[staph]

All-dual lineup! Hooray for that... may be time to think about upgrading my desktop machine at some point.

From the press release as posted at .com:

CUPERTINO, Calif., June 9 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Apple(R) today unveiled its new Power Mac(R) G5 desktop line with every model featuring dual 64-bit PowerPC G5 processors. The top model, featuring two 2.5 GHz processors, the industry's fastest front-side bus running at 1.25 GHz per processor, and advanced liquid cooling starts at $2,999. The entry model, featuring dual 1.8 GHz processors, starts at just $1,999. "Our professional customers, across many creative and scientific markets, have been impressed with the extraordinary performance of the dual processor Power Mac G5 running Apple's Unix-based Mac OS X," said Philip Schiller, Apple's senior vice president of Worldwide Product Marketing. "This new Power Mac G5 line has dual processors in every model to deliver even higher performance for our pro customers who need it." Powered by the PowerPC G5 processor, the Power Mac G5 utilizes 64-bit processing technology for memory expansion up to 8GB, and advanced 64-bit computation while running existing 32-bit applications natively. The top of the line Power Mac G5 now offers dual 2.5 GHz PowerPC G5 processors, each with an independent 1.25 GHz front-side bus for an astounding bandwidth of up to 20 GBps. All Power Mac G5 systems ship with Mac OS(R) X version 10.3 "Panther," which in combination with the Power Mac G5 provides creative professionals and scientists with computational power never before realized on a desktop system. The Power Mac G5 outperforms competing desktops on the market today and ran significantly faster than 3.4 GHz Pentium 4 systems on performance tests of the most popular applications for creative professionals and scientists, including: -- On a test of 45 commonly used actions, Adobe Photoshop ran almost twice as fast on a dual 2.5 GHz Power Mac G5 than on a 3.4 GHz Pentium 4-based PC; -- Logic Pro 6 on the dual 2.5 GHz Power Mac G5 played up to 138 more tracks with reverbs (over four times more) than with Cubase SX on a 3.4 GHz Pentium 4-based PC; and -- Final Cut Pro(R) HD running on a 2.5 GHz Power Mac G5 can run eight streams of 8-bit SD video versus five streams on a dual 3.06 GHz Xeon-based Avid workstation. The Power Mac G5 line offers leading-edge expansion with dual 1.5 Gbps serial ATA interfaces, the industry's fastest PCI-X interface technology and AGP 8X Pro graphics. The Power Mac G5 comes standard with either the NVIDIA GeForceFX 5200 Ultra or the ATI Radeon 9600 XT graphics card; the ATI Radeon 9800 XT high-performance graphics card is available as a build-to-order option for incredible 3D design, visualization and gaming. All Power Mac G5 desktops deliver industry-leading connectivity and high-performance I/O, including Gigabit Ethernet, FireWire(R) 800 and FireWire 400 ports, three USB 2.0 ports, optical digital audio input and output, built-in support for 54 Mbps AirPort(R) Extreme wireless networking and an optional Bluetooth module. Pricing & Availability The dual 1.8 GHz and dual 2.0 GHz Power Mac G5 models are available now, and the dual 2.5 GHz Power Mac G5 model is expected to be available in July through the Apple Store(R) (http://www.apple.com), at Apple's retail stores and Apple Authorized Resellers. The single 1.25 GHz Power Mac G4, with suggested retail price of $1,299 (US), will no longer be in production and is available for purchase while supplies last through the Apple Store (http://www.apple.com), at Apple's retail stores and Apple Authorized Resellers. The Power Mac G5, with a suggested retail price of $1,999 (US), includes: -- Dual 1.8 GHz 64-bit PowerPC G5; -- 256MB 400 MHz 128-bit DDR SDRAM (4GB maximum); -- 80GB Serial ATA 7200 rpm hard drive; -- AGP 8X Pro graphics slot; -- NVIDIA GeForceFX 5200 Ultra with 64MB DDR SDRAM; -- 3 PCI slots (64-bit, 33 MHz); and -- 8x SuperDrive(TM) (DVD-R/CD-RW). The Power Mac G5, with a suggested retail price of $2,499 (US), includes: -- Dual 2.0 GHz 64-bit PowerPC G5; -- 512MB 400 MHz 128-bit DDR SDRAM (8GB maximum); -- 160GB Serial ATA 7200 rpm hard drive; -- AGP 8X Pro graphics slot; -- NVIDIA GeForceFX 5200 Ultra with 64MB DDR SDRAM; -- 3 PCI-X slots (one 64-bit 133 MHz, two 64-bit 100 MHz); and --8x SuperDrive (DVD-R/CD-RW). The Power Mac G5, with a suggested retail price of $2,999 (US), includes: -- Dual 2.5 GHz 64-bit PowerPC G5; -- 512MB 400 MHz 128-bit DDR SDRAM (8GB maximum); -- 160GB Serial ATA 7200 rpm hard drive; -- AGP 8X Pro graphics slot; -- ATI RADEON 9600 XT with 128MB DDR SDRAM; -- 3 PCI-X slots (one 64-bit 133 MHz, two 64-bit 100 MHz); and -- 8x SuperDrive (DVD-R/CD-RW). All Power Mac G5 systems ship with iChat AV, Safari(TM), Sherlock(R), Address Book, QuickTime(R), iLife(R) (includes iTunes(R), iPhoto(TM), iMovie(R), iDVD(TM) and GarageBand(TM)), iSync, iCal(R), DVD Player, Classic environment, Art Directors Toolkit X, EarthLink Total Access 2004, GraphicConverter, Microsoft Internet Explorer, OmniGraffle, OmniOutliner, QuickBooks for Mac New User Edition, Xcode and Zinio Reader. Build-to-order options include up to 8GB of RAM, 250GB Serial ATA hard drives, Combo (DVD-ROM/CD-RW) drive, graphics cards (NVIDIA GeForceFX 5200 Ultra, ATI Radeon 9600 XT, ATI Radeon 9800 XT), AirPort Extreme Card, Bluetooth module, Apple Wireless Keyboard and Apple Wireless Mouse, PCI-X Gigabit Ethernet Card, Apple Fibre Channel PCI Card and Mac OS X Server version 10.3 "Panther." Apple ignited the personal computer revolution in the 1970s with the Apple II and reinvented the personal computer in the 1980s with the Macintosh. Apple is committed to bringing the best personal computing experience to students, educators, creative professionals and consumers around the world through its innovative hardware, software and Internet offerings. NOTE: Apple, the Apple logo, Macintosh, Mac, Mac OS, Power Mac, Final Cut Pro, FireWire, AirPort, Apple Store, SuperDrive, Safari, Sherlock, QuickTime, iLife, iTunes, iPhoto, iMovie, iDVD, GarageBand and iCal are either registered trademarks or trademarks of Apple. Other company and product names may be trademarks of their respective owners.

