Core i7 Macs
With the imminent and much needed updates to the entire desktop line, I wanted to have a thread to discuss the Core i7. I am no expert, but from my research it seems like this CPU is a major leap in performance. It essentially allows a quad core to perform as if it had eight cores. I think it is unlikely that Apple will use the Core i7 in the Mini or iMac due to heat issues and the Mac Pro will likely get the much more expensive server version of the i7.
Currently you can buy a Core i7 PC tower for about $1,200 with an ATI 4850 Core i7 Tower That computer easily blows away the current top of the line iMac and probably would even beat the Mac Pro in raw speed at certain tasks. With all the talk about about the new iMac using a quad core, I have heard nothing about the possibility of that being an i7 quad core. How can Apple possibly compete if it sticks with the slower and older Intel line and completely ignores the i7? I am not trolling, I honestly want to know if anyone else is concerned that due to the emphasis on slim form factor we may be missing out on this incredible CPU.
Currently you can buy a Core i7 PC tower for about $1,200 with an ATI 4850 Core i7 Tower That computer easily blows away the current top of the line iMac and probably would even beat the Mac Pro in raw speed at certain tasks. With all the talk about about the new iMac using a quad core, I have heard nothing about the possibility of that being an i7 quad core. How can Apple possibly compete if it sticks with the slower and older Intel line and completely ignores the i7? I am not trolling, I honestly want to know if anyone else is concerned that due to the emphasis on slim form factor we may be missing out on this incredible CPU.
Comments
With the imminent and much needed updates to the entire desktop line, I wanted to have a thread to discuss the Core i7. I am no expert, but from my research it seems like this CPU is a major leap in performance. It essentially allows a quad core to perform as if it had eight cores. I think it is unlikely that Apple will use the Core i7 in the Mini or iMac due to heat issues and the Mac Pro will likely get the much more expensive server version of the i7.
Currently you can buy a Core i7 PC tower for about $1,200 with an ATI 4850 Core i7 Tower That computer easily blows away the current top of the line iMac and probably would even beat the Mac Pro in raw speed at certain tasks. With all the talk about about the new iMac using a quad core, I have heard nothing about the possibility of that being an i7 quad core. How can Apple possibly compete if it sticks with the slower and older Intel line and completely ignores the i7? I am not trolling, I honestly want to know if anyone else is concerned that due to the emphasis on slim form factor we may be missing out on this incredible CPU.
Nope not trolling at all.
Forget Core i7 for Macs. Core i7 (Bloomfield) was never meant to a high volume desktop part. It consumes too much wattage and it's die size is probably unsuitable with regards to carving up a 300mm wafer and reducing cost.
Core i7 has QPI or AKA ondie memory controller. This yields fast memory performance but it's expensive.
Intel is working on Core i5 (rumored name) Lynnfield processors. They will be Nehalem cores that will be smaller and the TDP will be 95W. They also will have PCI-Express support right in the silicon removing the need to offer PCI-Express graphics in the North Bridge reducing costs. They will have the threads as well so a 4-core Lynnfield will have 8 threads. Lynnfield will not have QPI as Bloomfield but it's said that "internally" it's QPI whatever that means. It's memory bandwidth won't match Bloomfields 3 channel DDR3 but for high volume consumer desktops I doubt that matters.
Look for Apple to go Penryn Quad Core in some iMac models and Refresh with Core i5 Lynnfield Nehalems when they become available.
Lynnfield will also be the first Nehalems with options for built in IGP graphics further reducing cost
This reminds me of Apple skipping the much better valued Conroe processors when they came out and opted for the more expensive and slower mobile equivalents usually used in laptops. Looking around at some benchmarks sites, the i7 is very impressive. Since you can already buy or build a i7 computer for about $1,000 I am just wondering how long Apple can buck the trend with older/slower desktop computers at around twice the price of newer and significantly faster PC with i7's. This obsession with ultra slim and the AIO form factor seems to have boxed them into a corner in terms of not being able to offer comparable speed or value. If there was ever a need for a Mac Mid tower, this would seem to be it.
Thanks for the info on Lynnfield. I did some research on it and it seems like a Q3 2009 release date. That seems like an eternity when the current Core i7 was released 4 months ago and at $300 for the entry level model seems pretty inexpensive.
This reminds me of Apple skipping the much better valued Conroe processors when they came out and opted for the more expensive and slower mobile equivalents usually used in laptops. Looking around at some benchmarks sites, the i7 is very impressive. Since you can already buy or build a i7 computer for about $1,000 I am just wondering how long Apple can buck the trend with older/slower desktop computers at around twice the price of newer and significantly faster PC with i7's. This obsession with ultra slim and the AIO form factor seems to have boxed them into a corner in terms of not being able to offer comparable speed or value. If there was ever a need for a Mac Mid tower, this would seem to be it.
