View Full Version : Apple releases new Power Mac G5s
RobertoOrtiz 06-09-2004, 05:14 PM Quote:
"Apple Computer Inc. on Wednesday announced three new dual-processor Power Mac G5 configurations, with the fastest model topping out at 2.5GHz. The new 1.8 and 2.0GHz models are available now, and Apple expects the 2.5GHz model to ship in July. Prices range from $1,999 to $2,999. All systems now come equipped with 8x SuperDrives; the high-end system's frontside bus speed has been upped to 1.25GHz.
How the new units stack up
All systems share some common traits: an 8x speed DVD-R/CD-RW "SuperDrive," a single Firewire 800 port, two FireWire 400 ports (one in back, one in front), a USB 2.0 port, Gigabit Ethernet and 56K modem, AGP 8x Pro graphics card slot, ADC and DVI video interfaces. They're also ready for AirPort Extreme wireless networking cards and can be ordered with internal Bluetooth support as well. Analog and optical digital audio inputs and outputs are supported as well.
The low-end Power Mac G5 sports dual 1.8GHz processors and a frontside bus clocked at 900MHz per processor. The system comes equipped with 256MB of DDR SDRAM memory expandable to 4GB, and an 80GB Serial ATA hard drive. It ships with an Nvidia GeForceFX 5200 Ultra graphics card equipped with 64MB of memory, and it's also equipped with three full-length 33MHz 64-it PCI slots for further expansion. It costs US$1,999 -- $200 higher than the previous low-end model, which features a single processor configuration.
The mid-range model ships with dual 2.0GHz processors and a 1GHz frontside bus. It ships with 512MB of DDR SDRAM memory, expandable to 8GB, and a 160GB Serial ATA hard drive. The system also ships with a GeForce FX 5200 Ultra graphics card, and features three 64-bit PCI-X expansion slots (one clocked at 133MHz, the other two at 100MHz). It costs US$2,499.
The forthcoming high-end model will feature dual 2.5GHz processors operating on 1.25GHz frontside buses, 512MB DDR SDRAM, and a 160GB Serial ATA hard drive. Like its mid-range sibling, the top model will feature three PCI-X slots, one at 133MHz and two at 100MHz. It uses a ATI Radeon 9600 XT graphics card with 128MB of memory. The 2.5GHz system also features a liquid cooling system that Apple says helps reduce temperature without increasing fan noise. The 2.5GHz model will cost $2,999 when it's released in July.
All systems come equipped with Mac OS X (news - web sites) v10.3 and a suite of software including Apple's iLife applications, Art Directors Toolkit, EarthLink TotalAccess 2004, GraphicConverter, OmniGraffle, OmniOutliner, QuickBooks for Mac New User Edition, Zinio Reader, Mail, iChat AV, Safari, Sherlock, Address Book, QuickTime, iSync, iCal, DVD Player, Classic environment and Xcode Developer Tools.
Compared to older models
Apple's previous Power Macs came in three configurations, with the top two models having dual processors.
The low-end US$1,799 1.6GHz Power Mac had an 800MHz frontside bus; 512K L2 cache; 256MB DDR333 128-bit SDRAM, expandable to 4GB SDRAM; 80GB Serial ATA; SuperDrive; three PCI Slots; NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra; 64MB DDR video memory; and a 56K internal modem.
The mid-range dual 1.8GHz Power Mac was the first of two dual processor models in Apple's line-up and came with Dual 1.8GHz PowerPC G5; 900MHz frontside bus/processor; 512K L2 cache/processor; 512MB DDR400 128-bit SDRAM, expandable to 8GB SDRAM; 160GB Serial ATA; SuperDrive; three PCI-X Slots; NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra; 64MB DDR video memory; and a 56K internal modem. The 1.8 GHz model sold for $2,499.
The high-end, $2,999 dual 2GHz Power Mac had a 1GHz frontside bus/processor; 512K L2 cache/processor; 512MB DDR400 128-bit SDRAM, expandable to 8GB SDRAM; 160GB Serial ATA; SuperDrive; Three PCI-X Slots; ATI Radeon 9600 Pro; 64MB DDR video memory; and a 56K internal modem.
Power Mac G4s discontinued
In announcing the new Power Mac G5 models, Apple also indicated that its remaining Power Mac G4 models have been taken out of production. Since the Power Mac G5's introduction Apple has continued to manufacture and offer a single-processor 1.25GHz Power Mac G4. Apple said the $1,299 Power Mac G4 "will no longer be in production and is available for purchase while supplies last."
