The Power Mac G5 Quad

It's gonna cost ya $3,300, but now you can finally get four G5 cores (running in two dual-core G5 CPUs, anyway) in a single box. Today Apple upgraded their Power Mac line with DDR2 SDRAM, PCI-Express, support for up to 1TB of storage, and, of course, long awaited multiple Cinema Display support—up to four 30-inchers, to be exact. Not too shabby, but we priced out a top of the line Power Mac G5 Quad and it came out to be about $18,000 without a display (granted, the thing had 16GB of RAM).

[Michael @ Dec 19th 2005 12:55AM]

Pricewatch:
$156 - pc2-4200 ddr2-533 2gb
x8
$1200

Apple charges 10x that, nice going.

[Quicksilver @ Dec 19th 2005 12:55AM]

STill this is one of the most beastly systems ive ever seen. I mean who need that much! All i can think of is when that college networked all teh powermacs for the worls cheapest super computer. Just think about it now half the machines same power :-D

[Joshua Ochs @ Dec 19th 2005 12:55AM]

Pricewatch: Bullshit. Link.

[Steve @ Dec 19th 2005 12:55AM]

#1. You do understand that you need to fit all of them in one box, running one system, right? Good luck.

[Martin @ Dec 19th 2005 12:55AM]

...There goes my student loan

[Joshua Ochs @ Dec 19th 2005 12:55AM]

To expand on my "bullshit" comment (and as Steve saw as well), those prices are for "2 pcs 1GB DIMM". The subject matter here is a 2GB DIMM. Those carry a HUGE price premium, so you don't buy them unless you absolutely need them.

From Crucial, they're over $1000, so Apple's pricing isn't that far off. http://www.crucial.com/store/partspecs.Asp?IMODULE=CT25672AB53E

[Paul @ Dec 19th 2005 12:55AM]

NO buddy.. if you even bothered to do any research at all, for yes a high price of $11,900 you get 16GB of ECC PC2-4200 DDR2 533MHz 8 2gb dimms, stupid pricewatch reports "2 X 1GB" kits, the actual price of a 2GB chip is around $400, so yes about $3200, but $400 doesn't even get you ECC, the absolute cheapest ECC 2GB DDR2 yadda yadda was $450.. anyways its not 10X, more like 2-3X, plus this stuff is quality

[Mack Swift @ Dec 19th 2005 12:55AM]

I suppose if you're rendering your own Pixar film you'd need 4 cinema displays and 16GB RAM.

Still, no SLI for the Nvidia crowd or Crossfire for the ATI stuff. That wouild have been a big suprise.

Imagine the Quake 4 or FEAR framerates.....Mmmmmm, framerates.

[Paul @ Dec 19th 2005 12:55AM]

NO buddy.. if you even bothered to do any research at all, for yes a high price of $11,900 you get 16GB of ECC PC2-4200 DDR2 533MHz 8 2gb dimms, stupid pricewatch reports "2 X 1GB" kits, the actual price of a 2GB chip is around $400, so yes about $3200, but $400 doesn't even get you ECC, the absolute cheapest ECC 2GB DDR2 yadda yadda was $450.. anyways its not 10X, more like 2-3X, plus this stuff is quality

[James @ Dec 19th 2005 12:55AM]

#1 is wrong, but Pricewatch does have this which is $400:
https://www.dallasmemory.com/estore/prodView.asp?idProduct=1211

That's still $3200 total.

[ForumFerret @ Dec 19th 2005 12:55AM]

According to the Apple Store, the Quad G5 only supports 2 30-inch Cinema Displays, even with the Quadro FX upgrade. See http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/71101/wo/lM4ZkWvn7Pe82mreLMC2FNHteFt/27.0.15.7.0.8.3.45.1.2.1.9.0.0.1.3.1.3.0

[JeffB @ Dec 19th 2005 12:55AM]

When you add all 4 video cards then you can do the quad 30" screen setup. They only show the dual format on there and Im guessing that you have to accesorize after that to get all 4, correct me if I'm wrong

[Chris Jones @ Dec 19th 2005 12:55AM]

High powered home media center? Anyone, anyone!!!! Please write the software, please.