[psmith2.0]

Let the caterwauling commence!

Although, I have to say: even though I harbor no Spec Whore tendencies, I have to admit that this is a bit of a ho-hum update.

We waited a year for this?



Jumped up 200MHz on the low end (and got a nice $200 price boost to go with it). Yes, I suppose the 2.5GHz model is a fine machine - they ALL are! - but what's so different now than when it was Motorola pooching out piss-ant updates once or so a year?

I honestly kinda expected the 2.2, 2.4 and 2.6 line-up. I never once considered TWO of the models would still be in the same exact range they were a YEAR ago.

Is it going to be ANOTHER full year, and in summer 2005 we have dual 2.0, 2.3 and 2.8 machines?



Was I wrong, after an entire year, to expect something a little more substantial? And where are the $@%^#! displays?!?! We're two generations (and an entire year) into a newly redesigned tower...where are their counterpart displays already?

[SonOfSylvanus]

Originally Posted by pscates2.0 .

Just admit it, you're as much spec whore as the rest of us.

Ooh - liquid cooling. Cool.

[Eugene]

In one year, AMD has gone from 2.0 GHz to 2.4 GHz.
In one year, Intel has gone from 3.2 GHz to 3.4 GHz.

Really, man, what were your expectations? This jump is humongous. Did you somehow expect IBM to vault over these guys? 3 GHz by January looks pretty likely to me. If that disappoints you, then I'm speechless.

[staph]

In other news, the motherboard shown on the Apple website goes all the way to the front of the case, meaning that the .com picture was either fake, or a scrapped prototype. The RAM is horizontal as well. They got the heat-sink right, however.

Not an overly exciting update, but dual processors throughout the line-up, and Rev B-status is good enough for me. Now if only I had AUD $3200 spare...

The watercooling looks extremely cool.

Oh -- and they're 90�m chips. No surprise there. The Apple white-paper doesn't name them by part name, but if they're not identical to the chips in the XServe, they're indistinguishably close.

And ADC is still on the video cards -- what does this say about updated displays without that connector?