">>Link<< (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=77&ncid=738&e=12&u=/mc/20040609/tc_mc/applereleasesnewpowermacg5s)
-R
|
|
ehh.. not much. but LONG LIVE THE MAC!! :applause: and some say market share dictates success! ha
Minguez
06-09-2004, 05:51 PM
I was waiting for this Rev in hope that the graphics where to have been updated. To be honest the current lineup is a joke for my everyday work.
Apple shows nice graphics on their site that displays how much faster the 2xG5:s with 2GB ram preforms 45 Photoshop effects in a row... Well here is a newsflash. I never use photoshop that way in my everyday work, and I hardly belive anyone does. However I push lots of polygons back and forward in Maya, and I do not care if the 3 times more expensive apple renders my final images 25% faster if it at the same time lags tremendeous and is two times slower in showing realtime graphics then a Dell 8300 system with 1GB RAM and a real GF FX card (about 950$).
Im pushing polys 95% of my workday.
I render during my coffe breaks.
Do I realy want to pay three times more to get shorter coffebreaks at the expense of longer workdays?
If apple is serious about 3D there must be a pro lineup soon...
The current apple lineup is like a Ferrari, Porche and BMW, but with shoppingcart-wheels option only.
agreenster
06-09-2004, 07:15 PM
The ATI Radeon 9800 Pro came out today too
http://www.ati.com/products/radeon9800/radeon9800proseme/index.html
parallax
06-09-2004, 07:41 PM
Dude, there's more to Apple then running Maya. For the price, editing broadcast grade on Final Cut is unbeatable still. I just got back from an Apple demo, they showed 6 streams of HD running real-time on a dual G5, no additional hardware. Thats what the Final Cut Pro engine can do.
And i'm a PC guy for crying out loud.
i just wish they'd pull their finger out and uncap the 2gb RAM per application limit...being able to use more ram in PS would help my work fly better
ambient-whisper
06-09-2004, 09:41 PM
Originally posted by Minguez
I was waiting for this Rev in hope that the graphics where to have been updated. To be honest the current lineup is a joke for my everyday work.
Apple shows nice graphics on their site that displays how much faster the 2xG5:s with 2GB ram preforms 45 Photoshop effects in a row... Well here is a newsflash. I never use photoshop that way in my everyday work, and I hardly belive anyone does. However I push lots of polygons back and forward in Maya, and I do not care if the 3 times more expensive apple renders my final images 25% faster if it at the same time lags tremendeous and is two times slower in showing realtime graphics then a Dell 8300 system with 1GB RAM and a real GF FX card (about 950$).
Im pushing polys 95% of my workday.
I render during my coffe breaks.
Do I realy want to pay three times more to get shorter coffebreaks at the expense of longer workdays?
If apple is serious about 3D there must be a pro lineup soon...
The current apple lineup is like a Ferrari, Porche and BMW, but with shoppingcart-wheels option only.
the processor is just as important as the videocard when you upgrade. just because you push polys doesnt mean you only need a good card. as long as the processor has been updated.. then many things will speed up for you. like... when you select something on a large model.. its all code going through teh models database, and giving you feedback.. or doing transformations to large datasets. or doing things like splitting/cutting/connecting.. its all cpu man. the videocard only helps during tumbling, and most often my models that i make never max out my tumble speed. the only thing that gets slow is how fast i can interact with my models and thats all based on the rest of my system. screen refresh has little to do with it.
what im saying is.. this upgrade is most likely MUCH more than you need at the moment.
leuey
06-09-2004, 10:02 PM
While that's impressive it really doesn't have much to do with the Final Cut Pro engine as it does a $10G XRaid setup, PCI-X slots, and the bus bandwidth of the system.
FCP is great and all but in terms of computers I'd be very surprised if you couldn't get a duel Opteron that was faster for less money (but no XRaid...) The price on their duel G5 'compute node' xserve is more impressive to me than their workstations.
-Greg
Originally posted by parallax
Dude, there's more to Apple then running Maya. For the price, editing broadcast grade on Final Cut is unbeatable still. I just got back from an Apple demo, they showed 6 streams of HD running real-time on a dual G5, no additional hardware. Thats what the Final Cut Pro engine can do.
And i'm a PC guy for crying out loud.
Northchild
06-09-2004, 10:52 PM
I'd love to have one of the new dual G5 thingies. Unfortunately, buying new licenses for all of my software would cost much much more than the actual machine. :(
Beamtracer
06-09-2004, 11:27 PM
There's some very exciting things going on over at Apple, especially if you're into film & TV. People debate the megahertz thing, but there's so much more to it.
