or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple predicted to release new iMacs, MacBooks in weeks
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple predicted to release new iMacs, MacBooks in weeks - Page 10

post #361 of 380
Quote:
Originally Posted by DHagan4755 View Post

It's ok to want quad core.

Don't you fell better?
post #362 of 380
No. I have been wanting this for awhile and don't have it yet

Seeing how almost every major manufacturer has announced notebooks with the new quad-core Core i7, I'm hoping Apple does something soon with iMacs, MacBooks, and MacBook Pros.
You think Im an arrogant [expletive] who thinks hes above the law, and I think youre a slime bucket who gets most of his facts wrong. Steve Jobs
Reply
You think Im an arrogant [expletive] who thinks hes above the law, and I think youre a slime bucket who gets most of his facts wrong. Steve Jobs
Reply
post #363 of 380
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

We both know however that 100% seldom happens. In any event why deny the utility of more cores? Nobody that I know of denies that GPU processing works for an assortment of apps rather well, so why deny the value of four cores over one or two?

You seem to have forgotten or missed the offshoot thread that explains why we're even talking about SL/GCD:

Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac

Sure I do. But my whole point is that SL is no panacea for performance improvements. Some would have you believe or at least imply that dual core on SL is better than 4 core machines on windows, or Leopard. I don't believe that to be true. The benefit of SL is its ability to utilize more than 2 core cpus. You know the kind only found on Mac Pros. Without multicore cpus, all the benefits of SL will never be realized.

This person was implying that dual-core doesn't benefit from SL/GCD and that you needed 4 cores to see any benefit.

Just reading my post you would understand that it's a given that you would see speed benefits as you add more cores.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy

At the most basic level and assuming GDC is 100% efficient, a dual-core could process a task in half the time that a single core could.

Again at 100% efficiency, a quad core could process the same task in 25% of the time that a single core could.

It was never in question that more cores = faster. I was arguing the fact that SL benefits from dual cores just as it does quad core and dual quad core.

Hope that clears up my position.
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
post #364 of 380
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy View Post

You'll get no argument there, although I don't think it was 'stupid' of them to not include quad in an iMac as it isn't intended to compete directly with the Mac Pro.

I'm not sure where this is coming from, even with a quad core an iMac would be far from competeing with a Mac Pro. With quad core it would close the gap a little bit but then the next generation Mac Pro would come out.

I still think you are missing the whole point here, this is about value for your money and being able to leverage SL tech.
Quote:

It sounds like a lot of folks are really wanting something between the iMac and the Mac Pro, or at a minimum, an iMac Pro of sorts.

In a way you are correct. What I want is a machine that closes that massive gap between a iMac and a Mac Pro. The difference is I wouldn't call this a iMac Pro but rather just an iMac with a modern desktop quality Processor.

Quote:
I would certainly be interested in an iMac Pro if one was available, but I'm not interested in paying a premium price as we already see with the Mac Pro.

Nor am I. I'm just bothered by the lack of a true midrange solution from Apple. That is midrange price, features and performance.
Quote:

Hopefully they can give us something in between.

That would be great. Frankly I'd be surprised to see Apple do it though. The good thing is sales are up and that allows them to spend more on hardware engineering and building products for different niches. What will be interesting to see over the next year is just how tied to the current line up they are.

As we have seen with the laptops great sales allows for more aggressive pricing and tailored products. I'm optimistic but cautious that the boring hardware line up will expand.



Dave



Dave
post #365 of 380
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy View Post

You seem to have forgotten or missed the offshoot thread that explains why we're even talking about SL/GCD:



This person was implying that dual-core doesn't benefit from SL/GCD and that you needed 4 cores to see any benefit.

While that is wrong in the simplest sense, I don't believe it should be totally thrown out the window either. I'm certain bench marking would show huge value in SL and GCD on a dual core machine. The problem is most bench marking optimizes the machine for the results. A use seldom operates his machine under optimal conditions.

The reality is a lot of background work is going on eating up processor time and then there is the possibility of multiple apps running. When you go beyound 2 cores you have a far greater chance of having GCD putting those cores to work for you.
Quote:

Just reading my post you would understand that it's a given that you would see speed benefits as you add more cores.