Apple likely knew Core i7 was a no go. Dissipating heat from a 130W processor in a ATX case is no problem but in an iMac somethings melting.
I believe Apple only needs to wait 6 more months. Because Core i7 doesn't have the integrated PCI-Express support and IGP options you will see them in relatively affordable desktops but the real fun doesn't kick off until Lynnfield an Clarksfield. Being able to eliminate the North Bridge will save space and heat (North Bridges can add 15W TDP to the system if not more)
Even Lynnfield will be tough for Apple. It's 95W which is twice what the iMac is handling right now. The iMac case is going to need a redesign IMO to add better cooling. They have boxed themselves into a corner. Nehalem mobile parts aren't coming until Q3 as well and they'll be more spendy.
It's time to recognize the iMac for what it is...a desktop and it should be using desktop CPU.
Apple likely knew Core i7 was a no go. Dissipating heat from a 130W processor in a ATX case is no problem but in an iMac somethings melting.
It's time to recognize the iMac for what it is...a desktop and it should be using desktop CPU.
Can I hear an Amen. Truer words were never spoken. A redesign would seem to be the only option if they want to keep them in the same ballpark with other true desktop competitors. And while they are it, make it easier to adjust the monitor to more viewing angles/positions.
Steve Jobs
2008
In 2010 we may have to revisit this statement. I figure that with current integration
coming from AMD and Intel (namely PCIe, IGP right in the die) and decreasing storage and RAM costs.
How hard is it going to be to deliver a $499 computer that's just fine for basic user?
Basic User : late 2009
Dual Core -4 threads
IGP - OpenCL/DX10
4GB of RAM
120GB of storage.
"We don't know how to make a $500 computer that isn't a piece of junk"
Steve Jobs
2008
In 2010 we may have to revisit this statement. I figure that with current integration
coming from AMD and Intel (namely PCIe, IGP right in the die) and decreasing storage and RAM costs.
How hard is it going to be to deliver a $499 computer that's just fine for basic user?
Basic User : late 2009
Dual Core -4 threads
IGP - OpenCL/DX10
4GB of RAM
120GB of storage.
Accounting for a 30% premium, minus packaging and other miscellaneous costs and you're looking at a cost to manufacture from Apple at roughly $300.
With just a 30% premium the cost is down to $384.
Not going to happen.
Accounting for a 30% premium, minus packaging and other miscellaneous costs and you're looking at a cost to manufacture from Apple at roughly $300.
With just a 30% premium the cost is down to $384.
Not going to happen.
Isn't a %30 markup on a BoM of roughly $300 a bit excessive? I'll give Apple this
their premiums are the envy of the tech world but expecting more than %25 is a bit
piggish.
By Q1 2010 it won't be a matter of "we don't ..." it'll be more "we won't..."
Though without AMD breathing down Intel's neck there's no guarantee that Havendale will be affordable as compared to Nvidia.
Sorry for going OT here just pontificating for 2010.
Can I hear an Amen. Truer words were never spoken. A redesign would seem to be the only option if they want to keep them in the same ballpark with other true desktop competitors. And while they are it, make it easier to adjust the monitor to more viewing angles/positions.
I'm not sure if you know what you are talking about here. i7 concentrates the power budget in one place but it is not excessive bad. If you consider that the memory controller is on die as is one of the bridges, you would realize that i7 is more of a 100 watt processor (subtracting out the built in functionality). Maybe not even a 100 watt processor as some of Intels bridges are extremely power hungry. All that happens with i& is that the power is concentrated onto one device instead of being spread out over two or more..
So what does that mean for iMac? I7 is a real possibility and might actually lower overall power dissipation. It really depends upon what Apple and Nvidia come up with for the GPU/Bridge chip. I actually could see over all power usage actually being lower than many here seem to suspect. Part of that comes from thermal design power being difficult to hit in a quad core for normal desktop duties.
Couple all of this with the rumors that Apple has looked at new heat sinking technology and one wold have to suspect that they are at least considering i7 in iMac. Of course they could have an entirely different machine under development too. As many have pointed out Apple needs an i7 solution to fill the widening gap between this processor and the hardware that came before it. Even the new Quads for small form factor machines won't fill the gap, though they would make an ideal Mini (Hint Apple).
