“Yesterday, I had an hour to work with Apple Computer Inc.’s new Power Mac Quad G5, and for anyone in the broadcast, sciences, music, print and photography industries, I have some advice: Place your orders now! The latest Power Mac, unveiled last month and now shipping in limited quantities, offers substantial architecture improvements over its predecessor that deliver exponential performance increases — depending on the application being used or function performed. In addition to the use of dual dual-core G5 processors, the underlying upgrades are numerous,” Yuval Kossovsky writes for Computerworld.
“The improvements in speed in the new hardware are dramatic. My After Effects projects ran more than 60% faster compared with the Power Mac G5 with dual 2.5-GHz processors, and Apple says that X-Code compiling is nearly 80% faster than on earlier models. Final Cut Pro standard-definition rendering yielded results that were 50% faster for me compared to the dual 2.5-GHz machine,” Kossovsky writes. “The pricing on this machine is up from the previous dual-2.7-GHz models, but it’s a bargain when considering the additional processor cores — and the fact that a comparable Wintel configuration is almost double the cost. There is no reason for any professional facility not to upgrade because the equipment cost will quickly be recouped in the form of higher productivity and the ability to serve more clients faster. And if that doesn’t get you excited, just try Final Cut Pro, Aperture or rendering out a 3-D molecule on this machine. I guarantee you’ll love it!”
Full article here.
Advertisement: Apple’s New Power Mac G5. Now up to 2.7GHz dual processors and higher-performance graphics. Customize yours and get free shipping.
Related MacDailyNews articles:
Apple Quad 2.5GHz Power Mac G5 vs. previous generation dual 2.5GHz Power Mac G5 – November 14, 2005
InfoWorld: Nothing can compare to Apple’s new Power Mac G5 Quad – true workstation at desktop price – October 24, 2005
NVIDIA brings workstation graphics to Apple Power Mac G5 – October 24, 2005
Apple’s new Power Mac G5 Quad supercharges rendering – October 22, 2005
AnandTech: Apple new Power Mac G5’s biggest improvement is the move to PCI Express – October 21, 2005
Photos of new dual core Apple Power Mac G5 interior, ports, and more – October 19, 2005
First benchmark tests of Apple’s new Power Mac G5 dual-core machines – October 19, 2005
Apple introduces Power Mac G5 Quad and Power Mac G5 Dual – October 19, 2005
How often is it that the top of the line Powermac gets such dramatic speed increases? It’s very rare, and not the usual 10% speed bump.
apple is really pumping itself up with the looming intel switch… i wonder what exactly intel has that will make the transition worth while?
If you think they’re good, wait til we get quad-processor, 8-core PowerMacs at the end of 2006 – they’ll be the last gasp of the PPC-based macs (here’s hoping!) 😀
(mind you they’ll need a cooling tower to avoid overheating!)
When they say that speed increases 60% does that mean time needs to do something decreased 60% as in a process that took 10 minutes now takes only 4? Or does it mean that it moves through 60% more data in the same amount of time, as in it can process 16 MB in the timet that it used to take to process 10?
It seems to me that saying 60% faster should mean the latter, but the former seems like a more useful statistic so I would expect it to be the one people use.
I think the clue lies in UNIVERSAL BINARIES. I think the PowerMacs will remain with Power PCs for some time, at least until Intel has something that can blow away the existing Quad at the same or lesser price. Remember, heat and space is not an issue with a tower as it is with an iMac or PowerBook/iBook/mini. Those smaller units need Intel and FAST. The Towers, not so much. Add to that the fact that more laptops are selling than towers – Apple needs a fast, energy efficient and cool CPU.
With reviews like this Apple doesn’t need to advertise.
with vastly lower power requirements of the Intel chips slated by late 2006, 4 cores of PPC will consume far far more power than a comperable 6 core Conre based system, and probably also cost more as well, seeing as how there is precious little market for plan-jane dual core PPC chips (read: not CPUs for Xbox or PS3).