Only if the software s written to take advantage of SL features.
Quote:
It was never in question that more cores = faster. I was arguing the fact that SL benefits from dual cores just as it does quad core and dual quad core.

For the most part I agree with that. It is just at this point in time I can't rationally OK somebody buying a dual core IMac. Especially at the upper price ranges.
Quote:
Hope that clears up my position.

Sounds good to me.


Dave
post #366 of 380
iMac update = MB & MBP update = Arrandale CPUs = February update

Arrandale =
- cooler than Clarksfield (easier to put in iMac, MB, MBP)
- cooler than C2D if you disable the integrated GPU
- cheaper (especially if you use same CPUs for notebooks & AIO desktop)
- faster clock than Clarksfield
- integrated GPU for MB

February = may be in time for a nVidia GT300 option


-
post #367 of 380
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

Don't you fell better?

Remember, around here having a better, faster computer that can actually take advantage of Apple's world class software is a bad thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

You really think that a 9 pound, 2 inch thick laptop with desktop grade Core i7 processor running at 130W is the business Apple is in, or do you think that Apple—among all PC vendors—can magically make that same machine that is half the thickness, half the weight and one third the wattage of anyone else?

HP did with the new envy series. Then again, they are missing the optical drive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Sure, they CAN, but at what cost? ]

Apple dropped the high end professional Mac users (aka the base who kept them alive) and now they're a budget company? When did this company turn into the Nordstrom version of Dell? I know this might be a foreign concept these days, but they can make different versions to serve different types of users.
post #368 of 380
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy View Post

Hardly. It's competitively priced for the hardware in it. You'll find the same prices on any hardware manufacturer's site and an iMac includes a 20" or a 24" monitor. A decent quality one at that.

If you price it against other slow limited laptop based family oriented all in ones, yes its competitive. Compare to a desktop and its doesn't take that far up the totem for you to get something as capable. Its like being pushed into a transit connect to try to do the work of a F-150
post #369 of 380
APPLE STORE IS DOWN. fyi ... Monday *night* Pacific

Well, Tuesday update. So... new iMacs? Just a maintenance on the website...?

Unlikely. New stuff coming. Refreshed iMacs with Clarksfield and BluRay in the highest end 28" is my prediction. 20" is dropped...

MacBook retains white casing but goes to LED backlit like all the iMacs.
post #370 of 380
Quote:
Quad core is far from 'pro' domain these days. Quad core cpus can be had for $99 now.

For some reason Mac users seem to have been beaten senseless and made to feel inadequate for a quad core machine unless they work in FCP all day.

Repeat after me; Its ok to want quad core.

'Wide eyes':

'Yes, we like more expensive, underperforming cpus can be had for 10 times as much...as quadcores!' (Ow-oom...ah...ow-ooom...ah...)

Stockholm syndrome.

Seriously.

How anyone can defend the lack of quad core in a consumer desktop Mac is beyond warped. Mac owners have to pay £1800 to get quad core parts. £1800! For quad core. Defend it? By all means if you qualify for one of the following: Nut jobs, Low self esteem, Zealouts, Cultists. PC's have better performing mainstream consumer desktop parts for the cpu and the gpu at wayyyy cheaper prices and Apple too, post PPC, have access to those parts which they could, in turn, pass on savings to their customers!

Apple are beyond behind with their consumer desktop hardware. Which is mind-warpingly contrary to their OS.

i7 class quad core. Mainstream gpu. 28 inch screen for the top end. Redesign to make it happen. Price cut. Well. Make it happen. This is the company that designed the 'brick'.

Lemon Bon Bon.

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply
post #371 of 380
Oh yeah, I forgot.

'It's ok to want quad core.'

Lemon Bon Bon.

