or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Intel's Merom to power Apple's next-gen iMacs
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Intel's Merom to power Apple's next-gen iMacs - Page 2

post #41 of 238
Quote:
Apple Computer in September plans to unveil a new line of iMac computers with faster processors and a little surprise to boot, AppleInsider has learned.

Is anyone else intrigued as to what the surprise to boot might be? Or is the surprise the 23" deal...
post #42 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmjoe

Yawn. Wow, now people are going to have 23" displays to throw away when the computer in them becomes outdated. What a waste. Still wating for news on an updated Mac mini.

By the time the iMac is outdated, the display will be cheap enough to be easily replaced. That's happened pretty much down the line ever since the first iMac was released. Even if you think the 20" iMac G4 is obsolete, high quality 20" LCDs can be had for under $300 nowadays.

The Mac mini rumors appear to point to modest speed bumps, and that's fine. If they could just drop the price by $100, that would be killer.
post #43 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM

I'm almost certain they would work with the iMac. Conroe is pretty close to the power of what was in the iSight G5 iMac

No, the G5s were in the 45-55 Watts range, Conroe is around 60-65 Watts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM

The G5 unit was reputed to be quiet.

Too many people complained about noise and several heat-related issues. Look now how much of these exist in the Yonah era. Which is similar more or less to Merom.

But I believe a 23" model could handle the heat of a Conroe. If the rumor is proved to be true, that would mean that Apple is just reluctant to redesign the motherboard for the high end model. Merom is just a drop-in replacement. Big savings for Apple.
post #44 of 238
No sources to cite or anything. Where did the information come from?
post #45 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac

Flounder,

You're right perhaps I'm being a little pessimistic. On the bright side, if you buy a 23" iMac with a 2.3 ghz Merom you won't have to worry about a better one coming out for at least a year or so, when core 2 is replaced. No Kentsfield quad cores in Apple's future.

Are there no speed increases to merom planned? I really don't know anything about intels roadmap. At any rate, now that the days of Moto/IBM are behind us, I really doubt apple would wait an entire year. They'll work something out. Have a little faith
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
post #46 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yamas

May they will make a black one and charge extra for it like the macbooks

As long as they don't put glossy screens on the white models, they can do whatever they like for the stuck-in-the-80s-has-to-be-black club.
post #47 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flounder

Are there no speed increases to merom planned? I really don't know anything about intels roadmap. At any rate, now that the days of Moto/IBM are behind us, I really doubt apple would wait an entire year. They'll work something out. Have a little faith

Santa Rosa will increase the FSB but to my knowledge Merom tops out at 2.3ghz. That's all that is known to be in the works for Merom. Conroe on the other hand will have a quad core drop in replacement (kentsfield) BY THE END OF THE YEAR. (caps for emphasis)
post #48 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mace27

Is anyone else intrigued as to what the surprise to boot might be? Or is the surprise the 23" deal...

surprise to boot?
My guess is CrossOver software.
Member
Registered: Dec. 98
Reply
Member
Registered: Dec. 98
Reply
post #49 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flounder

Noooooooooooooooo! I love the chin! I'd be very sad to see it go.

The chin won't go. The idea to cut that out and make the back side fatter is absurd.
post #50 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Jeff

No sources to cite or anything. Where did the information come from?

Sources to cite? You are joking, right? It appears that the same rumor comes from MacOSXrumors too, that has been pretty accurate in many cases. Their server does not respond for the moment, they get probably some heavy traffic right now.
post #51 of 238
Perhaps the "suprise to boot" is a redesign... or integrated TV tuner in the 23" model. I don't know, let your mind wander a bit.

What I really care about is the price of a 23" 2.33 Merom iMac. Any ideas?
post #52 of 238
My family would be interested in this next line of iMacs. I can't say we'd be all over the 23" -- it depends on the price.

Our needs would be to run things for my wife's self-owned business and some power use by me. My previous experience with iMacs lead me to believe it is the best of all worlds. The only downside is the upgrade path, but I can't see us ever upgrading anything other than the memory.