[Eternal Sunshine @ Dec 19th 2005 12:55AM]

Look closer, those beasts can run up to eight (8) Cinema Displays! � http://www.apple.com/powermac/ (look under "Workstation Graphics")

[Digi Smalls @ Dec 19th 2005 12:55AM]

$3k for one more (slower) G5 core than a $300 Xbox 360! where do i sign??

[Woody Sabran @ Dec 19th 2005 12:55AM]

Goddammit I'm so pissed right now...saved up for months to buy a Dual 2.7 Ghz Power Mac back in April (although it took a whole month to arrive but that's another story) thinking it would last...and now this a few months later. Apple have screwed me and many others again....70% performance advantage!!! But still we buy their products! If you're listening Jobs, offer to buy mine back and give me a mega discount on a quad, that will make me happy.

[Chris McDowell @ Dec 19th 2005 12:55AM]

you can run 8 20 or 23 inch cinema displays. Not yet 8 30 inch ones.

[jnasato @ Dec 19th 2005 12:55AM]

O...

M...

G...

I want one.

[acidreflux @ Dec 19th 2005 12:55AM]

I would be very interested to see how the new single dual core 2Ghz PMac stacks up against the former dual processor 2Ghz PMac. Superficially, it doesnt seem like it would be any different performance (minus the memory and graphic architecture).

[cecil @ Dec 19th 2005 12:55AM]

When they finally get around to using Intel chips, they will be dual and even quad core chips already. They won't need to have two physical chips on the board anymore. Heat and power concerns will be about the video card and hard drives then. Is it just me, or do they need to start putting an ass more slots for memory on boards so we can expand more for less money. Or maybe someone can come up with riser cards for DIMM slots and make millions.

[Rusty Shackleford @ Dec 19th 2005 12:55AM]

If I bought this...

...would I no longer totally suck at Unreal Tournament? My 1.8GHz iMac G5 20" is showing its age and I'm getting my 43-year-old ass kicked online by 8 year old punks.

Oh and wasn't the single-core G4 processor classed as a 'munition' by the U.S. Government some time ago, I seem to recall an apple ad comparing a G4 with a tank? What would the dual-core G5 be then? a WMD?

"Every generation imagines itself to be more intelligent than the one that went before it, and wiser than the one that comes after it." -George Orwell

[Jordan @ Dec 19th 2005 12:55AM]

Everyone is complaining about the RAM and price premium, but for one, it's an Apple. Duh! For two, when the industry orders these, they are going to get a HUGE discount. They have to mark their stuff up any more because if the publishing industry and the likes want 30% off, and they are already priced at $2200, that's a pretty serious hit. It sucks for us little guys though, because I'd love to have one sitting here, and that's a heck of a price for me to pay. To be fair though, I don't NEED it, I WANT it.. ;)

[SteveJ @ Dec 19th 2005 12:55AM]

Of all the recent desktop announcements, the iMac G5 is by far the most interesting and is the only one I'd buy without hesitation, with regard to the pending Intel issue. The G5 in it is a good processor, but it is everything else that makes it so compelling, and so that it doesn't have an Intel processor seems a trivial issue. If I had the money I'd buy a new iMac at the drop of a hat to replace my current iMac G3 and PowerMac G4 Dual-533. The iMac G5 would serve as music and video server, as well as photo and video editing box. Alas, I don't have any money. :(

Of the others, the Powerbook is certainly the one I'd least likely feel compelled to buy. The Powerbook is a lame duck line if I've ever seen one. Jam in a higher rez display and a better battery and call it a day?
The good news is that this may well indicate that the first Intel Macs will be Powerbooks, albeit possibly named something else!

[khang @ Dec 19th 2005 12:55AM]

i don't think Apple is in the biz to make you Apple users happy... they make cool stuff to get all your money. I mean .. every other month. hahaaaaaaa.... you got Jack.

