or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Next-gen iMac to include new cooling module?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Next-gen iMac to include new cooling module?

post #1 of 84
Thread Starter 
A new family of iMacs due early next year may include a more sophisticated cooling system, hints the latest reports from sources close to the company's Taiwanese manufacturing facilities.

Backtracking on its report from last week, the Chinese-language Economic Daily News now claims that it's Foxconn, not Quanta, who has secured a contract with the Mac maker to manufacturer its new all-in-one desktops.

In a report published Monday, the paper also identified Foxconn Group's Foxconn Precision Components and Catcher Technology as the duo that will be responsible for stamping out the iMac's new "magnesium-aluminum alloy chassis."

Interestingly, the paper also reported that Foxconn Precision Components and Auras Technology would team to supply "the PC's cooling module." Further details were not provided, and therefore its unclear if the report indicates a change to the iMac's traditional fan-based cooling system.

DigiTimes, another publication situated near Apple's manufacturing facilities, recently cited sources who said Apple and rival PC makers HP, Acer and Dell had each agreed to use a new family of quad-core desktop chips from Intel in systems due early in 2009, though the report did not identify which Apple systems were bound to receive the parts.

The chips -- the Core 2 Quad Q8200 (2.33GHz/4MB L2), Core 2 Quad Q9400 (2.66GHz/6MB L2), and Core 2 Quad Q9550 (2.83GHz/12MB L2) -- are low-power desktop chips operating at 65W compared to the 55W of the current iMacs' mobile processors. Therefore, a decision by Apple to employ the chips inside the iMac line could signal a need for modifications to the computer's cooling methods.

In any case, it's believed that quad-core chips are bound to turn up in the iMac line around the same time that Apple begins priming Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard for release. The next-generation operating system will ship with Grand Central technology designed to leverage Macs with an increasing number of processor cores.

Last week, DigiTimes' report on the trio of new quad-core chips was partially verified when Engadget revealed that the Voodoo-designed HP Firebird PC 803 iMac-shaped gaming machine would marry a NVIDIA nForce 760i SLI chipset, dual NVIDIA GeForce 9800S cards, and the aforementioned Core 2 Quad Q9550 chip.

Assuming DigiTimes' report plays out in regards to Apple, it would signal either a new desktop class system on its way from the Cupertino-based company or significant architectural change for the iMac line. The family of 20- and 24-inch desktops have long shared an internal makeup similar to the Mac maker's notebook lines, running on the same family of mobile chips.

According to the Economic Daily News, Apple has placed orders for approximately 800,000 new iMacs per quarter starting in mid-January. And while many of the system's specifications remain a bit of a mystery, one certainty appears to be a move towards NVIDIA chipsets.
post #2 of 84
It would be great if Apple can devise a cooling system that requires no internal air-flow thus eliminating dust buildup.
bb
Reply
bb
Reply
post #3 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by bloggerblog View Post

It would be great if Apple can devise a cooling system that requires no internal air-flow thus eliminating dust buildup.

That would be interesting. A heat pipe could transfer the heat to the outer shell. The entire shell could be the heat sink and that might be enough surface area to cool it. I am not sure they would go for it if it requires having external fins.
post #4 of 84
Let's hope this new cooling system won't be a repeat of those notorious water-cooled G5s. Let's see. A quad-core processor in a thin iMac case with as little fan noise as possible. Seems like liquid cooling is going to be required. Best to make sure those iMacs come with drainage holes.
post #5 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

That would be interesting. The entire chassis could be the heat sink and that might be enough surface area to cool it.

The whole back of the chassis would have to be one huge, ribbed heatsink, and even that probably wouldn't be enough to keep it all cool enough. Even the smallest amount of airflow from the slowest and quietest of fans makes a huge difference to temps.
post #6 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

That would be interesting. A heat pipe could transfer the heat to the outer shell. The entire shell could be the heat sink and that might be enough surface area to cool it. I am not sure they would go for it if it requires having external fins.

Exactly! Like the Mac Mini would have the top surface as the actual heat sink linked directly the processor and video chips beneath. No liquid flow would be necessary since the Mini's upper surface is large enough. I would assume there might be some heating problems if the device is used on its side.
bb
Reply
bb
Reply
post #7 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by bloggerblog View Post

Exactly! Like the Mac Mini would have the top surface as the actual heat sink linked directly the processor and video chips beneath. No liquid flow would be necessary since the Mini's upper surface is large enough. I would assume there might be some heating problems if the device is used on its side.