[SonOfSylvanus]

Got the Radeon 9800XT 256MB. Isn't that what everyone wanted?

Originally Posted by staph And ADC is still on the video cards -- what does this say about updated displays without that connector?

Yeah, I was about to say... OLED my arse.

[SilentEchoes]

Liquid cooling? Thats very interesting to me. I NEVER thought Apple would go with liquid cooling...

I wanna get some info on it but there is like nothing one Apples webpage about it. Hmm..

EDIT: Whoop I foudn the information about the cooling. Its still going to take me a while to get over, I never expected that.

On a side note: Does anyone know how far the elastic bus will scale? I'm drooling over dual independent busses running well over 2x my processor speed.

[staph]

Originally Posted by SilentEchoes Liquid cooling? Thats very interesting to me. I NEVER thought Apple would go with liquid cooling... I wanna get some info on it but there is like nothing one Apples webpage about it. Hmm.. EDIT: Whoop I foudn the information about the cooling. Its still going to take me a while to get over, I never expected that.

There's a brief description and some graphics of it at www.apple.com/powermac under the design tab.

Edit: irrelevance comes quickly to me!

[Mac+]

I think the liquid cooling is just on the dual 2.5 GHz model - not across the board.

[psmith2.0]

Originally Posted by Eugene In one year, AMD has gone from 2.0 GHz to 2.4 GHz. In one year, Intel has gone from 3.2 GHz to 3.4 GHz. Really, man, what were your expectations? This jump is humongous. Did you somehow expect IBM to vault over these guys? 3 GHz by January looks pretty likely to me. If that disappoints you, then I'm speechless.

Well there you go then. I figure 3GHz by January too, now.

My "expectations" (even though a) I'm not buying and b) I wasn't basing any sort of decision on it and c) don't really care one way or the other, since I'm set with my PowerBook) were what Jobs mentioned. Am I offended or wringing my hands that they're not at 3GHz? Not at all. I honestly never expected that. I did, however, figure the new low-end might be 2.0 or 2.2. I don't really keep up with AMD and Intel, since...well, I just don't give a shit. I wasn't aware of their pokey climbing. That puts it into perspective. Thanks, I guess.

It's VERY cool that all models are now dual processor.

Hey, don't get me wrong: if I was a total Photoshop monkey and/or 3/4 of my income came from home-based freelance work, I'd get online TODAY and order the dual 1.8GHz, hands down! They're all fine machines and I'd be proud to own any of them.

I just figured the bottom/low-end would've skootched up a bit more than it did, that's all. The 2.0 > 2.5 jump? No complaints here...that IS impressive (since I was expecting the new high-end to be 2.6, and I can fudge a GHz or so.



If you're speechless that I'm "disappointed" (more surpised and curious than flat-out angry disappointment), then I'm speechless. I'm speechless that you're speechless about my speechlessness. Fucking speechless, man.

[Chinney]

Is liquid cooling actually good news? It sounds complicated rather than elegant, and possibly subject to excessive breakdown. And does it not also mean that IBM/Apple have not solved basic heat issues with the chip itself?

[Moogs]

The liquid cooling is NOT - as Apple suggests - because a dual 2.5 GHz packs so much more power (and thus emits more heat) than say a dual 2 GHz. It's more likely an effort to quiet the machine down, because I imagine that not having 9 fans drawing power will tend to quell the stupid Power Supply coil vibration problems they've been plagued with. They couldn't figure out a way to make the Power Supply thing go away, without drawing less power I suspect.

[SilentEchoes]

Originally Posted by Chinney Is liquid cooling actually good news? It sounds complicated rather than elegant, and possibly subject to excessive breakdown. And does it not also mean that IBM/Apple have not solved basic heat issues with the chip itself?

Basically the same reason I never expected Apple to go with this idea.. That and I expected a much larger radiator than they went with. From the looks of it Apple did a nice job of keeping it small and sexy, and I dont think its all that subject to break down if its done correctly. I mean if 9 fans can't keep it cool liquid cooling seems like the next logical step..

[SilentEchoes]

Originally Posted by Moogs The liquid cooling is NOT - as Apple suggests - because a dual 2.5 GHz packs so much more power (and thus emits more heat) than say a dual 2 GHz. It's more likely an effort to quiet the machine down, because I imagine that not having 9 fans drawing power will tend to quell the stupid Power Supply coil vibration problems they've been plagued with. They couldn't figure out a way to make the Power Supply thing go away, without drawing less power I suspect.