8 core Conroe PPC? I know what i’d do with all that processing power… and it wold actually involved less time in front of my computer since i’d get done withwork faster.
dubmonkey: “i wonder what exactly intel has that will make the transition worth while?”
Not much for the desktop. Unless future Intel chips have different architecture than the current (Pentium based) offerings, I think it will be a while for the PowerMacs to transition.
The only speed increase to any product line in this general phase of processor evolution would obviously be the PowerBook, and I don’t think that would even be overly dramatic.
Now if Apple would stop adding stupid eye-candy effects to the operating system that eat processor cycles then we’d really have a screamer.
I suppose if I could create a 3-D molecule, I could easily afford a Quad!
re: “quad-processor, 8-core PowerMacs” </drool>
I really like the eye candy. Something I stare at daily needs to look nice IMNSHO.
But I do think there should be more flexibility in turning things off.
Actually, most of that “eye candy” is navigation hints, which is great for newcomers to the OS. Apple needs not remove those cues, but should give power users a System Preference for deactivating them.
I already placed my order. First on Oct 21st and again on the 27th. Had to cancel the first one in order to add the 7800 graphics card, since they weren’t accepting orders with the 7800 at that time…. and now my expected ship date is Dec 26th! That’s forty-one days from now!
Wish I could go into a coma for 40 days.
I will be ordering mine on or around 9th January 06 – the opening day of MacWorld San Francisco.
Also on the subject of Final Cut Pro in the article where it states the speed of the app in standard definition, I would like to know what the figures are for HD and especially the heavily compressed HDV format?
Based on this reivew, I’ll re-instate my order.
Tommy Boy, in OS X eye-candy effects eat GPU cycles not CPU.
“Now if Apple would stop adding stupid eye-candy effects to the operating system that eat processor cycles then we’d really have a screamer.”
As an old-timer, I remember back when the Mac 128K and 512K first came out. I remember various people complaining about how Apple was wasting the processing power of the Motorola 68000 on such “eye-candy” as icons, windows, menus, and crap like that. They insisted that Apple should create a “bare-bones” command-line operating system that would get all that crap out of the way and let running programs take advantage of the 68000.
The more things change…
just goes to show ya….
Woo Hoo!
Mine shipped this morning!
Ok, I’ll let you know…
The reason computer makers are doubling up on processors/cores is because chip makers can’t mke processors any faster or smaller.
Moores Law is dead.
So now comes the time for dual cores standard across regular computer offering lines. No more single processors except for specialized needs.
This dual core standard will allow a nice feature rich bloated OS to reside on one processor while the other is used for apps. This is why Vista is going to have all sorts of better features like Mac OS X.
Now since dual cores will be standard across regular computer offerings what does that leave the monster machines? the workstations?
Yep, dual dual cores, even triple dual cores in a few years.
Way back when the Mac II arrived, a third party company offered a complete “Mac” on a expansion card which the Mac II could accept several.
Each addtional “Mac” would run in it’s own window in the Finder, the reason I beleive it didn’t take off is because there wasn’t enough software to take advantage of all those processors.
Apple also shut it down right away of course.
“The reason computer makers are doubling up on processors/cores is because chip makers can’t mke processors any faster or smaller.
Moores Law is dead.”
I’ve been thinking this for quite a while now. Besides, speed in terms of GHz on a single processor is pretty much up to par for everyday computing tasks anyway. Rendering (2D graphics, 3D modeling, video, audio, etc.) is where improved architectures (like PCI Express) and multi-core processing will play heavily.
Peter I couldn’t agree more!
Few people who read this site have jobs, and fewer still would notice the speed increase Yuval claims.
I love the way horsepower matters sometimes and then not.
Mac users have an average income higher than average, but, I would bet, many more of them than average never, ever, get laid.
Btw, I am one without job, no one has enough dough to make it worth my while anymore.
So, Joe. When was the last time YOU got laid?
Joe, I got laid this morning. I gave my missus a good seeing to in the shower then got dressed and went to work.
I’ll probably give her another good seeing to when I get home, in fact I might give her a call now and tell her to get ready for my arrival…
MW: form, as in, I am in TOP FORM.