In short, is the iMac, now or in a few months, good enough for work and play? And by "play" I don't mean playing graphics-intensive games. More like creating graphics and music and such.
post #53 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squirrel_Monkey

In short, is the iMac, now or in a few months, good enough for work and play? And by "play" I don't mean playing graphics-intensive games. More like creating graphics and music and such.


Given enough RAM, any Mac (or PC) produced in the last few years is more than capable of what you ask.

Added after edit:

Industrial Light & Magic used G3 macs with less than 200MB RAM to create some of the FX shots on Episode 1.
post #54 of 238
An update to Merom is a lazy update. Unless it was solely to keep the machine quiet. So surely we have to expect an Intel desktop CPU based machine at Macworld In January now.

In my mind the iMac because it has a built in (read throwaway) monitor is not a computer that I would want to spend lots of money on. It is a very nice machine but the extra price of the 20" over the price of the 17" has never seemed worth it to me. At almost a 1/3 more in price yet only giving a 3" larger screen, a 10% faster CPU and a 90GB larger HD has always to me seemed a waste of money. A 23" can only be even more of a waste. Better to buy a 2Ghz Mac Pro and a Cinema Screen maybe. Or buy the 17" and purchase a second monitor. Cost you about the same as the 20" (possibly less if if you buy a 17" 4:3 LCD) and you have loads more screen real estate.

However, if screen prices have reduced so much that Apple can upgrade the 17" to 20" and 20" to 23" then I will shut up.
post #55 of 238
I Hope they get rid of the chin because it looks like crap,I also hope they dont go cheapo on the GPU like they did in Mini & Mac Pro. Wouldnt it suck if they get rid of ati and use a Intel GPU? knowing Apple it could happen.
VOTE OUT ALL INCUMBENTS! Its the only way we can clean up Congress.
Reply
VOTE OUT ALL INCUMBENTS! Its the only way we can clean up Congress.
Reply
post #56 of 238
can someone show me the upsides of merom over conroe, because i wanted conroe.
post #57 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer

The chin won't go. The idea to cut that out and make the back side fatter is absurd.

One of the things that turns me off in the current iMacs is the chin. It looks bulky and makes the screen feel smaller.

I wonder if it's possible to remove the chin and still keep it thin. A 23" model would create more space in the back where they could put components.

In any case, the iMac is due for a redesign. The G4 iMac (floating screen) was introduced in 2002 and was replaced in 2004 with the current design. Following that pattern, 2006 is the year for another major design change.
post #58 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacsRbetterthanPC

can someone show me the upsides of merom over conroe, because i wanted conroe.

Less Heat = Less fans = Less noise.
post #59 of 238
So what about the MacBook Pro getting a Merom chip?

This news kind of upsets me because if they intend to use part of their stock of Meroms in the iMac, then that much less stock (of an already hampered availability) is left to be used in the MBP. This leads me to believe that they are holding off a CPU upgrade to the MBP in lieu of the Santa Rosa next year. Just speculating of course, and I'm happy for those of you waiting for an iMac announcement, but I really want a damn Merom in a MBP!
"Knowledge is no more measured by post count than the size of the universe is governed by the stars within it."
Reply
"Knowledge is no more measured by post count than the size of the universe is governed by the stars within it."
Reply
post #60 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider

Speculation immediately turned towards Conroe making an appearance in the iMac line, but insiders say Merom's lower power requirements and reduced heat dissipation are better suited for the iMac's sleek and ultra-compact industrial design.

Conroe was never going to go into the iMac or Mac mini, and I haven't seen any credible commentator suggest otherwise. Merom offers equivalent performance at much lower power usage / heat consumption, and it's a drop-in replacement for the current Yonah chips.