[jared @ Dec 19th 2005 12:55AM]

So does the latest Gentoo kernel know how to take advantage of all them cores, or what? Enquiring minds wanna know.

[lotech @ Dec 19th 2005 12:55AM]

A couple of things - notice the ambiguous graphs only make refernce to SD based video in FCP - there is currently no PCIe SATA raid card - a prerequisite to working realistically in HD. For $10k you can get a fibre channel XSAN but basically if you seriously think this is useful for modern video - you're screwed. If anyone buys this to edit - a dual 2.5Ghz G5 being cleared out would be a better bet - performance/price wise its still the best.
Also 16gb of RAM? WTF - currently there is only ONE program available that can actually use more than 5gb of ram - After Effects. Photoshop, FCP, Motion all have software limitations on memory usage - PS is 2gb, FCP is (if I remeber correctly) 3.5gb.

[enumerated @ Dec 19th 2005 12:55AM]

To respond to an earlier post, dual core is faster than dual processor.

Think of it as having a tuned V8 as opposed to two 4 cylinders conncected with a bunch of extra shafts, multiple clutches and the like...

[Liosandro @ Dec 19th 2005 12:55AM]

x lotech.
So you should try to work with FCP, SHAKE and Motion in uncompressed 10bits HD, as I do, to find out that the more ram you have the better you go... without closing each time one of the three...

[hamish @ Dec 19th 2005 12:55AM]

Read: http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/g5/8gb_ram_tests/g5_8gb_ram_tests.html

for RAM photoshop tests, and the difference it makes between 8GB and 512MB. It's pretty phenominal.

[Colin @ Dec 19th 2005 12:55AM]

#8, welcome to the world of technology. Once you buy something "new" it's outdated within (at best) a year. Not just hardware, software or anything else. I bought a top of the line PowerMac G4. Dual 1.42's, 2GB ram. It was awesome for about a month. Because the next month they released the G5. I wasn't happy.

But over the years, I've continued to use my G4, sure it doesn't have as much broad power as the G5s today (especially the ones released today), but it does what I want it to do.

Don't buy technology only because it's the newest and greatest thing, because you'll quickly have a huge hole in your pocket. Buy a computer because you need to use it, and if it works for what you need it for, then don't worry about the newest and greatest computer releases.

Further, I wouldn't buy this quad G5 even if I had $6,000 (that's what I priced my dream quad G5 at) to spend wildly on a computer. I'm waiting on buying any apple computer until the intels are released. Yeah, a quad G5 sounds amazing now, but what happens in a year if and possibly when no software will be released for the outdated G5's and below? You'll be down $6,000 on a great computer with no software being made for it.

[Matt @ Dec 19th 2005 12:55AM]

Whoa.

Holy crap.

Someone find my wallet, forget a car, this thing is awesme!

I edit video on three dual g5s and I also have an iMac g5 as well as two power books.

This computer is like my entire editing studio in one box.

Dang.

Thats one fast rig.

i love apple.

[acidreflux @ Dec 19th 2005 12:55AM]

Software will be generally be compiled as PPC/Intel double binaries. I would be more leary of software with the Intel compile in the first year or so, then PPC software for the first couple of years.

With the exception of the new cache, I still dont think much can be different, if anything between a single dual core 2Ghz G5 processor and dual 2Ghz G5 processors. Hopefully, barefeats or the like will have some info soon.

[Eddie @ Dec 19th 2005 12:55AM]

This would be a fine piece of technology if it were not for its planned obsolescence when the Intel version comes out. It was really honest of Jobs to tell people of the changeover well in advance, but I could not spend the required big money on this box knowing that software companies will inevitably consider it not worth optimizing their code for, starting now.

If they were going to support two different processors, it would be more useful to put Intels in the Powerbooks, and Power-PC cell processors into the G5s for multi-core performance. Or stay with one basic processor compatibility line and put AMD dual-core 64 bit processors in the G5 and call it a G6. Its hard to think of an Intel in a G5 as "insanely great".