The heatsink to keep the mac mini cool would have to be considerably larger than just the top of the case, so the whole chassis would have to grow considerably, probably with large find sticking out of the sides.
post #8 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrochester View Post

The whole back of the chassis would have to be one huge, ribbed heatsink, and even that probably wouldn't be enough to keep it all cool enough. Even the smallest amount of airflow from the slowest and quietest of fans makes a huge difference to temps.

I'm not sure I even believe this report.

In the first place, despite what you hear from a few rabid types that have had some problems there is no widespread "cooling problem" with the current iMacs. Secondly, Apple always goes for passive cooling systems where possible and a basic but very intelligently monitored and controlled fan system where it can't do the former.

Unless this is a brand new *passive* cooling system of some type we can't imagine, I don't see Apple putting in anything else. A complicated cooling system is just something that takes up more space and is another part to (possibly) break.
In Windows, a window can be a document, it can be an application, or it can be a window that contains other documents or applications. Theres just no consistency. Its just a big grab bag of monkey...
Reply
In Windows, a window can be a document, it can be an application, or it can be a window that contains other documents or applications. Theres just no consistency. Its just a big grab bag of monkey...
Reply
post #9 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrochester View Post

The heatsink to keep the mac mini cool would have to be considerably larger than just the top of the case, so the whole chassis would have to grow considerably, probably with large find sticking out of the sides.

Sorry but I'm gonna have to disagree with that. The surface of the mini is large compared to the heat the processor releases. I think Apple did not take that route because heat dissipation could not be controlled. Also the DVD drive sits above the mobo and therefore a vertical link to the surface was not possible.
bb
Reply
bb
Reply
post #10 of 84
Just give me quad processing and a good GPU in the iMac and put a high quality fan
in there. I don't need a silent computer just a quiet one.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #11 of 84
Copy & Paste, 4MP camera with flash, 32GB storage, MMS, OLED display on the iPhone that's all I want.
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #12 of 84
I would love to see a Quad-Core iMac with 2 video cards using SLi (optional add-on). Maybe make it a 25th Anniversary Edition or something as 2009 is the 25th Anniversary of the Macintosh. I think that would shut up at least some of the gamers who want a Mac gaming computer. Of course you can't make everyone happy.

If they really are going to a new advanced cooling device than I can't see Apple putting anything other than Quad-Core CPUs in at least their high end 24" model and possibly the high end 20". Keep the low end iMac at a Core 2 Duo and lower the price to under $1,000.

Speaking of lowering prices...another thing I'd like to see is for Apple to lower the price of the iMac in general. Apple needs to do something to get people through these tough times ahead. They've made their money and now its time to give back to its customers. I hope its no so bigheaded that they will think people will buy the Mac regardless of the price in any economy. Eventually it will bit them in the ass. It actually did once with the G4 Cube. Price was its major downfall and what I think led to its demise.

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply
post #13 of 84
Furthermore, one has to remember that IF indeed the quad CPUs are used, the TDP will go up from current 45-55 to 65W, so iMac will actually need extra cooling.

And that is not to say the current configuration is working flawlessly - I have one iMac 24" in office which was used to develop high complexity Adobe Flash applications and at one point it seemed that the guy had managed to burn it because the smell was awful and it started hanging up at random.
I reinstalled OS X and it kind of helped, but still not sure if it's ok.
post #14 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by bloggerblog View Post

Sorry but I'm gonna have to disagree with that. The surface of the mini is large compared to the heat the processor releases. I think Apple did not take that route because heat dissipation could not be controlled. Also the DVD drive sits above the mobo and therefore a vertical link to the surface was not possible.

I don't think you quite appreciate how large a surface area you need for passive cooling, and given the Mac Mini's tiny size, the top panel alone would not be sufficient. Plus any passive heatsink needs to be on the side of the device for convection purposes.
post #15 of 84
An embedded Absorption Refrigeration Cycle Unit would be interesting, by using the high heat source being the CPUs, but then the type of refrigerant [e.g., amonia or lithium bromide, et.al] would have to be selected for optimal price/performance and green iniatitive constraints.

Personally, keeping the same form factor seems myopic when one can scaled the volume a bit more, in combination with a new heat transfer system to move a lot of heat quickly out of the system while keeping it the noise to a minimum.

