Dual-core Power Mac G5s definitely coming soon
By Barb Dybwad 
posted October 19th 2005 6:00AM
posted October 19th 2005 6:00AM
We've got it from an anonymous source that those dual-core Power Mac G5s we've been expecting are the real deal. It looks like the lineup is going to be dual-core single processor units at 2 and 2.3GHz, with the current dual processor 2.7GHz Power Macs still rounding out the top of the line. These could be announced as early as today, as Apple has an invitation-only press event in NYC scheduled this evening to "unveil Apple's latest pro innovations." So how many of you will go in for the dual-core, and how many are holding out for Intel-based Macs?
Why only single? Why not dual-processor dual core?
I am def waiting for MacIntels. Mmmmmm....Dual boot!
to answer the question
im waiting for an intel based iMac
coz the new iMac looks so awesome
coz im a media guy
and i have a couch in my room
opposite my comp
the remote was designed for me!
Maybe we'll see G5's and Powerbooks with CPU daughterboards... Intel ready in a few months :)
why would apple make the new sysems a step down from the current ones? i think your source is wrong
Does seem like a bump down. I'm waiting to see the Intel machine specs before I sell my G5 1.6 and upgrade.
In my work i use both PC and Mac and i cannot wait for there to eb intel macs. Especially in the laptops, my £700 dell is 4 times faster than my 15inch powerbook (1.5).
??? that's not even a speed bump, especially if the top model doesn't even recieve dual core or any kind of speed bump at all!
i love them power macs, but i'm not getting one until A) we get a dual processor 3GHZ G5 or B) we get a power mac with some intel processors that are actually good (i.e. ones that aren't pentium 4s)
Maybe the goal is to go for a big price dump for the G5 ? Since in the end they'll be selling standard Intel CPUs they really need to bring that down at some point. When the intel macs come out dual-core PCs will be all around, probably at the price singe-core are now.
Otherwise, why the hell replace Dual CPU with Dual Core at roughly the same speeds?
For all we know Intel i PowerMacs could be 2 years away from now...
@ No 6
Bullshit! There is a no way your Dull is faster. Clock speed is not everything.
To confirm what illiterate french trolls cannot seem to understand: this means 2 single-core processors for the top-end model, right?
I've heard they're also getting DDR2 memory and PCI-E graphics along with the upgrade to dual core. Neither have been proven to make any huge performance gains in the PC world, but at least it would put them in line with the iMac.
This is definitely a case of casting pearls before swine on this discussion. This will be a dual core processor on each chip fellas - which means doubling the number of processor cores vs the current models. These will become Quad CPU computers vs the current models that are Dual CPU systems. More processors = faster machines.
No 10,
I am not going on clock speed. I have a Pentium M 1.7 Dell and when it comes to processing video files it is, at times, 4 times faster than the powerbook G4. (The G4 is bloody old)
I find the G4 very very slow. (Even with 1 gig of ram) It is a breath of fresh air using a G5 having come from the G4.
Waiting for Intel-based Powerbooks... Could be a long wait, but current Powerbooks just don't offer much beyond what my 1.25GHz 15'' already does...
Waiting until Intel. I never had a good experience buying the last of a series.
re: 12
I think we all get that dual processor dual cores = "4" cpus. But that doesn't change the fact that the source is claiming:
the lineup is going to be dual-core SINGLE processor units at 2 and 2.3GHz, with the current DUAL processor 2.7GHz Power Macs still rounding out the top of the line.
1x2x2.3 < 2x1x2.7
At some point I'm sure they will have these new fangled quad things in action. But if the source is right, we're still better off with the dual 2.7 single cores.
Now on to important matters:
"This is definitely a case of casting pearls before swine on this discussion."
Is this phrase commonly used where you're from?!
OMG dual core all teh way! RISC r teh ownz! x86 has sucks!
count me out, i'm waiting for intel
Considering how fast the Intel version of the MacOSX seems to be running on pretty mediocre PC hardware. I think anyone would be mad to consider being duped again, and hold tight for the time being.
I need to upgrade my original G4 Titanium Powerbook. I've been thinking of upgrading since the summer. As soon as something new comes out, I'll buy it.
As I said before, I'd take the last PowerPC iteration over guniea-pigging the first Macintel any day.
Still holding out for 3GHz though.
More like a speed-down.
Malfoy:
Yes, "Casting pearls before Swine" is a part of the lexicon were I am from, Earth, but it is not as well known as it once was because it comes from a "book" which is like a computer, sans backlit display and with a more limited upgrade path.
As to your thoughts, your math is obviously correct which is why I haven't been too impressed with thinksecrets "inside" sources recently. It would be unusual for apple to bother with any change that wasn't a clear upgrade.
I would expect that we will be seeing quad cpus at the mid range as well and will only be getting the single at the lowest end. And just to keep it "apples to apples" (another common phrase), you can't compare the current top of the line to the middle of the line on an upgrade path. Comparing the Dual 2.7 (top of the current lineup) to the coming dual core 2.3 (single or double - middle of the line) isn't the best comparison basis - but I do understand your math.
malfoy:
just as an fyi:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearls_Before_Swine
(and I am not a religious man, just a reader)
Malfoy:
Yes, "Casting pearls before Swine" is a part of the lexicon were I am from, Earth, but it is not as well known as it once was because it comes from a "book" which is like a computer, sans backlit display and with a more limited upgrade path.