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply
post #372 of 380
Quote:
Intel Core i7-920XE Extreme Processor: 2.0GHz
Intel Core i7-820QM Processor: 1.73GHz
Intel Core i7 i7-720QM Processor: 1.60GHz
Be sure to realize that these aren’t your netbook’s CPUs… no, the i7 platform will have some seriously extreme performance coupled with these quad-core CPUs.
The i7 platform that these notebooks are taking advantage of as has support for very fast DDR3 RAM (up to 1600MHz). The Cougar or Cheetah and be optionally equipped with 2/4/8/16GB of RAM. Think that’s a lot of RAM? Check out the storage space: Eurocom will be equipping these computers with up to 1.5TB (terabytes) of HDD storage (by squeezing 3 500GB 7200RPM HDDs into the notebooks).
They also manage to cram all of the other necessities for high performance computing, including: up to a full HD 1920×1080 screen and a wide choice of high performance graphics cards. Users can choose between the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260M, GTX 280M or ATi Mobility Radeon HD 4870XT with 1GB of GDDR3 for high-performance gaming, and NVIDIA Quadro FX 3700M with 1GB GDDR3 for those looking for high-performance workstation computing. Aside from the usual ports and features, you can optionally have 3G connectivity in the form of HSDPA or WiMAX for on-the-go cellular internet access.

POW!

Lookee, lookee, lookee at those specs. If those can't make it into an iMac...it's time for Apple to pack up and go home.

Lemon Bon Bon.

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply
post #373 of 380
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post

POW!

Lookee, lookee, lookee at those specs. If those can't make it into an iMac...it's time for Apple to pack up and go home.

Lemon Bon Bon.

Gaming ain't big on the Mac so I think even the 4850 is good enough right now. Only problem is it a highest-end option and muchos expensivo.

Core i7 is probably overkill, but Core i5 and Core 2 Quad needs to be in the iMac within 6 months. Apple could just wait 'till Arrandale.

Who knows. Maybe the 28" iMac will have Core i5 (laptop version (Clarksfield?)), laptop 40nm ATI GPU option and Blu Ray. Yeah and maybe I'll sh(t rainbows then.
post #374 of 380
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

Gaming ain't big on the Mac so I think even the 4850 is good enough right now. Only problem is it a highest-end option and muchos expensivo.

Core i7 is probably overkill, but Core i5 and Core 2 Quad needs to be in the iMac within 6 months. Apple could just wait 'till Arrandale.

Who knows. Maybe the 28" iMac will have Core i5 (laptop version (Clarksfield?)), laptop 40nm ATI GPU option and Blu Ray. Yeah and maybe I'll sh(t rainbows then.

The 4850 is still just about at the top of the mobile GPU hill, anyway (the iMac has never used a desktop GPU just as it has never used a desktop processor).
post #375 of 380
Quote:
Originally Posted by FuturePastNow View Post

The 4850 is still just about at the top of the mobile GPU hill, anyway (the iMac has never used a desktop GPU just as it has never used a desktop processor).

Which is absurd. The iMac IS a desktop, so should use desktop parts. I thought Apple said when they moved to Intel that they would have the latest and greatest. Instead, for a reason no sane person could possibly agree with, are sticking outdated LAPTOP parts in their top of the line consumer desktop.

I bought a quad core PC desktop two and a half years ago for less than a bottom of the line iMac. It even has a real GPU too.

The iMac seems to be the machine Apple have lost interest in (along with the abandoned Apple TV). They should either spend some time to update it to a modern PC, or should just scrap it and admit they only care about laptops.
post #376 of 380
The 4850 is "good enough"? It's MORE than "good enough" to run the latest games on highest or nearly-highest settings. The 4850 won't give you bragging rights for framerates, but it can easily get the job done and then some. Hell, the GeForce 8600M GT in my MBP has maybe 1/2 the power of that thing and it can still run the very latest games smoothly on near-highest settings at 1080p. Everybody annoyed that the iMac's got laptop GPUs should quit their bitchin' and, if gaming really matters to them as it does to me, they should get back to enjoying pretty graphics at smooth framerates, and more importantly, enjoying the games themselves. The iMac is one hell of an achievement, that they can squeeze that much horsepower into that kind of enclosure (and are making it thinner too?!). The pricing is the only thing really absurd with that machine right now. And compared to the MBP, the pricing of the iMac looks like a good deal.