Doesnt the dual 2.5 still have the same amount of fans though I cant really find any good documentation on the liquid cooling system? And Wont the fan blowing on the radiator have to run at a decent RPM? Its cooling the hot liquid coming from both CPUs..

[Moogs]

I was looking for the same, but if the liquid cooling doesn't at least introduce fewer fans (there are obviously still fans used in general), what's the point, as then it would draw more and not less power (GHz per GHz) than the original models... wouldn't it?

[SilentEchoes]

Originally Posted by Moogs I was looking for the same, but if the liquid cooling doesn't at least introduce fewer fans (there are obviously still fans used in general), what's the point, as then it would draw more and not less power (GHz per GHz) than the original models... wouldn't it?

Well not really. There is no more power going to anything than before from what I can tell. It would be nice if Apple would describe the system a little better. That fan that blows on the radiator is going to have to run at a pretty high RPM to cool both G5 at once.

The way they depict the system it looks like they could cut down on 1 fan by doing this. The gains from that would probably be lost at spinning the other fan at higher RPM.

Keep in mind I could just be talking out of my ass, All I am going on is that little cartoon image. If anyone finds any good information let me know.

[alcimedes]

actually most liquid cooling systems i've looked at in the past are pretty solid. they don't break because they don't exactly have a lot of moving parts. you get a nice, closed system and a cooling fan and you're done.

the thing i would worry about is what happens if you have a tiny leak in your liquid cooling system. i'm sure apple's not using water in their cooling system, so you wouldn't really be able to add your own. i could see that being a problem 2+ years down the line. guess i'd get AppleCare on any tower with liquid cooling in it.

as for them cooling dual 2.5Ghz chips with liquid cooling, i'm not sure that's exactly terrible as far as news for a G5 laptop.

although the 2.5Ghz might run hot, a 1.5Ghz would be siginificantly cooler.

[SilentEchoes]

Originally Posted by alcimedes the thing i would worry about is what happens if you have a tiny leak in your liquid cooling system. i'm sure apple's not using water in their cooling system, so you wouldn't really be able to add your own. i could see that being a problem 2+ years down the line. guess i'd get AppleCare on any tower with liquid cooling in it.

I dont really see that happening. Unless your playing around with stuff inside your computer you shouldnt be I am pretty sure the copper pipe isnt just going to randomly spring a leak.

If it does though I will have a can of fix-a-flat ready

[Moogs]

Still, adding the "element" of liquid into an expensive computer would make me want to buy AppleCare right off the bat. Just one more thing that can go wrong (and if it does go wrong, it will be VERY wrong).

[709]

Originally Posted by alcimedes as for them cooling dual 2.5Ghz chips with liquid cooling, i'm not sure that's exactly terrible as far as news for a G5 laptop.

Speaking of that...there's a nice little article over at MacCentral today mentioning 'the word' from Apple on G5 laptops among other things.

Some snippits:

"I think it's important to realize that the technical challenges are not trivial putting that G5 in a PowerBook or anything else and not to expect a G5 anytime soon in a PowerBook -- certainly not before the end of the year," said Boger. While Boger didn't give a timeframe for an iMac G5, he did say the company faced similar challenges getting a G5 to work with their consumer desktop. "It's the same story -- the challenges are obvious when you look at the G5 and the size of the heat-syncs and the enclosure; that would be a heck of a challenge as well."

"It's actually quite simple," said Boger. "When we made that prediction, we just didn't realize the challenges moving to 90 nanometer would present. It turned out to be a much bigger challenge than anyone expected." "All-in-all, no we are not getting to 3GHz anytime soon, but what we are announcing today is a very significant upgrade in performance and its something that are customers will be very happy with."

And finally:

In announcing the new Power Mac G5 models, Apple also indicated that its single-processor Power Mac G4 models have been taken out of production. Since the Power Mac G5's introduction Apple has continued to manufacture and offer 1.25GHz Power Mac G4 systems in single and dual-processor versions. Apple said the $1,299 Power Mac G4 "will no longer be in production and is available for purchase while supplies last."

[EDS66]

Originally Posted by Chinney Is liquid cooling actually good news? It sounds complicated rather than elegant, and possibly subject to excessive breakdown. And does it not also mean that IBM/Apple have not solved basic heat issues with the chip itself?

I agree.

Looks to me like Apple cound not cool these puppies via the normal passive cooling means. Also looks to me like to get to 2.5 Gz Apple had to overclock the existing chips, and the only way they could get the overclocked chips to run with stability was to water cool them.