Dave
I'm not sure if you know what you are talking about here. i7 concentrates the power budget in one place but it is not excessive bad. If you consider that the memory controller is on die as is one of the bridges, you would realize that i7 is more of a 100 watt processor (subtracting out the built in functionality). Maybe not even a 100 watt processor as some of Intels bridges are extremely power hungry. All that happens with i& is that the power is concentrated onto one device instead of being spread out over two or more..
form factor machines won't fill the gap, though they would make an ideal Mini (Hint Apple).
Dave
Dave
Actually in all fairness I'm the one that was talking about the wattage mainly. Knowing that 95W Lynnfield is coming with a two chip setup
Do you think Apple would jump to what's going to be a stopgap processor in Core i7?
Dave
Actually in all fairness I'm the one that was talking about the wattage mainly. Knowing that 95W Lynnfield is coming with a two chip setup
Do you think Apple would jump to what's going to be a stopgap processor in Core i7?
Let me put it this way, Apple needs an i7 solution now. That is a gap filling machine. Besides it was my understanding that we are still talking i7 here but an i7 that is more of a SoC. Can Apple wait that long to deliver an i7 solution?
Well obviously they can as the have stretched out Mini and iMac updates for a very long time. Let's face it though the current hiccup in the delivery of new desk top systems is not good for Apple. They need resonably competitive machines across the spectrum. That is every thing from the Mini to the fabled xMac needs to be at least on the same playing field as the competitive hardware.
As to that SoC (or more exactly higher integration i7) yeah it would almost be ideal for an iMac but it isn't here yet. I must admit that the iMac can wait a while longer as the Mini is currently a more important update, but I'm not sure Apple can or should wait that long.
Frankly I'm a bit mistified as to what is up with the Mini. I know this thread is about IMac but it does seem to be as outdated. With the Mini Intel has already released the ideal chips for that device. IMac is different in that an ideal upgrade solution really doesn't exist for it. Simply going quad core is not going to give a performance upgrade that most people would expect. To really speed up the iMac you need the new core in i7. The point here is that single thread performance is still important to many common user apps and many other apps don't have the parallelism to exploit the extra cores. So iMac needs a much faster core.
Who knows maybe Apple will wait for Lynnfield, all I'm saying is that means an even longer wait for new iMacs.
Dave
This reminds me of Apple skipping the much better valued Conroe processors when they came out and opted for the more expensive and slower mobile equivalents usually used in laptops. Looking around at some benchmarks sites, the i7 is very impressive. Since you can already buy or build a i7 computer for about $1,000 I am just wondering how long Apple can buck the trend with older/slower desktop computers at around twice the price of newer and significantly faster PC with i7's. This obsession with ultra slim and the AIO form factor seems to have boxed them into a corner in terms of not being able to offer comparable speed or value. If there was ever a need for a Mac Mid tower, this would seem to be it.
I thoroughly agree. I'm really annoyed that Apple didn't touch Conroe Desktop and I'm mystified that they appear to be limiting desktop performance based on design decisions. I can't agree with it. The iMac is the Macbook Air of desktops. Fine. It has it's market. But to not offer a mid-tower with a much cheaper desktop chip is unreasonable. It's indefencible. It's pig-headedness. Sure, I know apologists on this board don't agree...but there's clearly a market from professionals and consumers alike for a i7 performing tower that doesn't 'START' at £1700 smackers. And then you have to pay for a lame-ass 2 generations ago mid-range card on top of that. What's more annoying is that these lame 'low power' quad cores are way more expensive than the entry i7 chip which blows them out the water. Geeze. As much as I like the iMac, it IS just a laptop on a stand. It dumbs down the mid-range market. Could you have imagined such a machine in the G3 tower days? I don't mind the iMac at all. But Apple needs to offer the 'power' mid-tower gang guys a choice. And they aren't do. I DON'T think the iMac itself is intrinsically limiting. It is what it is. And it's beautiful. BUT, not offering a mid-tower is artificially limiting and the iMac is NOT a one size fits all computer. It serves a particular need. But what about DIFFERENT needs.
It's not like we're in the PPC and the bungling attempts of both Moto and IBM. We now have the chips available to spread out to offer at least one more desktop choice. Yeesh. Even small PC operators can offer that choice. But here's Apple again, chasing greed and ideology above and beyong reason. They're doing a great many good things. But the severe limitations with certain things is apparent to anybody with a brain. It's darnright frustrating.
And I certainly concur with the views of Hmurch and Wizard above.
*Still waiting for Apple to deliver 'THE' desktop. Because the shameful out of date/outrageously priced desktops they currently have are an embarrassment. It's form over function. Patronising. Or bladdy lazy-ness.