The only reason Conroe didn't make it into the Mac Pro was the need for dual CPUs. Woodcrest is not really a higher-performing chip, and should not be positioned as such (though some of them include extra cache compared with Conroe, any increase is offset by the much slower real-world throughput in the RAM used by Woodcrest), it's just intended for multi-CPU server and workstation implementations.
post #61 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by stompy

If a 23" is introduced, could the 17" be dropped (maybe taking an education only spot)?

Sounds logical to me!
post #62 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by ciparis

Woodcrest is not really a higher-performing chip, and should not be positioned as such.

Maybe you can enlighten us and tell us what is faster and suitable for it's intended market.
post #63 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac

"Up to 40 percent speed increases"

Where did they get this? From reviews at Anand, more on the order of 5-10%, 20% best case scenario. It's a shame really IMO as Conroe is Intel's best chip as far as bang for the buck.

They're probably comparing the speed of the fastest Merom chip to the slowest Yonah chip used in the Mac.

That's what "up to" usually means. It's 100% marketingspeak.
post #64 of 238
Quote:
If a 23" is introduced, could the 17" be dropped (maybe taking an education only spot)?

If this then means the 20" turns into the new low-end iMac and has the current 17" price tag, I'll be ordering up a 20" on release day.
post #65 of 238
Just a few random thoughts.

IMHO, the 23" iMac HD may be a sign of things to come. With Steve's love of all things HD, he probably wants to get high-def screens in front of as many customers as possible, especially if Apple is looking to sell HD offerings of TV Shows/Movies in the iTunes Store.

They can release all the "True Video iPods" in the world and sell shows to watch on a 3-5" screen for $9.99/$14.99, but I think there's a chance of them pulling out the big guns and offering high-def versions of these shows for playback on machines like the iMac HD.

I see the iMac updates and the MacMini updates as Apple saying, "Hey look, now all of our computers can easily handle playing 1080p high def material at 24fps. By the way, here's our new giant library of music videos/tv shows/movies that you can download and play at home or on your iPods!" Granted the previous iterations of these machines could MOSTLY handle playing 1080p material, but it was sketchy on some of the lower-end machines.

Anyway, just my humble opinion.
post #66 of 238
Two things: 1) What the heck is the "surprise to boot"? The article doesn't even refer to that again. Is that referring to the 23"?

2) Where are people getting the Aug. 12 date from? Is that just because it's a Tuesday in the Expo week, or are there some rumors I've missed?
post #67 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac

Maybe you can enlighten us and tell us what is faster and suitable for it's intended market.

It was in the next paragraph: They're all roughly equivalent. Woodcrest is basically the same chip as Conroe but for multi-CPU machines (and using a new chipset and memory standard that helps RAM capacity but hurts RAM performance). Conroe can only have one CPU socket (though even that will get you up to four cores later this year, as has been pointed out). Merom is equivalent to Conroe, though clocked a bit lower and with much better power management.

Under the hood they're all basically the same chip. Clock for clock they're all equivalent in speed. In fact, in a home-built desktop system, you'd probably *want*" Merom, because it's extremely quiet at stock speed, and extremely overclockable if you choose to push it (more so than Conroe with stock voltage/cooling).

The Core 2 Duo / Xeon 5100 family are all fantastic chips, which is why you see Intel putting them in every line as quickly as they can.
post #68 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by ciparis

It was in the next paragraph: They're all roughly equivalent. Woodcrest is basically the same chip as Conroe but for multi-CPU machines (and using a new chipset and memory standard that helps RAM capacity but hurts RAM performance). Conroe can only have one CPU socket (though even that will get you up to four cores later this year, as has been pointed out). Merom is equivalent to Conroe, though clocked a bit lower and with much better power management.

Under the hood they're all basically the same chip. Clock for clock they're all equivalent in speed. In fact, in a home-built desktop system, you'd probably *want*" Merom, because it's extremely quiet at stock speed, and extremely overclockable if you choose to push it (more so than Conroe with stock voltage/cooling).