At any rate, I'd use this new cooling system solution on a mid-tower and future Core i7 systems when looking to make boards with more than 2 multicore CPUs clusters than just for the iMac.
post #16 of 84
I would think that if Apple was going to use passive cooling on the MacMini they would have to make it taller or wider. It worked "ok" on the G4 Cube, but it wasn't a dual or quad core CPU running at over 2-2.5 GHz either. I think you're only asking for trouble by trying to use a passive cooling system in something so small, but this is Apple so anything is possible...

What Id really like to see is Apple combine AppleTV with the MacMini. Now you have a Mac running Mac OS X, an AppleTV, a DVR, a DVD Player, etc all in one device. Plus it makes it so you wouldn't need to go out and purchase a display as you'd just use your flat screen TV. I think it would make the $599 price point viable. Current MacMini isn't worth $599 IMO, hence its crap sales it generates.

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply
post #17 of 84
Oh, boy. I sense a repeat of the G5 liquid cooling fiasco.
post #18 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

Copy & Paste, 4MP camera with flash, 32GB storage, MMS, OLED display on the iPhone that's all I want.

I know you've been here a while and you're a long time contributor to this forum etc., but this is an outrageous, stupid, off-topic troll of a post. It's not only completely off-topic, it's a pointless negative rant as well. Try to behave like an adult.
In Windows, a window can be a document, it can be an application, or it can be a window that contains other documents or applications. Theres just no consistency. Its just a big grab bag of monkey...
Reply
In Windows, a window can be a document, it can be an application, or it can be a window that contains other documents or applications. Theres just no consistency. Its just a big grab bag of monkey...
Reply
post #19 of 84
Is this going to be a whole new imac design? or simply an upgrade of the specs?
post #20 of 84
Please help!

I just literally bought my new imac (my first ever mac - and I love it).... I got the 2.66ghz L2 6mb cache 256mb video card, 2GB RAM for $1600...

Now i see that a new imac is coming with the new processor..... does this mean I should return it and wait?

Will I be able to install the latest OS??? Thanks, sorry I am new.
post #21 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2 View Post

I know you've been here a while and you're a long time contributor to this forum etc., but this is an outrageous, stupid, off-topic troll of a post. It's not only completely off-topic, it's a pointless negative rant as well. Try to behave like an adult.

I'll try, but I can't make any promises.
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #22 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2 View Post

I know you've been here a while and you're a long time contributor to this forum etc., but this is an outrageous, stupid, off-topic troll of a post. It's not only completely off-topic, it's a pointless negative rant as well. Try to behave like an adult.

What's with you? The post may not be on topic (maybe it got posted in the wrong forum), but it's not out of line at all. It's a wish list.

If there's any post that's outrageous, stupid and pointlessly negative, it's yours.
post #23 of 84
Increased cooling would definitely be a god-send

____________
iPhone, iPod
Reply
iPhone, iPod
Reply
post #24 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by macxpress View Post

What Id really like to see is Apple combine AppleTV with the MacMini. Now you have a Mac running Mac OS X, an AppleTV, a DVR, a DVD Player, etc all in one device. Plus it makes it so you wouldn't need to go out and purchase a display as you'd just use your flat screen TV. I think it would make the $599 price point viable. Current MacMini isn't worth $599 IMO, hence its crap sales it generates.

Actually combining the Mac mini and ATV would be a bad idea. If people want the full meal deal they can re-purpose a Mini-DisplayPort mini for HTPC uses. For those that simply want the Jobsian "DVD for the internet" they need an Apple TV at $149.

I don't know who told you that the mini had crap sales because that could not be further from the truth. Let's look at the Amazon Top 10 for computers.
http://www.amazon.com/Desktops-Compu...F8&node=565098

The Mac mini is #3 and #6 in desktops following the iMacs. Apple's got a good solution here with the mini for entry level and iMac for step up computing.


Quote:
Originally Posted by sticker99 View Post

Please help!

I just literally bought my new imac (my first ever mac - and I love it).... I got the 2.66ghz L2 6mb cache 256mb video card, 2GB RAM for $1600...

Now i see that a new imac is coming with the new processor..... does this mean I should return it and wait?

Will I be able to install the latest OS??? Thanks, sorry I am new.

You're fine. You will be able to install multiple future OS on your computer.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #25 of 84
I would prefer to see the new core i7's in the new imacs.
post #26 of 84
I've said it before and I'll say it again: 27" iMac!
It makes sense logically, falling between Apple's 24" and 30" screen sizes, and
It would allow more room for increased cooling
post #27 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by archer75 View Post

I would prefer to see the new core i7's in the new imacs.