As to your thoughts, your math is obviously correct which is why I haven't been too impressed with thinksecrets "inside" sources recently. It would be unusual for apple to bother with any change that wasn't a clear upgrade.
I would expect that we will be seeing quad cpus at the mid range as well and will only be getting the single at the lowest end. And just to keep it "apples to apples" (another common phrase), you can't compare the current top of the line to the middle of the line on an upgrade path. Comparing the Dual 2.7 (top of the current lineup) to the coming dual core 2.3 (single or double - middle of the line) isn't the best comparison basis - but I do understand your math.
#20 -- I agree, the final PPC machines will be proven tech that will be good for a few years to come. I won't touch an Intel-based Mac for a generation or two.
But that said, we can also expect the PowerMac line to probably be the last to get Intel chips. I doubt we'll see Intel-based pro Mac desktops before the middle of 2007. The reason Apple switched to Intel was because of the portable processor roadmap. Desktop performance isn't a problem. So the first machines to get Intel processors are going to be portables or small-form-factor machines (my guess is that the iBooks and Mac Mini will be the first).
Yeah, I'm waiting for macintels.
I'm waiting for the AMD version. Then I'll buy a Mac.
I can't decide which is more frustrating. Buying a new computer and then having a newer model come out two weeks later. Or holding off and listening to the rumour mill for 2 months which have been promising new powerbooks.
I wish I could afford to upgrade to a desktop. I have a PBG4, and its great, but I need more power. Since I don't have money though, looks like I am waiting this one out...
I'll wait for the Intel Macs. I'm going to love having a dual-boot system!!
I'm waiting for those intel machines.
CompUSA here in town has pallets of dual processor, dual core 2 GHz machines waiting for the announcement before going to the flo0r.
A dilemma for long-time Mac pioneer users really. On one hand, should we make redundant old but very much functional Macs and opt for the emerging crop of end-of-line PPC-based Macs, or should we hold out for Intel-based Macs? Even for Intel-based Macs, it is likely we may have to wait at least a generation or two before we can confidently migrate as a small firm with limited resources, just to be sure. So we are really stuck, knowing that we must either migrate to a EOL platform, or to a yet unknown platform.
Waiting. Unfortunately, I think it is going to be a looooooooooooooong wait (2007,2008?) until we see a Mactel desktop.
Lots can change in that time.
Will Dell get any new, faster Intel chips before Apple?
Will software on Apples run faster with Intel chips than a Windows based version?
AMD is coming on strong - sold more processors than Intel last quarter - through stores that is, not counting Dell.
Remembre that PowerMacs will only adopt Intel CPUs in 2007, the iMacs/notebooks in 2006.
2007 is a long time to wait. The published specs seem very low...
I am waiting for MacTel machines before upgrading. Unless something DIES on me, first.
"AMD is coming on strong - sold more processors than Intel last quarter - through stores that is, not counting Dell"
I wouldn't hold your breathe on this one.
1)Dell alone sells more than 1 MILLION computers a year, all Intel
2)Gateway, Sony, HP and the other big "non-store" manufacturers also sell Intel comps.
3)Intel just posted a record breaking profit for the last quarter.
Apple obviously knows how futile their first scheme was to keep MacOS on dev boxes, we'll see how much better they do keeping it on "Apple" motherboards.
There is no difference between waiting for the Intel Apples, or waiting for the next gen processor. Past experience tells me the first version of any product launch is not battle tested so I'm going to get a new Apple now. I don't plan to keep any computer longer than 3 years anyway.
Go Check the Apple store.
Quad 2.5Ghz PowerMac G5 out now.
There is no difference between waiting for the Intel Apples, or waiting for the next gen processor. Past experience tells me the first version of any product launch is not battle tested so I'm going to get a new Apple now. I don't plan to keep any computer longer than 3 years anyway.
why would apple make the new sysems a step down from the current ones? i think your source is wrong
I'm a graphic designer trying to make the decision whether to upgrade my g4 processor and wait for the intells, or to buy a g5 dual core now...
Also, will there be another release of the dual cores before the intels? The 2.3ghz could be made a quad eventually...
I THINK I'm going to go for the 2.3ghz dual core as that is fast and MUCH faster than what I have. I use Photoshop and have tested this mac when it was a dual processor int he apple store and it opens 300-400mb files without even showing the progress bar!
There is the quad, which I would love but I have to leave myself money for ram, and sometimes I think we have to stop and think what we are using the computer for. I don't do 3d, or music, I do 2d graphic design and web design... I don't necessarily need a quad.
I think some of use will reach the stage where int he work we are doing we wouldn't be able to tell if we had a 2.3 or a quad...because most designers files are less than 300mb each in photoshop! So if the 2.3 opens without a progress bar and filters are rapid, then would the power of a quad be used?!
A few years ago we upgraded and just saw the progress bar move faster, now we don't even see it on some files, so I think that the future macs with even more speed are only going to be FULLY appreciated by those doing the most intensive work such as video editing and music.
I don't see anyone talkingf rom this prospective on any forums, I'd appreciate your views on what I've said.
Cheers
Simon