I think you are trivializing the faster FSB that conroe and woodcrest have as well as the much higher clock speeds they achieve. The performace of Merom is good but only modestly(generally on the order of 5-10%) better than current Yonah chips. The lack of a more substantial increase in performance (the 20% Intel told us to expect) has been attributed to Meroms slow (relatively speaking) FSB which is felt to hamper performance. Quiet and cool are nice and desirable features for laptop chips but not essential for desktop chips IMO.

See link below
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2808&p=1
post #69 of 238
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #70 of 238
I'm holding out for the 30" iMac with dual Woodcrest.

Edit: Oooh, Ireland beat me to it by a couple of minutes.
post #71 of 238
If the 20" monitor moves down to the bottom spot, which is possible given the reduced price of 20" LCD's since the 20" iMac was introduced, then I will have a hard time resisting purchasing one. If the Mac Mini gets a decent boost and a Super Drive in the low end then they I'd be tempted to get one of each.
post #72 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhetWurm

So what about the MacBook Pro getting a Merom chip?

This news kind of upsets me because if they intend to use part of their stock of Meroms in the iMac, then that much less stock (of an already hampered availability) is left to be used in the MBP. This leads me to believe that they are holding off a CPU upgrade to the MBP in lieu of the Santa Rosa next year. Just speculating of course, and I'm happy for those of you waiting for an iMac announcement, but I really want a damn Merom in a MBP!

I would have had the same concern if I were part of Apple's management team, of course they know more than we do about their contracts with Intel and the number of chips that are going to be made available to them. But we have to remember that a Apple has made quite operation a big focus since the introduction of the Cube, and received criticism when they have not delivered on it.
post #73 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by JCG

If the 20" monitor moves down to the bottom spot, which is possible given the reduced price of 20" LCD's since the 20" iMac was introduced, then I will have a hard time resisting purchasing one. If the Mac Mini gets a decent boost and a Super Drive in the low end then they I'd be tempted to get one of each.

Are you suggesting they'll get rid of the 17" iMac, cause I highly doubt that if you are?
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #74 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by PB

Sources to cite? You are joking, right? It appears that the same rumor comes from MacOSXrumors too, that has been pretty accurate in many cases. Their server does not respond for the moment, they get probably some heavy traffic right now.

Incredible, still not responding. DoS attack from Apple Legal?
post #75 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by PB

No, the G5s were in the 45-55 Watts range, Conroe is around 60-65 Watts.

They weren't even the same measure. The IBM advertised numbers are "typical", the Intel numbers are "max".
post #76 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aurora

I Hope they get rid of the chin because it looks like crap,I also hope they dont go cheapo on the GPU like they did in Mini & Mac Pro. Wouldnt it suck if they get rid of ati and use a Intel GPU? knowing Apple it could happen.

If you want a rational explaination, the "chin" breaks the Golden Ratio, used as a design tenet since the ancient Greeks. If the monitor had an even border all the way around, it would be close, but it's not.
post #77 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by irchs

Merom isn't 64-bit right?

It is.
post #78 of 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM

They weren't even the same measure. The IBM advertised numbers are "typical", the Intel numbers are "max".

No, the numbers I am quoting are approximate maximal power requirements. Look for example here. It is no wonder why the iMac never got a 2.2 GHz G5 FX. From the table you can place the 2.1 GHz G5 it got in its last PPC incarnation well below 60 Watts (max. power). So no, even the 20" model cannot handle the heat of a Conroe without killing its silence.
post #79 of 238
A laptop cpu and laptop ram in a high end desktop is a joke
post #80 of 238
The merom imacs will be a compromise of style over performance value, compared to similar priced Conroe PC's.

Also, any suggestions of the removal of the 17" is absurd?, it is NEEDED for Education, but can be offered to the general public. So you could have an IG 17" at $999, then dedicated 20/23" models.

Still, unless there is a Conroe 23", ill stick with a MB for my Dull 24"!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Intel's Merom to power Apple's next-gen iMacs