No way, they are too hot for the iMac form factor. I would bet they use the Lynnfield Nehalems in the iMac (in Q3-4 2009).
post #28 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

That would be interesting. A heat pipe could transfer the heat to the outer shell. The entire shell could be the heat sink and that might be enough surface area to cool it. I am not sure they would go for it if it requires having external fins.

hmmm. In the summer months the aluminum shell gets too-hot-to-touch as it is.
post #29 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by elroth View Post

What's with you? The post may not be on topic (maybe it got posted in the wrong forum), but it's not out of line at all. It's a wish list.

If there's any post that's outrageous, stupid and pointlessly negative, it's yours.

I'd say both were out of line. It's one thing for a thread to drift off topic in the course of conversation, it's another thing to post off topic out of the blue.

There are plenty of wish list threads that can be found, there's no need to drop them into unrelated threads.
post #30 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by elroth View Post

What's with you? The post may not be on topic (maybe it got posted in the wrong forum), but it's not out of line at all. It's a wish list.

If there's any post that's outrageous, stupid and pointlessly negative, it's yours.

It was an off-topic, completely negative rant about iPhones that added exactly zero to a discussion of possible heat sink technologies for iMacs. It was also a pretty childish post even if we were talking about iPhones, as it asks for things that are clearly not even in the mid-term future of the device and based on technologies that are only in the testing stages in some cases.

It's about the same as if we were in a forum talking about hydraulic braking systems on transit busses, and someone posts a comment about how they won't buy a new Porsche until they have jet engines and a new robot control system or something.

I've been warned on forums by moderators for a lot less, which is why it bugged me I guess. Also, if the guy was a n00b I would have just shook my head and let it go, but he isn't. People (like you) take me to task for things all the time, why shouldn't I return the favour?

Forums are supposed to be about discussion, not just posting crap so you can hear yourself talk. Even if we get mildly irritated with each other and argue a bit, that's still far more productive than just posting random irrelevant opinions/wants etc.

PS - try not to flame me back, I won't be posting anymore on this junk and neither should anyone else.
In Windows, a window can be a document, it can be an application, or it can be a window that contains other documents or applications. Theres just no consistency. Its just a big grab bag of monkey...
Reply
In Windows, a window can be a document, it can be an application, or it can be a window that contains other documents or applications. Theres just no consistency. Its just a big grab bag of monkey...
Reply
post #31 of 84
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-10129536-64.html

Quote:
The Q9000 processor is listed at $348, significantly less expensive than the existing QX9300 mobile quad-core processor, which is listed at $1,038, and the Q9100, listed at $851. Both of these processors, however, have 12MB of cache memory, twice the amount of the cheaper Q9000, which integrates 6MB of cache. Generally, the more cache memory, the faster the processor.

T series processors typically have a power envelope (TDP, or thermal design power) of 35 watts, while P series chips have a 25W TDP.

Hmmm another option.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #32 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-10129536-64.html



Hmmm another option.

Nice! We can also assume it will be used in the unibody 17" MacBook pro and made optional for the 15". Here's hoping.
post #33 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

Actually combining the Mac mini and ATV would be a bad idea. If people want the full meal deal they can re-purpose a Mini-DisplayPort mini for HTPC uses. For those that simply want the Jobsian "DVD for the internet" they need an Apple TV at $149.

I don't know who told you that the mini had crap sales because that could not be further from the truth. Let's look at the Amazon Top 10 for computers.
http://www.amazon.com/Desktops-Compu...F8&node=565098

The Mac mini is #3 and #6 in desktops following the iMacs. Apple's got a good solution here with the mini for entry level and iMac for step up computing.

So why exactly is it a bad idea? You never gave a reason other than some crap about a Mini Display port which makes no sense to the general consumer. There would really be nothing to merging AppleTV with the MacMini. AppleTV is basically all software. The hardware is pretty much already on the MacMini.

