...229/index.html

[omem]

Those bitches!!
Will i be able to upgrade my video card some time later if i want to?

[thegelding]

unlikely...think they are part of the iMac AOI motherboard

g


which is why i was waiting for rev. B

[Metropolis Man]

Originally Posted by Jootec from Mars You are completely wrong. A FX5200 Ultra is only slightly faster than a Radeon 9200. The Radeon 9600/Pro/XT is in a completely differerent ball park. Take a look at this video card comparison posted on 29th Dec 2003 at tomshardware.com. http://graphics.tomshardware.com/gra...229/index.html

You'd better check your own link before calling someone completely wrong. According to the stats on that table the chipclock for the base 9600 and the 5200Ultra are both at 325. They both have the same pipes (4 X 1) and bus width (128-bit). The bad news (if Apple replaces the 5200Ultra with the base 9600) is the 9600 has a lower memory clock (425) than the 5200Ultra (650).

So, in my eyes, just going on the stats on paper, if Apple replaces the 5200Ultra with the base 9600 it would not be an improvement at all.

Am I missing something? I certainly hope so because I want one of these as much as everyone else.

[yanges]

Originally Posted by Luca I have merged the iMac and eMac threads together since they're basically talking about the same thing. TS's speculation on graphics cards seems... off. In the linked article, they say that: - The iMac's GPU will remain unchanged, the FX5200 w/ 64 MB - The eMac will get a Radeon 9600 w/ 64 MB - The PowerMacs will get Radeon 9600s w/ 128 MB on the low end, and the top dog will get a 256 MB Radeon 9650. First of all, they don't mention which variant of each card will be going into each model. That makes a HUGE difference, especially with ATI. There is a significant performance difference between the Radeon 9600, 9600 Pro, and 9600XT. There's also a difference between an FX5200 and an FX5200 Ultra. The 9600 and 5200 are about equal, as are the 9600 Pro and 5200 Ultra. So, if the iMacs are using the 5200 Ultra and the eMacs are using the 9600 plain (non-Pro), then I guess the eMacs will still be behind the iMacs in graphics capability but they'll be much more capable. The confusing thing is the PowerMacs. Do the low end ones use the 9600, 9600 Pro, or 9600XT? And what's a Radeon 9650? There's no mention of the 9650 anywhere on ATI's site, and one of the top hits for it (first page of English-only Google results) is actually a link to TS's speculation. I call bullshit on at least the PowerMac GPU. Even if ATI does come out with a 9650, if it follows their naming conventions it won't be any better than the 9600 and not an upgrade at all, just a slightly modernized replacement. ATI's Radeon 9200 and 9250 are virtually the same, and in fact the 9250 is a bit slower. Then again, ATI does have about the most confusing naming scheme on the planet so you can't say anything for sure. Oh, and without major improvements in other areas, a 200 MHz speed bump for the PowerMacs is pretty lame.

which linked article? this is the info from the article:

iMac G5, eMac

As first reported over a month ago, the updated iMac G5, code-named Q45 C/D, will reach 2GHz, while video memory is doubled to 128MB and the card itself upgraded to ATI's Radeon 9600. All models will also feature Bluetooth 2.0 and will ship pre-installed with Tiger and iLife '05.

Two 17-inch and one 20-inch model will continue to be offered in the following configurations:

"Good" 17-inch, 1.8GHz
512K L2 cache
512MB DDR SDRAM
160GB Serial ATA Hard Drive
Combo Drive (CD-RW/DVD-ROM)

"Better" 17-inch, 2GHz
512K L2 cache
512MB DDR SDRAM
160GB Serial ATA Hard Drive
SuperDrive (supporting dual-layer as well as DVD±RW/CD-RW burning)

"Best" 20-inch, 2GHz
512K L2 cache
512MB DDR SDRAM
250GB Serial ATA Hard Drive
SuperDrive (supporting dual-layer as well as DVD±RW/CD-RW burning)
Other specifications will remain unchanged; pricing is expected to remain in line with current models.

Two eMac models, code-named Q86J, will continue to be available and will have their G4 processors bumped from 1.25GHz to 1.42GHz. The eMacs will also see their 32MB ATI Radeon 9200 video card upgraded to a 64MB ATI Radeon 9600 card, to take full advantage of new graphics capabilities found in Tiger's Core Image technology.

