Holy shit. Mac G5 Leak?

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-06-20 02:25pm

GrandMasterTerwynn wrote:Well yeah, it's a G4 system, but dual 2 GHz PowerPC chips? A gigahertz processor bus and up to 8 GB of RAM? Jesus fucking Christ on sunny Sunday afternoon that's some powerful juju. You'd expect those sort of specs on a dual processor server, not some Joe Schmuck's desktop.

They're actually G5s, not G4s - only the top part of that image is relevant, not the bottom.

Pound for pound those would be the fastest desktops on the market. Except they happen to be Macs, and you'll have to pay a whole lot for 'em.

They might have price parity with Xeon or Opteron machines, though.

EmperorChrostas the Cruel · Post by **EmperorChrostas the Cruel** » 2003-06-20 02:53pm

I am no pro at this, so I will simply ask.

Is is co$t effective? It still seems an aweful lot of bucks.
Performance/cost is always an issue to those of us that don't want/need a new toy every month year.These look to be
On paper, it doesn't look worth the money, unless you HAVE to have the (cuttent) biggest/baddest/fastest.
I am sure the boys at ILM can use a few of these as well. ILM and their ilk being the kind of customer that NEEDS these things.

The two parrots arguing comes to mind.

"Bang for the buck! bang for the buck!"
"Bigger better faster! Bigger better faster!"

YT300000 · Post by **YT300000** » 2003-06-20 03:06pm

Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:What i want for my next computer:

Quad 6.66 GHz Pentium V CPUs
GeForce6 TI 6400 4GB DDR RAM
16GB PC9000 QDR (Quad Data Rate) RAM
31" UltraVGA Flatscreen Monitor
8 Terabyte HDD
Dual 64x64x64x CD/DVD/RW/RAM Drive
500watt 8.1 Surround Sound
2000Watt PSU
Fast Ethernet hooked up to a T1 line.

How's that sound?

Woah. Einhander Sn0m4n is going with a cheap system.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-06-20 03:16pm

Emperor Chrostas the Crue wrote:I am no pro at this, so I will simply ask.

Is is co$t effective? It still seems an aweful lot of bucks.

That's the $64 million question. The 970 is purported to be cheaper to manufacture than the MPC7455's that Apple currently uses due to the smaller die size (0.13 µ as opposed to 0.18 µ) and other concerns. I think the big factor here will be supply and demand. I think that Apple will price them comparably to how the current towers are priced (starting at $1500 and going to about $3200, if there's a massively-fast config). There have also been rumblings about quad-processor boxes, but I doubt we'll be seeing those.

Performance/cost is always an issue to those of us that don't want/need a new toy every month year.These look to be
On paper, it doesn't look worth the money, unless you HAVE to have the (cuttent) biggest/baddest/fastest.

The prices haven't been announced yet. If the prices are approximately the same as the current towers (which is likely), they'll sell like nobody's business.

Vympel wrote:Apple sucks balls. Always has, always will. For my purposes, that is, which is gaming.

I use my Mac for moderate gaming. It doesn't suck balls for it, but it's no PC. I can play TrueCombat for Quake 3 smoothly, which is all I need. Macs are perfectly usable for gaming, and a dual 2 GHz PowerPC 970 will run Doom 3 as fast or faster than any desktop x86 box similarly configured.

Eleas · Post by **Eleas** » 2003-06-20 07:35pm

Howedar wrote:For what? What the hell does somebody need with 8GB RAM and shit?

You're right. 512 K ought to be enough for everybody.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-06-20 08:05pm

Durandal wrote: You've never used OS X, have you?
At this point, I could easily make full use of 2 GB of memory.

What, is OSX really inefficient in terms of RAM?

YT300000 · Post by **YT300000** » 2003-06-20 08:15pm

Eleas wrote:
Howedar wrote:For what? What the hell does somebody need with 8GB RAM and shit?
You're right. 512 K ought to be enough for everybody.

Hehe. Divide that number by 42.66666666666666666666667 and you get Gate's 1977 quote.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-06-20 08:25pm

Howedar wrote:
Durandal wrote: You've never used OS X, have you?
At this point, I could easily make full use of 2 GB of memory.
What, is OSX really inefficient in terms of RAM?