As for MacMini sales, you can't just judge a particular computer's sales off one website. I laugh at some of these FUD articles about how Apple sales are best just because of one particular store. Yes, they did great in that store, but there are tons of other ways to sell computers. I know people who work in different Apple Stores and another who works at one in a different country and they just simply don't sell very many. Apple doesn't make crap off them at all and obviously its not really that important of a product to them because of this. Otherwise it would receive the same treatment as other Macs. I think giving more for the money, such as a small media center would be a great thing for current and potential customers. Especially since nobody STILL hasn't gotten these TV to media boxes correct. The AppleTV take 2 still isn't there. Sure its better, but its still not exactly what people want.
My website: Macxpress

24" Aluminum iMac 2.4 GHz, 4GB RAM, 320 GB HDD
Unibody MacBook 2.0 GHz, 3 GB RAM, 160 GB HDD
Quicksilver PowerMac G4 867 MHz, 768 MB PC133, 80 GB HD w/17" Apple Studio LCD...
Reply
My website: Macxpress

24" Aluminum iMac 2.4 GHz, 4GB RAM, 320 GB HDD
Unibody MacBook 2.0 GHz, 3 GB RAM, 160 GB HDD
Quicksilver PowerMac G4 867 MHz, 768 MB PC133, 80 GB HD w/17" Apple Studio LCD...
Reply
post #34 of 84
I find it very interesting that the liquid cooling systems were referred to as a "fiasco" or "disaster". I had absolutely no problems with any of the liquid cooled g5's. Now here's the thing guys, radiators work quite well and believe it or not, are quite durable. Far better then heat pipes actually. All cooling systems work much better when they have a high Delta-T, or difference in temperature, to work with, and all cooling systems work by increasing the amount of surface area available to the heat source for heat dissipation. Liquid thermal transfer is very efficient, and radiators have lots of surface area. But, there is one technology I know of that if used in conjunction with another thermal transfer system, could provide very high thermal transfer rates, and possibly if used in conjunction with a liquid cooling system, could even provide CPU die temperatures well below ambient. Thermoelectric Peltier/seebeck effect modules. Additionally, If I were an engineer, I would definitely call such a hybrid device, a cooling module, rather then a heatsink.
post #35 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

Actually combining the Mac mini and ATV would be a bad idea. If people want the full meal deal they can re-purpose a Mini-DisplayPort mini for HTPC uses. For those that simply want the Jobsian "DVD for the internet" they need an Apple TV at $149.

You almost had me interested in ordering AppleTV. $149 in which country's dollars? Even Apple's refurb prices start at $199 in their US web store. I want to get one, it's just a low priority.
post #36 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by SomeHumanBeing@Aol.com View Post

I find it very interesting that the liquid cooling systems were referred to as a "fiasco" or "disaster". I had absolutely no problems with any of the liquid cooled g5's. Now here's the thing guys, radiators work quite well and believe it or not, are quite durable. Far better then heat pipes actually.

I've seen several people say that they've had leaking G5s, though in most cases, I hear Apple replaced them, with Mac Pros even. I don't remember anyone complaining about leaking or defective heat pipes in any system. Ideally the liquid cooling system should be fine, but the impression I got was that a lot of the ones in the G5s just failed. I don't think it was about the radiators, I think some fittings failed but I don't know for sure.
post #37 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by mklos View Post

So why exactly is it a bad idea? You never gave a reason other than some crap about a Mini Display port which makes no sense to the general consumer. There would really be nothing to merging AppleTV with the MacMini. AppleTV is basically all software. The hardware is pretty much already on the MacMini.

As for MacMini sales, you can't just judge a particular computer's sales off one website. I laugh at some of these FUD articles about how Apple sales are best just because of one particular store. Yes, they did great in that store, but there are tons of other ways to sell computers. I know people who work in different Apple Stores and another who works at one in a different country and they just simply don't sell very many. Apple doesn't make crap off them at all and obviously its not really that important of a product to them because of this. Otherwise it would receive the same treatment as other Macs. I think giving more for the money, such as a small media center would be a great thing for current and potential customers. Especially since nobody STILL hasn't gotten these TV to media boxes correct. The AppleTV take 2 still isn't there. Sure its better, but its still not exactly what people want.

1. Because of the realities of pricing. Consumers expect to buy DVD players for $60 at Mac mini is 10x that price as a start.

2. The Apple TV is for all intents and purposes a media extender device or STB if you will. It's reason for existence is to play back iTunes content plus sync with your photos. It really shouldn't have local storage as that just jacks the cost up. Wifi streaming and Ethernet should have sufficed.

3. Apple TV doesn't need a DVD player. DVD players are $30 and up. Normally I'm a champion of integration but adding a optical drive to the Apple TV just jacks the cost up and duplicates what people already have.

4. The Apple TV's hardware suits its limited functionality. You don't have a plethora of USB ports, HDMI and Component Outputs. It's a CE device by nature ..not a general purpose computer.