No manufacturer on the Windows PC side has been able to do what Apple is doing with HD video. The Windows crowd will eventually catch up, but at the moment Apple has a lead in this area, just like Apple had a lead with domestic mini-DV video.
There are other non-Apple systems that can also do broadcast HD, but they all need to translate the file using expensive capture cards. Apple's system takes broadcast quality HD video direct from videotape to hard drive, in a similar way to how mini-DV works on domestic systems.
It sounds like a small difference, but I believe that Apple will change the HDTV landscape with this. It means anyone with a G5 Mac can now deal with HD quality video without needing to buy a system costing over $100,000.
hmurchison
06-09-2004, 11:46 PM
While that's impressive it really doesn't have much to do with the Final Cut Pro engine as it does a $10G XRaid setup, PCI-X slots, and the bus bandwidth of the system.
Ummm no. I went to the Apple Production seminar here in washington and saw 6 HD streams being played off the internal HD. Final Cut HD speed is for real. The guys using the RAID drives are capturing uncompressed 4:4:4 video over SDI which is ungodly bandwidth.
FCP is great and all but in terms of computers I'd be very surprised if you couldn't get a duel Opteron that was faster for less money
Marginally faster due to the ondie memory controller...but then you couldn't run Final Cut Pro so any speed advantage is superfluous
Apple's performance in HD video editing is excellent right now. However they need to get the 3D mavens excited about the platform. That means tie ins with new Mac purchases and support for the higher end cards from ati and nvidia.
WWDC coming up end of this month will tell us exactly where Apple is going. They still have yet to announce the new LCD monitors which are supposed to have DVI which could portend a move to higher end cards at the same time.
They need to sort out the ram. 256mb of Ram for the dual 1.8 G5??! Who's going to buy that for $1999? The price is artificial as all customers are going to need more ram than that
KreatorOvWorldz
06-10-2004, 12:09 AM
Im far more concerned with the Mac's entranced into the animation and VFX market. I have been a cartoonist and amateur make up fx artist for a few years now and an actively studying animation (and film) and would like a G5 to be my next workstation purchase, because of the excellent choices in professional software and os level functionality combined with well-designed hardware for the price point they offer. HOWEVER, the GPUs offered in PMs are largely considered sub-par for CG because they cant push triangles fast enough for certain applications. This is quite debatable of course, but there is the trend for 3D ISVs to depend on GPUs for these advanced features.As a serious artist and prospective animator observing that Apple is actively making a penetration into the CG universe, i cant help but think this is a big hole in their strategy, and i cant help thinking they have to be aware of it, since Mr. Jobs is also CEO of Pixar and deals with 3D companies as part of running that business. So... where is the necessary hardware. If Apple held the position that Mac versions of animation software should be more CPU dependent than GPU dependent, they have not publicly taken that position. The fact that Apple had made developments such as Xgrid and Xsan is interesting cause these technologies have applications in CG. So I think something else is up. WWDC is almost here, perhaps a technology announcement there, but that really isnt the proper forum for an announcement related to high-end graphics processing. I have heard rumors of a strong Apple presence at SIGGRAPH, which i verified just now on the official website. It is also rapidly approaching and WOULD be the proper forum. Your take? Any inside info? Well least Alias has commited another one of their cool packages, Sketchbook Pro, to the Mac (that is also interesting since there are rumors of Apple working on a pressure sensitive monitor, similar to Wacom's Cintiq)
leuey
06-10-2004, 03:48 AM
You're telling me they were playing 6 streams of HD off of an internal Harddrive? Sorry but no. Not unless they were **Massively** compressed. If they were compressed, fine. But that's much less impressive.
The fasted SATA drive is the western digital 10,000 RPM Raptor (the 74 GB version). I have them on my Athlon 64 3400 workstations - and they are fast. But even striped (and the G5's can only have 2 internally I think) - they still can't come anywhere NEAR delivery the max. throughput of SATA (1.5 GB/s).
Basically, there is NO F'ing way (sorry for the language) that you saw 6 streams of HD off of an internal drive unless they were VERY compressed. Uncompressed HD data is 125 MB/sec * 6 is 750 MD/sec. Again, no way did you see that coming off a Mac's internal drives (actually, I don't even think an XRaid could do that - so they were definately compressed.)