And on a side note, TBH, if you want bragging rights, you don't buy an AIO anyway. You build your own computer, or get a tower, and keep it upgraded with super-high-end hardware.
PC Gamer, Musician, Mac Geek. | Jerion.us
Reply
PC Gamer, Musician, Mac Geek. | Jerion.us
Reply
post #377 of 380
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. K View Post

The 4850 is "good enough"? It's MORE than "good enough" to run the latest games on highest or nearly-highest settings. The 4850 won't give you bragging rights for framerates, but it can easily get the job done and then some. Hell, the GeForce 8600M GT in my MBP has maybe 1/2 the power of that thing and it can still run the very latest games smoothly on near-highest settings at 1080p. Everybody annoyed that the iMac's got laptop GPUs should quit their bitchin' and, if gaming really matters to them as it does to me, they should get back to enjoying pretty graphics at smooth framerates, and more importantly, enjoying the games themselves. The iMac is one hell of an achievement, that they can squeeze that much horsepower into that kind of enclosure (and are making it thinner too?!). The pricing is the only thing really absurd with that machine right now. And compared to the MBP, the pricing of the iMac looks like a good deal.

And on a side note, TBH, if you want bragging rights, you don't buy an AIO anyway. You build your own computer, or get a tower, and keep it upgraded with super-high-end hardware.

You have some valid points. What on my side I'm trying to say is that the 4850 is quite nice. However it is only available on the highest-end options of the iMac. That's one peeve. Secondly, yes the iMac is a great piece of art, let alone a great piece of engineering. However, this is also a constraint.

I don't need bragging rights, just smooth framerates and very high settings for visual enjoyment at 1080p. My ATI 4830 512mb in my PC *just about* does this. Actually a 4870 1GB is now "mid-range" for pushing 1080p pixels.

High-end would be 4890 and above, GTX275 and above.

Games at 1080p are really, really demanding with the latest titles. Maybe I'm being too picky but you also need higher framerates since usually for 1080p you're playing on a 19" to 22" or larger monitor so that's a lot of motion. Especially action shooters.

What I did was get a PC tower for gaming, but go for real value-for-money. ATI 4830 512MB... (soon 4870 1GB should drop below the USD $120 mark, though I could wait for the ATI 5830 or something like that) also I got an AMD Athlon X2 (real affordable compared to Intel and still does the job for games and most other things)...

The point that is interesting is who really does gaming on an iMac? A lot of people or not that many? Those really interested in gaming probably, as you mention won't go for an iMac... They'd go for a PS3, Xbox360 of mid-to-high-end PC tower.
post #378 of 380
I think the people who game on the iMac are the same people who game on MBPs: They love using OS X for pretty much everything but gaming, and also enjoy gaming, so they like the ability to both have very capable hardware and the ability to install Windows and run Windows games. And- this is the reason for the choice of iMac/MBP: They like computer gaming, and moreover, only having to deal with one machine. That's really what the iMac and MBP offer: An excellent all-around computing experience, and very decent gaming performance on the side.

Hell, that's why I'm using a MBP.

EDIT: Your 4830 *just about* does it? Wow. What do you consider an "acceptable" framerate? For me it's 25-30+. I have no trouble achieving that at 1080p on most current gen titles, long as I turn everything up but AA. And I'm using an 8600M GT w/ 256 MB VRAM. I mean, a lot of folks consider 60 fps "acceptable", but really, once it goes above 30 (and it usually does for me), I have a pretty difficult time telling the difference.
PC Gamer, Musician, Mac Geek. | Jerion.us
Reply
PC Gamer, Musician, Mac Geek. | Jerion.us
Reply
post #379 of 380
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. K View Post

...EDIT: Your 4830 *just about* does it? Wow. What do you consider an "acceptable" framerate? For me it's 25-30+. I have no trouble achieving that at 1080p on most current gen titles, long as I turn everything up but AA. And I'm using an 8600M GT w/ 256 MB VRAM.

LOL I'm getting old now, 31 years to be specific, and I am using a 16:9 21" Samsung monitor. So I need 40+ fps

And for me AA is absolutely essential. I refuse to play Batman:Arkham because of no AA. Wolfenstein has no AA but the game wasn't too bad. 2xAA good, 4xAA better. Maybe I'm not that "casual" a gamer as I think I am.

I would like to have an all-rounder like a MBP like you but for cost reasons, keeping my work life separate on the MacBook Alu, and being more "enthusiastic" about graphics and new games, I decided to split out into having a MacBook Alu and a PC.
post #380 of 380
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

Don't you fell better?

*Feel !
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple predicted to release new iMacs, MacBooks in weeks