The Mac mini is a general purpose computer suited to a variety of tasks. It has a CPU and system architecture that is tailored for these tasks as well as connectivity that is suitable for computing tasks. It will never be affordable enough to become a media extender in all but the most affluent homes.

The reason why people continue to want to two to combine is because they view both as computing platforms when in fact the Apple TV need to move towards the typical CE device and become more embedded whilst the Mac mini needs to move forward with Intel procs and fast GPU. The combination of the two yields nothing that consumers want. You don't get the power savings of a embedded SoC based device and you don't get the price.

As for Amazon...EVERYONE on these boards knows what Amazon.com is. With 13 billion in annual sales and excellent public sales statistics I think you'd be hard pressed to find a more reputable source. Though you are free to try... go 'head...I'll wait.

Notes from iSuppli Apple TV tear down.

Quote:
The Apple TV is based on a customized Intel Corp. microprocessor, a venerable 1GHz Pentium M that is made using trailing-edge 90nm process technology. The use of the old and slow Intel microprocessor is a major factor keeping down the BOM cost of the Apple TV, Rassweiler noted. iSuppli estimates the cost of the microprocessor at $40, far less than Intel is charging for its more cutting-edge chips.

If the Apple TV were based on a more current microprocessor, such as Intels CoreDuo or CoreSoloas has been suggested by othersthen the products BOM cost would likely match or exceed the retail selling price, Rassweiler said. This would represent a major and unlikely strategy shift at Apple, which historically has not sold its hardware at subsidized rates.

With the microprocessor and associated core logic, Intel accounts for the largest single bundle of dollar value of any component supplier in the Apple TV, by far. The combined estimated value of the Intel microprocessor and the northbridge and southbridge core logic chips is about $68, which is very inexpensive compared to the costs for comparable chips in current PCs.

In terms of semiconductor components, other major cost drivers include the Nvidia GeForce Go 7300 Graphics Processing Unit (GPU), which has an estimated cost of $15. Other chips are unremarkable and common to conventional PC designs.

Paying Intel $80+ dollars per Apple TV was likely Apple's only options a couple of years ago when designing the Apple TV but today they should be able to get an ARM/PowerVR/VXD SoC setup going for cheaper $$$. Drop the HDD in the lowest end model and voila! You have the ability to touch a $149.99 price point and still make money.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #38 of 84
I find it very funny that people think another ten watts from the CPU will suddenly cause an iMac to melt down. Boys there is a lot more to the power budget than the CPU. Stick modern hardware in an iMac and you might actually lower overall power disapation due to new RAM and a system chip.

As a point load the ten extra watts on what was a 55 watt load isn't impossible to deal with either. Sure a different heat sink is required but does that surprise anybody. Or is anybody surprised that Apple would try new technology here? They could be looking at anything from carbon fiber to heat pipes to a woman with strong lungs. The point us that ten watts on a point load is not a significant problem.

If this is in fact an iMac in a new generation case then it should be obvious to everyone that thermal considerations will be taken into account to address any thermal issues that may exist. With the iMac line now focused on larger and wider screens thermal management should become easier not harder.

As to why Apple needs to deal with more heat in an iMac it is pretty simple, they lack a midrange solution. That is they need a platform that offers better than laptop performance to fill out the middle of the line. That big hole between the iMacs and the Mac Pros performance level that everyone talks about.

In any event Apple could put an i7 in the iMac easy, it is nothing more than an engineering problem. I'd be happy if they did but also surprised. Surprised because of the priceing structure that would result. Maybe the top end. The problem is in a few months everybody will have i7 on their check off lists for acceptable hardware. Apple needs an i7 play even if it is not the iMac.


Dave
post #39 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Outsider View Post

No way, they are too hot for the iMac form factor. I would bet they use the Lynnfield Nehalems in the iMac (in Q3-4 2009).

Perhaps, but this article is about a new cooling module. Maybe that is what is needed for the new i7's?
post #40 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeskater View Post

It's a bit more then just adding 10 watts of power. Apple would be going from two cores on one dye to four which doubles the heat.

All your other comments aside, this part isn't quite true if the numbers in the story are right. The max heat dissipation of a 65W chip is 18% higher than the max heat dissipation of a 55W chip. It doesn't matter how many cores or transistors there are, a watt is a watt, 1W of electricity consumed by a chip becomes 1W of heat dissipated. The difference can come in frequency selection, or binning because fab processes do have some variation. Using two dual core notebook dies could get you the same result. There may be some aggressive circuit power optimizations for the lower power versions.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Next-gen iMac to include new cooling module?