Compressed I'd believe it. The bandwidth on the Macs is impressive. But Apple has nothing to do w/ HD speeds - PCI X is a standard on PC's too so nothing special there, so I don't know what that has to do with Apple other than their desktop editing software is neat.
-Greg
Originally posted by hmurchison
Ummm no. I went to the Apple Production seminar here in washington and saw 6 HD streams being played off the internal HD. Final Cut HD speed is for real. The guys using the RAID drives are capturing uncompressed 4:4:4 video over SDI which is ungodly bandwidth.
Marginally faster due to the ondie memory controller...but then you couldn't run Final Cut Pro so any speed advantage is superfluous
Apple's performance in HD video editing is excellent right now. However they need to get the 3D mavens excited about the platform. That means tie ins with new Mac purchases and support for the higher end cards from ati and nvidia.
WWDC coming up end of this month will tell us exactly where Apple is going. They still have yet to announce the new LCD monitors which are supposed to have DVI which could portend a move to higher end cards at the same time.
hmurchison
06-10-2004, 04:33 AM
Leuey
sorry for the confusion.
The streams weren't uncompressed. In fact the cool feature of Final Cut Pro HD is that it takes the native DVCPRO HD codec over FW. This is only 14MBps.
Apple is then able to run multiple streams before bogging down the drive. I know they didn't have the video streaming off of one drive but they were not using an Xraid. I shouldn't have said internal because I didn't look to see if they had and external FW drive. I DO know you don't need an xRAID which is cooll.
You're right it isn't Apple bandwidth but just the nice bw you get from PCI-X and the ability to take the cameras native codec and work directly with that.
It looks great. Sorry for the confusion.
tevih
06-10-2004, 04:41 AM
These machines look cute, but I don't do DV editing.
I think this whole industry is set up wrong. Computers should bemade for the tasks they are performing. Have sep chips do sep things. Somebody does lotta 3d rendering? Have a chip for that. Guy does lotsa 2D photoshop? Make a chip for that. Ppl buy either a sport utility vehicle, a pickup truck, or a luxury sedan... There is no one vehicle that can be all of those! Why do ppl expect that of computers??
4SquareKing
06-10-2004, 05:34 AM
No manufacturer on the Windows PC side has been able to do what Apple is doing with HD video. The Windows crowd will eventually catch up, but at the moment Apple has a lead in this area, just like Apple had a lead with domestic mini-DV video. - Beamtracer
You have missed the boat there are many solutions on the windows side. One was shown at NAB working with eyeon software for Digital Fusion comp work where you got HD WYSIWYG. Here is the link. They are doing real time cuts editing with uncompressed HD 1080p and 1080i using Panasonic prime calculation so you can get better than 30fps. You can actually edit subframes.
http://www.in-sync.com/products/product.php?ID=406D8F8B&ProductDetail=2
beaker
06-10-2004, 06:23 AM
Originally posted by 4SquareKing
- Beamtracer
You have missed the boat there are many solutions on the windows side. One was shown at NAB working with eyeon software for Digital Fusion comp work where you got HD WYSIWYG. Here is the link. They are doing real time cuts editing with uncompressed HD 1080p and 1080i using Panasonic prime calculation so you can get better than 30fps. You can actually edit subframes.
http://www.in-sync.com/products/product.php?ID=406D8F8B&ProductDetail=2
Thats really nice, but Digital Fusion is a compositor, not an editor. Right tool for the right job. Using a compositor like AE, DF or Shake for editing is retarded and a waste of time.
beaker
06-10-2004, 06:25 AM
Originally posted by halo
i just wish they'd pull their finger out and uncap the 2gb RAM per application limit...being able to use more ram in PS would help my work fly better
That is an Adobe issue, not an Apple one. Adobe can compile their software to use more than 2 gig with the G5, but according to Adobe no one could possibly need more than 2 gig.
leuey
06-10-2004, 06:42 AM
ahh - still very cool. I'm glad you clarified - makes sense now. I really love apple - boost the CPU speed and enable Nvidia Quadro cards and I would switch (and Maya Unlimited). I really like their Xserves and their price is really nice. But with 3D time is an issue - 10 seconds slower per frame * thousands of frames is a big deal. I'm always amused by the photoshop filter comparison - as if waiting 2 seconds instead of 1.2 seconds for a Gaussian blur is a huge selling point : )
anyway, I've got my eye on apple, most of my 3D finishes on apple final cut or Avid. I'll probably wait for the next gen. for 3D.
-Greg
Originally posted by hmurchison
Leuey
sorry for the confusion.