Lemon Bon Bon.
You are right. I could go out right now and build a great Core i7 with ATI 4850/ Nvidia 9800GTX with a 22" screen and it would blow away the proposed Core 2 Quad 9800 GT/GS? iMac.
So what would the new iMac bring to the table - all in one, great slim design, LED backlighting, OS X, iLife '09, iWork '09. All great, but the iMac needs "one more thing".
That great Core i7 PC I mentioned? One big hitch: The tower needed to shove all that goodness in is MASSIVE, we're talking cases approaching the size of the Mac Pro now. Those ATI 4870 cards, and Nvidia 260 and 280s, are very long graphic cards and need those large cases. A Core i7 PC with good graphics will probably eat about 500 Watts at least.
HP's Voodoo top guy is pushing the HP Firebird as an alternative.
What will Apple bring to the table? I mean, who really needs a Core i7 in an iMac? A Core 2 Quad with 9600M GT, 22" LED backlit iMac, that would really kick some serious butt with Open CL, Snow Leopard, etc. etc.
The ugly PC towers are a real drawback for those powerful PCs, plus all the cabling. Though, the upgradeability or lack thereof of the iMac pisses of people looking at the value equation.
As for screens, yeah, 19" and 22" screen prices are coming down fast.
Here's what I see Apple needs to do.
$1,200 22" LED Backlight Core2Quad with 9600M GT 256MB.
$1,500 22" LED Backlight Core2Quad (faster) with 9600M GT 512MB.
As for the 24", maybe bump that to a 26" LED Backlight, I don't think you can shove an i7 into that while maintaining the attractiveness of that form factor.
Other than what Apple needs to bring to the table hardware wise with the 22", the higher-end larger iMacs, well, needs some kickassery to shove an i7 into that. Which is possible. Remember how hot the iMac G5s were?
For the consumer a Core i7 is not in their minds. A Quad and bigger screen probably is the needed "value driver".
Of course, this brings up the Core i7 "xMac". Which without Steve's blessing or direct involvement, is really, really not going to happen IMHO. Too big a risk for Apple to consider right now.
With the imminent and much needed updates to the entire desktop line, I wanted to have a thread to discuss the Core i7. I am no expert, but from my research it seems like this CPU is a major leap in performance. It essentially allows a quad core to perform as if it had eight cores. I think it is unlikely that Apple will use the Core i7 in the Mini or iMac due to heat issues and the Mac Pro will likely get the much more expensive server version of the i7.
Currently you can buy a Core i7 PC tower for about $1,200 with an ATI 4850 Core i7 Tower That computer easily blows away the current top of the line iMac and probably would even beat the Mac Pro in raw speed at certain tasks. With all the talk about about the new iMac using a quad core, I have heard nothing about the possibility of that being an i7 quad core. How can Apple possibly compete if it sticks with the slower and older Intel line and completely ignores the i7? I am not trolling, I honestly want to know if anyone else is concerned that due to the emphasis on slim form factor we may be missing out on this incredible CPU.
Isn't a %30 markup on a BoM of roughly $300 a bit excessive? I'll give Apple this
their premiums are the envy of the tech world but expecting more than %25 is a bit
piggish.
BOM isn't the only cost. There are manufacturing, shipping, and "overhead" costs. These are usually tacked-on ahead of adding any profit margins. Bargain PC's cover these costs but have slim to no actual profit. In order for Apple to offer commodity boxes, or anything similar, they'd have to go against a business plan that has worked exceedingly well, lately.
On the wattage topic, if Apple ships a Nehalem solution in the rumored 28" iMac, there's probably enough room in that case to do some appropriate cooling.
BOM isn't the only cost. There are manufacturing, shipping, and "overhead" costs. These are usually tacked-on ahead of adding any profit margins. Bargain PC's cover these costs but have slim to no actual profit. In order for Apple to offer commodity boxes, or anything similar, they'd have to go against a business plan that has worked exceedingly well, lately.
On the wattage topic, if Apple ships a Nehalem solution in the rumored 28" iMac, there's probably enough room in that case to do some appropriate cooling.
Yeah I'm all for a 28" iMac. Hell may as well call it iMac TV or iMac College Student.
The perfect $499 Mac mini circa 2010:
2.2Ghz Havendale dual core/4 thread, IGP
No optical drive
Two SATA internal connections.
2GB of RAM (dual SODIMM slots)
GigE, Bluetooth, 802.11n
Still the perfect switchers Mac and lite business mac (POS terminal, touchscreen kiosk etc)
If Apple does indeed plan a greater than 24" Mac then Core i7 has immediate possibilities. Hell they could finally add dual drives.