What's next? Peltiers? Crio-coolers?

[709]

Originally Posted by EDS66 Also looks to me like to get to 2.5 Gz Apple had to overclock the existing chips, and the only way they could get the overclocked chips to run with stability was to water cool them.

I was under the impression that the 2.5Ghz chip is at 90nm. Weren't these supposed to run cooler than the 130nm?

[billybobsky]

think of liquid cooling this way: the limit of heat transfer is based solely on the fundamental properties of the solids/liquids/gases involved. If you get a liquid that pulls less heat than metal does gram for gram but move that liquid at a higher rate to another location, the local temperature (let's say the processor) will be a lot lower. Couple this with a more efficient radiator (something that effectively doesn't distribute heat linearly like a heat sink does), and less fan speed would be necessary and the box would be quieter. Doing this in principle seems easy but you really have to tune the system to accommodate changes in heat generation by the processor.

[EDS66]

Originally Posted by 709 I was under the impression that the 2.5Ghz chip is at 90nm. Weren't these supposed to run cooler than the 130nm?

Maybe at 2.0 Ghz they would be a little cooler than the 970s, but, apparently, not at 2.5 Ghz.

[709]

Then wouldn't it make more sense to liquid cool the hotter 130nm (1.8/2.0Ghz) machines as well? I'm sooo confused.


[edit]: Looks like you snuck in a post between bbsky's there EDS66. I suppose that makes sense.

[EDS66]

Originally Posted by billybobsky think of liquid cooling this way: the limit of heat transfer is based solely on the fundamental properties of the solids/liquids/gases involved. If you get a liquid that pulls less heat than metal does gram for gram but move that liquid at a higher rate to another location, the local temperature (let's say the processor) will be a lot lower. Couple this with a more efficient radiator (something that effectively doesn't distribute heat linearly like a heat sink does), and less fan speed would be necessary and the box would be quieter. Doing this in principle seems easy but you really have to tune the system to accommodate changes in heat generation by the processor.

I agree -- liquid cooling is more efficient than just plain convection/air cooling. But in your post you are still saying that all things being equal, the new 2.5 Gz chips would require a lot more cooling.

You are suggesting that the 2.5 Ghz machines would require more forced air to cool them thus generating more noise. So, although Apple probably could cool them via heatsink/fan solution, the noise would probably be too much, and customers would complain. Consequently, Apple probably went with water cooling to keep the noise down to about the same level as the lower two models. In my opinion, all this still suggests that the two chips are running way too hot.

Water cooling is a PC enthusiast's prerogative: it's used by the overclockers world-wide to bring their systems' performance to the bleedig edge. Often times improperly implemented peltier cooling systems and water cooling systems lead to condensation inside computers and to eventual parts damage. I really don't think that a manufacturer such as Apple, who has always prided itself on the stability of its machines, should be "modding" them in this way.

I am sure the liquid cooling phase will go away as soon as they get heat/stability issues under control. Just something they needed to do, I guess.

[psmith2.0]

Hey, I keep getting this page when I go to apple.com



Thanks to murbot for the inspirational phrasing...

[EDS66]

Originally Posted by pscates2.0 Hey, I keep getting this page when I go to apple.com Thanks to murbot for the inspirational phrasing...

Unfortunately, I think you are right. I think maybe end of the year for 3.0 Ghz G5 and mid year 2005 for the Powerbook (at 2.0 Ghz).

But I like to echo Eugene's earlier post (I think it was on these forums): given the fundamental problem of migrating from 130 to 90 nanometer process, this delay is understandable.

Neither Jobs nor IBM knew about the problems they would face with the transition. Apparenly 90 nanometer physics are quite a bit different from the 130 nanometer physics. But it will all shake itself out eventually. In the meantime I would stay away from the 2.5 dual monster...at least for a while. I just don't trust water cooling used in production machines... even when it's endorsed by a company such as apple.

[Kickaha]

Originally Posted by EDS66 Often times improperly implemented peltier cooling systems and water cooling systems lead to condensation inside computers and to eventual parts damage. I really don't think that a manufacturer such as Apple, who has always prided itself on the stability of its machines, should be "modding" them in this way.

You said it... and properly implemented ones have none of those problems.

Which kind would you guess Apple would be more likely to produce? Just a guess.

[murbot]

Thanks to murbot for the inspirational phrasing...

I aim to inspire. Thank you, thank you.



Now, do I sell the eMac and go crazy today?