The streams weren't uncompressed. In fact the cool feature of Final Cut Pro HD is that it takes the native DVCPRO HD codec over FW. This is only 14MBps.
It looks great. Sorry for the confusion.
parallax
06-10-2004, 09:54 AM
leuey,
what hmurchison said :)
But anyway, playing DVCPRO HD footage still takes lots of CPU power, it being software based. And 6 streams are IMO still impressive.
If indeed they played 6 uncompressed streams, i'd throw out my 2800+ 1.5 gig 37GB RAID-0 raptors PC out of the window (dont you just love those..)
beaker im afraid your wrong....the 2gb head is a limit of the OS, no application can run over it...Adobe are well aware of the need for as much ram as possible and engineers have stated several times that the limit is imposed by the 32 bit OS, not their software. Go to the adobe forums for PS and have a read, if you dont believe me.
Apple need to pull their finger out and deliver the OS that can take advantage of their hardware.
imashination
06-10-2004, 11:14 AM
Originally posted by halo
beaker im afraid your wrong....the 2gb head is a limit of the OS, no application can run over it...Adobe are well aware of the need for as much ram as possible and engineers have stated several times that the limit is imposed by the 32 bit OS, not their software. Go to the adobe forums for PS and have a read, if you dont believe me.
Apple need to pull their finger out and deliver the OS that can take advantage of their hardware.
Actually OSX can assign up to 4 gigs per app, many 32-bit apps already do. Windows is generally limited to 2 gigs, but you can fudge it up to 3. The next Winxp service pack will offer up to 4 gigs per app on 64 bit processors.
A fully 64-bit os is required to exceed the 4 gig barrier.
Chris Cox - 06:21pm May 25, 2004 Pacific (#1 of 5)
Your computer OS is limited to 2 Gig per application.
Yes, Photoshop is using multiple processors as much as it can.
We still are WAY ahead of the curve.
Chris Cox - 10:12pm May 7, 2004 Pacific (#1 of 29)
That is correct, but not a problem.
The OS limits applications to 2 Gig each.
And no matter how much is installed, Photoshop can't use all of it - the binaries and OS take up some space.
chris cox's name appears on the PS startup splash screen...
Minguez
06-10-2004, 01:38 PM
ambient-whisper,
Im ok with the processor. I dont care if it tops out at 2.0 or 2.5. It is just the fact that the low end model for 1999$ comes with 256MB RAM and a downgraded GF FX 5200.
And I promisse you that with 256MB ram and a 64MB videocard the processor cant realy help my realtime preformence that much if I want to see a large model with textures in realtime...
Shure I can always ad 1 gig of RAM and upgrade to the Radeon 9800, but Im not shure im willing to first pay 1999$ for the workstation, and then another 600$ to make it match a 900$ dell in realtime preformance...
Im not a mac hater. It is just that Macs seems to be like a ferrari with shopping-cart wheels right now.
They both have great design and quality. They are smooth to run. They both have an extremely powerfull engine.
4SquareKing
06-10-2004, 03:40 PM
Thats really nice, but Digital Fusion is a compositor, not an editor. Right tool for the right job. Using a compositor like AE, DF or Shake for editing is retarded and a waste of time.
- beaker
The link shows a system that allows you to do HD compositing and see in realtime the effects output to a HD monitor or downstream to a SD monitor. The system In-Sync builds is actually an edit system they have just made it so that the hook into the hardware lets application like Digital Fusion use the same hardware to read out the media information. I have edited long enough to know you don't use a compositor for an editor unless you really really need to... :)
onlooker
06-12-2004, 04:56 AM
Originally posted by tevih
These machines look cute, but I don't do DV editing.
I think this whole industry is set up wrong. Computers should bemade for the tasks they are performing. Have sep chips do sep things. Somebody does lotta 3d rendering? Have a chip for that. Guy does lotsa 2D photoshop? Make a chip for that. Ppl buy either a sport utility vehicle, a pickup truck, or a luxury sedan... There is no one vehicle that can be all of those! Why do ppl expect that of computers??
#1) Computers are not cars , and they are capable of doing all these things in one box. Just not in a Mac. Or very well anyway.
#2) I think you already know there are different components for all these options, and you can get them all in 1 computer. Just because you can't do it in a Mac, does not mean no one else should be able to.
#3) Why would I want to buy multiple computers, and waste all that money on a second, and 3rd Power supply, and the rest of those 2nd and 3rd components when I can just add 1 correct component to 1 computer, and make it capable of doing an additional job for 1/10 the price of buying all the rest of those other components that make up a computer again?. (not to mention the space it saves)
I don't get your thinking at all. Why would a person buy 1 computer to do 2D work, another to 3D modeling. Another to render it on.