I'm hoping Intel prices their 55 Express chipsets (Havendale, Lynfield) well. What's the use of getting rid of the North Bridge if it doesn't come with a price decrease.
I'm hoping Intel prices their 55 Express chipsets (Havendale, Lynfield) well. What's the use of getting rid of the North Bridge if it doesn't come with a price decrease.
It should cut costs noticeably, and probably make cheaper motherboards, too (simpler layout with fewer components and maybe even fewer PCB layers). That savings will be offset by the higher cost of DDR3, which is coming down in price but won't be as cheap as DDR2 got.
Yeah I'm all for a 28" iMac. Hell may as well call it iMac TV or iMac College Student.
The perfect $499 Mac mini circa 2010:
2.2Ghz Havendale dual core/4 thread, IGP
No optical drive
Two SATA internal connections.
2GB of RAM (dual SODIMM slots)
GigE, Bluetooth, 802.11n
Still the perfect switchers Mac and lite business mac (POS terminal, touchscreen kiosk etc)
If Apple does indeed plan a greater than 24" Mac then Core i7 has immediate possibilities. Hell they could finally add dual drives.
I'm hoping Intel prices their 55 Express chipsets (Havendale, Lynfield) well. What's the use of getting rid of the North Bridge if it doesn't come with a price decrease.
And it's not like apple has a beige shitbox they can just dump old procs into and sell just above cost (like dell or HP).
So we're stuck for awhile.
The truly strange thing is that for what the Mac Pro is designed for ie hard core work, the core i7 would spank it completely right now. For hard core video/photo editing, i'd bank a single quad core of a dual quad 8 core mac pro.
The memory bus is 3x faster on the new machines. For memory limited tasks, that's gold.
So that's my theory, apple has the products waiting to be released, but needs to get down their inventory.
The truly strange thing is that for what the Mac Pro is designed for ie hard core work, the core i7 would spank it completely right now. For hard core video/photo editing, i'd bank a single quad core of a dual quad 8 core mac pro.
The memory bus is 3x faster on the new machines. For memory limited tasks, that's gold.
A Core i7 will spank a Penryn based Xeon system but that's largely because a vast majority of applications now cannot really use more than 8 cores. I think those that bought 8 core systems have bought for the future mainly because precious few apps can keep those cores pegged.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=3513&p=7
Now although I said that nothing will threaten Core i7 this year, you may be able to get i7-like performance out of Lynnfield in the second half. A quad-core Lynnfield running near 3GHz, should offer much of the performance of an i7 with a lower platform cost. Remember back to our original i7 review; we didn?t find a big performance benefit from three channels of DDR3 versus two.
My emphasis added.
Apple warns of reduced iMac supply
I think you're half correct. I think some stock needed to be sold and I think the iMac and potentially the mini have to be redesigned to accomodate hotter procs. Maybe I shouldn't say have to rather should
Frankly I think Apple's lineup needs to change.
The mini should grow slightly and incorporate an internal power supply.
The iMac should come in a svelte enclosure and more beefy and rugged enthusiast model where you can put 95W procs in it.
They need a mini tower Mac that I dub Mac Prosumer. It should have three 2.5" drive internal drive bays and have a single socket enthusiast chip. It should have at least enough PCI Express ports for two graphics cards. It would not have an aluminum chassis and come with only one optical bay.
Frankly I think Apple's lineup needs to change.
The mini should grow slightly and incorporate an internal power supply.
The iMac should come in a svelte enclosure and more beefy and rugged enthusiast model where you can put 95W procs in it.
They need a mini tower Mac that I dub Mac Prosumer. It should have three 2.5" drive internal drive bays and have a single socket enthusiast chip. It should have at least enough PCI Express ports for two graphics cards. It would not have an aluminum chassis and come with only one optical bay.
Why does the mini need to incorporate an internal power supply? I agree with your other suggestions, they would be very welcome.
Why does the mini need to incorporate an internal power supply? I agree with your other suggestions, they would be very welcome.
I figured it'd be a cleaner setup though I must admit having an external PS hasn't caused me any grief.
Also 24 should be the new baseline. I'm starting to think that Apple should just kill anything smaller as far as the iMac goes. I just bought a low cost Viewsonic 24" and trust me it's not going to compete with Apple's LED CD on any day but it was 220 bucks.
However if eIPS is really that good and costs can even approach TN panels Apple likely just needs to make the iMac 24" and perhaps larger if there are other options.
Still waiting to get pricing on these panels. I think they're going to be wonderfully affordable