The low-end, Combo Drive eMac will feature 256MB of DDR SDRAM and an 80GB hard drive, while the SuperDrive eMac will pack 512MB of DDR SDRAM and a 160GB hard drive. Like the Power Mac G5 and iMac G5, the SuperDrive eMac will be capable of burning to dual-layer DVD+R media, as well as DVD±RW and CD-RW. It's unclear whether prices will be shaved slightly or remain the same.

it shows the iMac video card being upgraded so i am not sure what you are referring to?

[Metropolis Man]

Originally Posted by Metropolis Man So, in my eyes, just going on the stats on paper, if Apple replaces the 5200Ultra with the base 9600 it would not be an improvement at all. Am I missing something? I certainly hope so because I want one of these as much as everyone else.

I did forget that the replacement in question (9600) in slated to be 128MB compared to the smaller amount in current G5 iMacs. I actually only have 32MB in my 800-mhz G4. So the higher amount of memory is obviously good, but still.....pound for pound, is the base 9600 a better card than the 5200Ultra?

[Robo]

Yay! I'm glad that they improved the GPU on the iMac.

I'd like to get a iMac G5 by the holidays, probably when the Rev. C is announced. I don't have the money to get it now, so I'm going to get a Mac mini and start saving for a 20-incher.

Of course, then, if the Powerbook G5 is announced at Macworld in January, I'll feel dumb.

I think these are some good updates. Way to go, Apple (and ThinkSecret!).

Three words, though: What about iBook?

[Robo]

Actually, I guess my question would be, do you think that we'll see a Rev. C iMac by the holidays? I figured they'd pump it out around November or so to spur holiday sales, but they might wait until Macworld in January...?

Either way, I should probably wait until Macworld to buy it, but really, I don't care what is announced at MWSF. I mean, I always wanted an iMac G3, and then they killed it, and then I really really wanted an iMac G4, and then they killed it. I can't not get an iMac G5.

If new Powerbooks are announced, I'll just start saving again...

[Hodog16]

I've been waiting for an imac revision so this is welcome news. However, my timeline was probably purchasing in August.

Does anybody think there would be a new revision done in the fall/early winter, or do you think it'd be pushed back until the early 2006 Macworld?

If the imac G5 rev. B will be good until December or so, I might as well buy one the first day instead of waiting until August, since they're upgrading everything I wanted anyway.

[RC23]

if one thing sucks about mac.

its that u have hardly any control over the direction of your hardware..

[wtd]

Originally Posted by RC23 if one thing sucks about mac. its that u have hardly any control over the direction of your hardware..

Not that consumers on the x86 side of things have that much more control. They just have massive inertia that makes it easier to predict.

[Luca]

I think what RC23 means is that you can constantly swap out the various components of an x86 system to create whatever kind of computer you want. With Macs, if your current one isn't doing everything you want and there isn't one available from Apple that fulfills your needs, you have to either scrounge the overpriced used market or wait for Apple to release an upgraded version. With a PC you can just add whatever you want to it.

Let's say you have a PC and want to use a pair of video cards in SLI mode to increase performance. If you don't have an SLI-capable motherboard, you just buy one that is SLI-capable, move all your other components over to it, and get the SLI video cards. If you have a Mac, you have to wait for Apple to release SLI-capable PowerMacs. There are no other options unless you want SLI so bad that you are willing to switch to a PC.

[ldv]

Originally Posted by wtd Not that consumers on the x86 side of things have that much more control. They just have massive inertia that makes it easier to predict.

The PC world, because the dollar amounts are orders of magnitude larger than the Apple world, DOES utilize roadmaps. You can make easier buying decisions as you know "single core for March, dual core Opterons roll out April, May, June". The entire PC market is consumer-friendly this way. For Mac, there is no information other than what the "rumor" sites publish. The situation is not friendly to business and frankly how Apple does things is not very intelligent.

[psmith2.0]

Does everyone think the new, upgraded 512MB stock RAM will come as two 256MB DIMMS or a single 512MB (leaving a slot open to easily toss in another 512MB or 1GB DIMM)?



I'd love for it to be a single 512MB, but I'm betting it won't...