Then dump all that work into a Mac to edit it all together with FCP because it moves the HD around so well? I assume that's your idea. Keep the Mac alive for the video editing.
Here is what it looks like to me.:-> If all you do is video editing the Mac is a great, no - probably the best computer right now for that lone purpose, but if HD video is not your #1 function on your computer the Mac is obviously not cutting it. Especially for anything that is has heavy demands on graphics.
I don't care how impressive it moves HD clips around. The PowerMacs pretty much a one dimensional machine right now, and I think the new PowerMacs look like crap.
I've been a Mac user from day 1, and I have not been impressed by a PowerMac since 1996 when I bought my 9600. In it's day, that was a nice computer.
hmurchison
06-12-2004, 08:36 AM
Onlooker and I have had our disagreements on AI. But regarding 3D I have to agree. They haven't been on the ball in getting the graphics speed up to date.
This simply must change. It's not enough to have tech like Java and OpenGL and the like. On a Mac which commands a premium these technologies are supposed to work beyond reproach. No excuses if you can't get everything working right then lay off the glitz and put extra programmers on the areas that need the most attention.
Apple often forgets that it's a computer company. They believe they are creating art but that's not what everyone is paying for. we are paying so that "our" art can be created. We need able performing tools to do that.
I have HUGE expectations of Apple for WWDC. I can deal with hardware that isn't mind blowing but dammit the software better but nothing but butter.
Pixlmonky
06-12-2004, 04:10 PM
Partially off topic but I think it fits.
Anyone use the media 100's lately. I know I am going to take hits on this one...
Full 10bit resolution independent HD. Technically unlimited channels of realtime uncompressed. It can actually do 4 channels realtime (at one time). It renders four lower channels into one then renders the next four lower channels into one, and on and on. So if you make changes to your edit and it occurs in the top four channels, it is realtime (almost infinate). The further down the edit you go the longer it has to render. Pretty cool system. I saw a demo and was thoroughly impressed.
With all that said, I don't do HD so....
If you think about it, I could go back to my 60mhz Amiga Toaster flyer with 64 megs of ram and get many channels realtime. Hell of an editing machine. Still faster at video (and other things) than most systems today.
Back to the true topic.....
Someone had hit on this before. It seems like Apple is innovative in their software they aquire but are not pushing new innovative things with their hardware. Where is their new innovative hardware advances? The last major one was altevec and that isn't explored all that well. If they pushed the envelope in hardware, like they do in software, the machines would probably be 5X faster and even more effecient than they already are. They would be the industry leader and market share leader. It just seams to me that they are not innovating the hardware. Yeah, there are tweaks and advances to this and that but nothing groundbreaking.
Nothing taken away from what they do and how well they do it.
onlooker
06-13-2004, 12:03 AM
hmurchison,
I enjoy reading all your posts. I don't think of it as disagreeing as much as that we both use or computers for different things. I think each would prefer Apple to apply themselves differently in different areas. Other than the Graphics which we both think is lacking. Although, I think it lacks more than you do. I would have been happy with the 2.5GHz G5 if I could just have had my quadro as an available option. Preferably from a 3rd party, and not Apple unless Apple had it for cheaper (which I doubt would happen)
Even though I'll probably end up buying a PC right after WWDC I'm more curious to see why Apple has such a reportedly huge presence a Siggraph this year when they have not even attended in years. I don't think it's all for Video. Although it could be.
hmurchison
06-13-2004, 06:36 AM
Even though I'll probably end up buying a PC right after WWDC I'm more curious to see why Apple has such a reportedly huge presence a Siggraph this year when they have not even attended in years. I don't think it's all for Video. Although it could be.
Siggraph is going to be interesting. Apple certainly is displaying (http://www.siggraph.org/cgi-bin/cgi/idEDetail.html&CompanyID=833) lots of technologies. After WWDC we should have a more clear idea about just what areas Apple plans to hit creatively.
I too will probably build another PC and I'm going to decide between Maya or XSI. Both would be overkill but I might as well take advantage of my academic disounts when I can. Honestly I love being cross platform. It allows me to focus on the relative strengths of each platform. 3D is a PC strength right now and as long as there are export/import options the final product should be fine.
CGTalk Moderation
01-18-2006, 11:00 AM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.
vBulletin v3.0.5, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.