Possible new iMac components????

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
An October 14, 2009 article on Anandtech.com is on 'The Highest End Notebooks, 2009' with a comparison of numerous top-of-line laptops -- http://www.anandtech.com/mobile/showdoc.aspx?i=3660



One particular notebook -- the AVADirect D900F -- is noted as being the fastest mobile processing platform they've seen.



http://www.avadirect.com/product_det...asp?PRID=13880



Given the high end (and high TDP) CPUs capable of being used in this notebook, I thought one of these CPUs might be incorporated into the new iMac.



Here are the CPU options for the AVADirect D900F:



HTT - Hyper Threading Technology

TB - Turbo Boost



Core i7 920 (4x2.66GHz, HTT/TB, 45nm, 4.8GT/s QPI, 130W) -- $284

Core i7 940 (4x2.93GHz, HTT/TB, 45nm, 4.8GT/s QPI, 130W) -- $562

Core i7 950 (4x3.06GHz, HTT/TB, 45nm, 4.8GT/s QPI, 130W) -- $562

Core i7 975 (4x3.33GHz, HTT/TB, 45nm, 6.4GT/s QPI, 130W) -- $999



Xeon L5506 (4x2.13 GHz, 45nm, 4.80 GT/s 60W) -- $423

Xeon L5520 (4x2.26 GHz, HTT/TB, 45nm, 5.86 GT/s 60W) -- $530

Xeon E5540 (4x2.53 GHz, HTT/TB, 45nm, 5.86 GT/s 80W) -- $744

Xeon X5550 (4x2.66 GHz, HTT/TB, 45nm, 6.40 GT/s 95W) -- $958

Xeon X5560 (4x2.80 GHz, HTT/TB, 45nm, 6.40 GT/s 95W) -- $1172

Xeon W5580 (4x3.20 GHz, HTT/TB, 45nm, 6.40 GT/s 60W) -- $1600



This following link compares most of the above CPUs and includes the comparable i5 750 (4x2.66 GHz, TB, 45 nm, 2.5 GT/s, 95W -- $196) & i7 860 (4x2.80 GHz, HTT/TB, 45 nm, 2.5 GT/s, 95W -- $284) which are comparable in performance and price to the i7 920.



http://ark.intel.com/Compare.aspx?id...04,37106,37113



Admittedly, most of these CPUs are far too expensive and are better suited for the Mac Pro, but I guess if the AVADirect D900F can use a 130W TDP CPU, perhaps there is hope for an i5 750 or i7 860 in the new iMac.



BTW, the standard GPU in this notebook is the high end nVidia GeForce GTX 280M with 1GB RAM and 128 'CUDA cores'. The upcoming nVidia Fermi GPU by comparison will have 512 'CUDA cores', but the current ATI Radeon 5870 has 1600 'Stream Processing Units'. Sounds like OpenCL would very much like those cards.



If anyone is interested, here are some tear-down images of the motherboard and heat sink of (I believe) an early 2009 20" iMac, just to see what Apple might be up against if they don't do a radical redesign of the enclosure to deal with any heat issues. I've never seen a motherboard or heat sink like those. It's quite apparent why many are interested in faster processors (with a thicker enclosure) instead of a thinner iMac if they're using such a heat sink.



http://www.everymac.com/systems/appl...009-specs.html



http://s1.guide-images.ifixit.com/ig...ANuJhLIM.large



http://s1.guide-images.ifixit.com/ig...USdgkCLa.large



Here's hoping a Core Duo (or the Clarksfield - i7 720QM, 820QM, 920XM) CPUs aren't in the iMac's future.



It may very well be a short wait.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 13
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    Seriously Apple isn't going to put a 130 watt processor into a Mac Book Pro. It is likely that a 60 watt processor won't happen either.



    More directly to your question about the iMac, Apple is currently on a green binge and until they hurl we won't see a 130 watt processor in an iMac. 60 watt processors on the other hand are very possible, but I'm not sure about the marketing spin required to sell XEON to the general public. The fact remains Intels latest processors need the best cooling possible to consistently use the Turbo Boost feature.



    Due to these limitations I suspect Apple will go with mobile processor again in the iMac. I'm fully aware of the rumors surrounding XEON in the iMac which to be honest I'd like to see, but I'm taking a conservative approach here. From the technical standpoint XEON could easily handle the job but Apple would have to work to reduce consumer confusion.



    While I don't believe iMac is the platform for it I'd love to see Apple introduce an OpenCL optimized machine. Ideally it would be equipped with Fermi and a GPU for the display. Actually I think the XServe platform is the place to do this, likely on a 2U box. In any event Apple needs a machine it can market as an all out computational box. A midrange computational machine where Fermi is also the GPU is in order too, it would make a good XMac.