[rah @ Dec 19th 2005 12:55AM]

god dang,

1, ru saying that i can get the same comp 4 10x cheaper and a nicer case than that ugly mesh crap

[mike @ Dec 19th 2005 12:55AM]

but I could not spend the required big money on this box knowing that software companies will inevitably consider it not worth optimizing their code for, starting now.

--

... you won't have to worry about that 'obscelesence' until 2008 or so.. why on earth would, the day after the first Mactels are released, software be Intel only??? The installed base would be about 2000 Macs!

They'll be both Intel/PowerPC for about a year and a half. Chill.

[rmgarnett @ Dec 19th 2005 12:55AM]

There are indeed PCIe SATA RAID cards: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16816131004

[MS @ Dec 19th 2005 12:55AM]

There are quite a few posts that miss the point here with regards as to were these machines are positioned in apple's lineup. whilst there are many of us there who have bought or will buy a PowerMac G5 for either home or business use, these new quads are aimed squarley at a different set of users.

These are users who need to manipulate vast datasets for medical or scientific applications at thier desktop. No one is ever going to have the need for 16Gb (or even the theoritical 18Exb limit) for publishing, playing games or video editing. For the most part the improvements in speed will not really be felt in a lot applications.

With regards to post #9, the intel based macs will not be 100% OEM PC equipment running different software. The Architecture will be distnctly different - One of the prime reasons why apple is shifting to Intel chipsets is to facilitate the evolution of machines for use in processor intensive tasks such as medicine and sciences. I would be entirley unsurprised to see machines with configuration that are more extreme than the current G5 Quad...

[Randy Burleson @ Dec 19th 2005 12:55AM]

In regard to #37...
The PCIe card you linked to is for Windows and Linux.
In fact at this point in time there is NO PCIe SATA host card available for the Mac platform.
However this should change within the next month or two.

[Randy Burleson @ Dec 19th 2005 12:55AM]

In regard to #37...
The PCIe card you linked to is for Windows and Linux.
In fact at this point in time there is NO PCIe SATA host card available for the Mac platform.
However this should change within the next month or two.

[Jello @ Dec 19th 2005 12:55AM]

Call me an AMD fanboy. I could really care less for the slutty romp in bed with Intel that Apple's lowered themselves to.

Look at processor achievements over the last 5-6 years, and you see how well AMD has faired against the giant Intel.

Also, take a look at the price of Intel dual-core processors on Pricewatch, and you quickly learn why Apple chose Intel. You can buy a dual-core Intel processor for under $500. Compare that to the X2 4800 @ $1300 per processor.

My point is this, Apple settled for putting cabbage in their salad instead of premium lettuce. So what if lettuce is expensive, it just works better (Unless you're making cole slaw). I wouldn't be surprised that if sales aren't quite what they expect that Jobs will get dual-core Celery...err..Celeron's in and lower the price $100.

First Dell, now Apple. Have these companies really become stupid? Intel has lost so much credibility that they have to circulate rumors about their own products and make it look like a leak slipped out somehow. What used to be the Colossus of chip makers is now like a quadraplegic dwarf that has a loud voice and swears it can kill you without arms or legs. (no offense meant to quadraplegic dwarves out there).

AMD has acheived so many hurdles to become number one, and hopefully can keep that place on the throne. So far, they have maintained focus and have kept innovation alive.

Personally, I think it would be tragic if Intel lost so much ground that they became the Cyrix of the chip market. It's rather amusing to see AMD whoop Intel at the innovation game and beat them to market every time.

I also happen to think it's great that Dell won't use AMD processors. Stick with the sinking ship, Mike. It goes down, so will you. And that BS line that Dell feeds to the public about "when our customers start requesting AMD, then we will look at that market more seriously". And even when a poll is done that shows the market could care less what processor is used, as long as it is powerful, Dell will say that the poll was obviously biased against Intel.

Yeah, I'm an AMD fanboy. I like dependable, fast, and innovative companies that succeed. Intel only succeeds in bumbling.

Apple chose the wrong partner for chips. My opinion, as worthless as it is.