OS X is a RAM pig.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-06-20 08:31pm

Time to poke holes in an entirely fictional machine

Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:Quad 6.66 GHz Pentium V CPUs

Running Windows 2003 Server, are we? Besides, Intel doesn't allow quad-processor Pentium configuration. Xeon or Itanium, maybe.

GeForce6 TI 6400 4GB DDR RAM

Only one generation and the GF series jumps from 256 -> 4096 MB of RAM? Wow!

Dual 64x64x64x CD/DVD/RW/RAM Drive

Your disc will literally disintergrate at those speeds.

500watt 8.1 Surround Sound

Gah, what's with everyone and wattage for sound? My 50W/ch amp can produce more than enough power to fill my room with loud sound.

2000Watt PSU

Spaceheater? 2kW is not a trivial amount.

Fast Ethernet hooked up to a T1 line.

Ethernet cannot be hooked up to a T1 line, you need some specialized gear to hook a T1 up to your machine.

YT300000 · Post by **YT300000** » 2003-06-20 08:36pm

Anyway, T1s are really, really slow.

Try a T4 instead.

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2003-06-20 08:36pm

phongn wrote:Time to poke holes in an entirely fictional machine

Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:Quad 6.66 GHz Pentium V CPUs
Running Windows 2003 Server, are we? Besides, Intel doesn't allow quad-processor Pentium configuration. Xeon or Itanium, maybe.

GeForce6 TI 6400 4GB DDR RAM
Only one generation and the GF series jumps from 256 -> 4096 MB of RAM? Wow!

Dual 64x64x64x CD/DVD/RW/RAM Drive
Your disc will literally disintergrate at those speeds.

500watt 8.1 Surround Sound
Gah, what's with everyone and wattage for sound? My 50W/ch amp can produce more than enough power to fill my room with loud sound.

2000Watt PSU
Spaceheater? 2kW is not a trivial amount.

Fast Ethernet hooked up to a T1 line.
Ethernet cannot be hooked up to a T1 line, you need some specialized gear to hook a T1 up to your machine.

Exactly my point, Phong. I was trying to design a totally unrealistic machine.

YT300000 · Post by **YT300000** » 2003-06-20 08:38pm

Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:Exactly my point, Phong. I was trying to design a totally unrealistic machine.

Then you should have used a T12 or so.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-06-20 08:44pm

YT300000 wrote:Anyway, T1s are really, really slow.

Try a T4 instead.

T3, you mean.

YT300000 · Post by **YT300000** » 2003-06-20 08:47pm

phongn wrote:
YT300000 wrote:Anyway, T1s are really, really slow.

Try a T4 instead.
T3, you mean.

No, T4. They exist.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-06-20 09:14pm

phongn wrote:
Howedar wrote:
Durandal wrote: You've never used OS X, have you?
At this point, I could easily make full use of 2 GB of memory.
What, is OSX really inefficient in terms of RAM?
OS X is a RAM pig.

All right then. I certainly wouldn't need 8GB on my WinXP machine, though. I'm running 1GB and thats far and away more than I've ever needed.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-06-20 09:18pm

Howedar wrote:All right then. I certainly wouldn't need 8GB on my WinXP machine, though. I'm running 1GB and thats far and away more than I've ever needed.

Most people wouldn't need more than 512MB on OS X, but some scientific apps might.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-06-20 10:51pm

Howedar wrote:
Durandal wrote: You've never used OS X, have you?
At this point, I could easily make full use of 2 GB of memory.
What, is OSX really inefficient in terms of RAM?

Not inefficient. It just likes lots of RAM. As operating systems get more glitzy, you're going to want more RAM. The Window Manager in particular likes memory.

Pu-239 · Post by **Pu-239** » 2003-06-20 10:57pm

YT300000 wrote:
phongn wrote:
YT300000 wrote:Anyway, T1s are really, really slow.

Try a T4 instead.
T3, you mean.
No, T4. They exist.

Well I know someone at my school who claims to run a web hosting service with an OC-3 at 15k/month.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-06-20 11:00pm

I know some universitites with multiple OC3 connections to the Internet and Internet 2...