    Dave
  • Reply 2 of 13
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by nonimus View Post


    An Here are the CPU options for the AVADirect D900F:



    HTT - Hyper Threading Technology

    TB - Turbo Boost



    Core i7 920 (4x2.66GHz, HTT/TB, 45nm, 4.8GT/s QPI, 130W) -- $284

    Core i7 940 (4x2.93GHz, HTT/TB, 45nm, 4.8GT/s QPI, 130W) -- $562

    Core i7 950 (4x3.06GHz, HTT/TB, 45nm, 4.8GT/s QPI, 130W) -- $562

    Core i7 975 (4x3.33GHz, HTT/TB, 45nm, 6.4GT/s QPI, 130W) -- $999



    Xeon L5506 (4x2.13 GHz, 45nm, 4.80 GT/s 60W) -- $423

    Xeon L5520 (4x2.26 GHz, HTT/TB, 45nm, 5.86 GT/s 60W) -- $530

    Xeon E5540 (4x2.53 GHz, HTT/TB, 45nm, 5.86 GT/s 80W) -- $744

    Xeon X5550 (4x2.66 GHz, HTT/TB, 45nm, 6.40 GT/s 95W) -- $958

    Xeon X5560 (4x2.80 GHz, HTT/TB, 45nm, 6.40 GT/s 95W) -- $1172

    Xeon W5580 (4x3.20 GHz, HTT/TB, 45nm, 6.40 GT/s 60W) -- $1600



    If you look at this list critically, you can eliminate all the 130 watt processors. None of Apple's products can handle high wattage except the Mac Pro and as the previous poster said, it flies in the face of Apple's Gore Movement. That leaves the 60 watt versions and they are all over $500, which again eliminates them from iMac or Mac Mini consideration as too expensive, except possibly in a high end expensive version. So I think you've just proven Apple will do NOTHING until it gets a better set of specs from Intel; i.e. LOW wattage, price with HIGH performance and low chip count.
  • Reply 3 of 13
    benroethigbenroethig Posts: 2,782member
    Considering that they passed on the 65w SFF C2Qs, I don't think think you'll see anything that isn't laptop based in the iMac. As long as Job, Ives, and their people are around, Apple will be about elegance, not capability. As hard as it is to watch, the capabilities of Mac OS X will be far beyond what Apple's selling for quite a while longer. Using laptop CPUs allows Apple to get better prices for CPUs, chipsets, and RAM (although you wouldn't know it the way they gouge you on BTO) and allows the insanely thin space saving designs that Ive likes. Also, the majority of Apple's customers are either very ordinary consumers with very minor tasks that want something cool looking or the extremely devoted who have lost independent thought. They make a lot of money off of those who don't know any better.
  • Reply 4 of 13
    outsideroutsider Posts: 6,008member
    Here's a million dollar idea Apple: Break out the power supply of the iMac into an external power supply. a. you'll remove a huge heat source and b. you'll allow much more room for cooling and other component space.
  • Reply 5 of 13
    benroethigbenroethig Posts: 2,782member
    That's an excellent idea, but the cord would be too ungainly.
  • Reply 6 of 13
    outsideroutsider Posts: 6,008member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BenRoethig View Post


    That's an excellent idea, but the cord would be too ungainly.



    Depends. Apple is also good at making things less ungainly. It's basically bringing the mini power setup to the iMac.
  • Reply 7 of 13
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Outsider View Post


    Depends. Apple is also good at making things less ungainly. It's basically bringing the mini power setup to the iMac.



    Why don't they just create a computer where the monitor is on top, but you get a fashionable table where the computer is enclosed?
  • Reply 8 of 13
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by nonimus View Post


    Why don't they just create a computer where the monitor is on top, but you get a fashionable table where the computer is enclosed?



  • Reply 9 of 13
    outsideroutsider Posts: 6,008member
    Heh.
  • Reply 10 of 13
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Outsider View Post


    Depends. Apple is also good at making things less ungainly. It's basically bringing the mini power setup to the iMac.



    The iMac power supply has 2-2.5 times the power of the Mini. You'd ned something a bit larger, similar to the one shipped with HP's firebird.
  • Reply 11 of 13
    outsideroutsider Posts: 6,008member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BenRoethig View Post


    The iMac power supply has 2-2.5 times the power of the Mini. You'd ned something a bit larger, similar to the one shipped with HP's firebird.



    I didn't say use the mini's power supply. I meant use the mini's method of having an external power supply.
  • Reply 12 of 13
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Outsider View Post


    I didn't say use the mini's power supply. I meant use the mini's method of having an external power supply.



    I know, I'm just saying, it would be much bigger.
  • Reply 13 of 13
    outsideroutsider Posts: 6,008member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BenRoethig View Post


    I know, I'm just saying, it would be much bigger.



    Sure, but not twice as large. I've seen the PSU for the imacs and if they wrapped that in plastic or metal casing, it would be manageable. At work we have some Dell micro towers that have external power supplies and they are reasonably sized.



    It can be done, and done elegantly. Will Apple do it is another question.
Sign In or Register to comment.