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? - Page 2

post #41 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

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.

I agree. Its doable either by beefing up the cooling or perhaps having other components that generate less heat than current components do.

In any case Intel are now releasing mobiloe quad core chips with prices that fit within the iMacs budget. I'm now convinced that one way or the other the iMac (at least some configurations) will go quad core at the next refresh. I hope that the 20 " machine at least gets the BTO option if it isn't a standard configuration.

And the reality is that Apple is running out of ways to freshen up the iMac lineup without adding quad core chips. I guess the could just add the NVIDIA chipset but that would hardly be an update worth mentioning. They're really at the megahertz ceiling with dual core chips. Moving to quad core chips is the natural progression at this point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

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

IIRC the currently available i7 chips are power hungry 120 watt chips. With some engineering they could adapt them to iMacs but it would likely require some extreme measure to cool like heavy duty fans or a much larger enclosure. I don't think that's necessary with the new low power desk top quad core chips or the mobile quad core chips.

I agree that in 7 months Nehalem CPUs will be a must have item for a new machine. But around that time I expect Intel to release either low power Nehalem desk top CPUs, mobile Nehalem CPUs, or both.

Then it'll be time fro a new refresh.
post #42 of 84
And I'll bet it'll be an even bigger pain in the ass to open up and work on. Apple hates technicians.
post #43 of 84
I suppose since SJ Hate noise, a Slient iMac makes sense. ( If that is even remotely possible at all )
post #44 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeskater View Post

Also this is not new technology I have been running a Q9550 for most of 2008. The Yorkfield chips have been around for a while.
On my gaming system I run an extended Antec case and a Zalman 9700 copper heatsink just to keep this chip at 50c idle.

Your hot Yorkfield (either the C1 or E0 stepping) has a 95 watt TDP. The new one's TDP will be 65w.
Intel labels e.g. "Q9550" are assigned to chips with the same performance/clocks/cores -- stepping variants can have, among other things, different powerdraw.
post #45 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeskater View Post

Dave,

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. It would also have to go from a mobile chipset to a desktop chipset which also creates more heat. The northbridge on these quads also runs hot. It would also require moving from moble memory to desktop memory.

The power numbers are for the entire processor, it is not per core. If that was the case we would be talking about a processor using more than 250 watts of energy. That certainly isn't the case although with intel hardware you do have the potential to go over thermal design power intermittantly.

The north bridge won't run any hotter with a quad connected than with a dual given the same data transfers. Besides there is a good potential that Apple could use a variant of the 9400M in the Mac Books. This is obviously a lower power chip and it would be interesting to see if the chip can scale to quasi desktop performance. Considering the leaked info I wouldn't be surprised if Apple has something like this lined up.

As to memory the latest desktop technology uses less power than the old. This is another element in lowering the platforms overall power draw. What I'm trying to highlight here is that even with the processor drawing 10 watts more, it is possible to power the platforms overall power draw. It all depends on the actual components used and the clock rates choosen by Apple.
Quote:

Also this is not new technology I have been running a Q9550 for most of 2008. The Yorkfield chips have been around for a while.

Err yes it is new technology. In fact Intel just release info this morning on the processors that could potentially go into the Mac. Plus we don't know exactly what Apple is up to with Nvidia. It is very possible next week Apple will release an iMac based on todays intel release and the mystery Nvidia chip.

Not to sideline the thread but this ought to be a sign that the large MBP will be delivered.
Quote:
On my gaming system I run an extended Antec case and a Zalman 9700 copper heatsink just to keep this chip at 50c idle. Not to mention there is no way you could balance a system like this with a nice GPU because the heat would simply be too much.

I feel like asking when was the last time Apple delivered a balanced system when talking about GPUs. But I will point out again that the recent iMacs are very wide providing plenty of room for cooling. In fact I wouldn't be surprised to see Apple put two GPUs into the new iMac.
Quote:

To make this work Apple would need to go with a watercooling solution which im not sure is even possible because both the cpu and gpu would have to be watercooled in that small of a space.

No they wouldn't. First your imagination has ran away with this idea that the processor will be drawing hundreds of watts. It is just ten watts more.

Now like before I will admit that the point load is higher. This just takes a different heat sink and attention to air flow. By the way the thin aluminum enclosure is an advantage in managing heat removal.
Quote:

An Nvidia 200 series card wouldn't even fit in an iMac nor would an ATI 4870.

So?

Really what card does Apple use now. The iMac isn't slotted for standard cards. So Apple would likely need to contract for a special card.
Quote:
They use mobile processors and chipsets in AIO for a reason.

Ahh but the iMac right now is sort of a hybrid with 55 watt processors. To call it a machine built with laptop parts is a bit misleading. What Apple builds the new iMac around is unknown at the moment but it is not impossible for Desktop parts to be used in the new platform. Or again they could take a hybrid approach. The only requirement is that when the parts are all on the motherboard that power remains manageable. At this point it would be a bit of a guess as to exactly what the power profile of any system chips used will be.



Dave
post #46 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeskater View Post

Yes I understand that I am running a chip with E0 stepping. However even if we go with Jeff last post of increased heat of 18% that is alot for an iMac. Also what GPU is going to be used to balance out this system? Can't fit a performance desktop GPU in an iMac.

I don't know how to get this across other than to repeat that 65watts is manageable.

Also look at the MBP as an example of the advantages of an integrated chipset. Apple could use the 9400M as is or they might have an enhanced 9400M. Either way they could add a number of discrete GPUs to get the level of performance wanted. Choosing the MBPs GPU however would be underwheming.
Quote:

Even HP and Sony have not attempted to use desktop components in their AIO and HP has more room to do so because they build an AIO with a 25.5 inch screen.

We don't even know what sizes the new iMacs will come in. But again cooling is an engineering challenge, if Apple wanted to they could install a performance GPU and vent it directly out the top of the iMac. Let's face it if a new case is coming they can do what ever they want for ventilation. It is a mistake to assume that current case limitations will remain.
Quote:

However what will most likely happen in this situation is what Apple always does and that is build a system that is heavy on the CPU end and then put something like a 9600 gpu. Mac Pro is a perfect example running eight cores and still comes standard with a 2600xt card.

Unfortunately this is likely to be what happens. It is honestly something I'd like to see Apple overcome and become more flexible with. They need to have at least one performance machine.
Quote:
SJ has yet to figure out how to build a balanced system. He starts out with a corvette and works his way down to a 1970 pinto.

Actually I just went back and read they are going to use a 9800s which has 64 cores. And they are calling this a gaming machine. Thats a bit shy of the 240 cores most gamers are using in a 280gtx.

Well hopefully that is just somebodies speculation as that would not improve upon the current systems much. The only thing to say here is that an integrated chip set might work out well to help accelerate things.
post #47 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeskater View Post

Also this is not new technology I have been running a Q9550 for most of 2008. The Yorkfield chips have been around for a while.

On my gaming system I run an extended Antec case and a Zalman 9700 copper heatsink just to keep this chip at 50c idle. Not to mention there is no way you could balance a system like this with a nice GPU because the heat would simply be too much.

Unless that processor is overclocked like a bat out of hell, you need to re-do your cooling system. A Q9550, at stock speeds with a third-party cooler, should idle in the 30's C.
post #48 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeskater View Post

Well without adding any quotes in this thread I am going to let history speak for itself. SJ has a habit of building systems that overheat.


http://www.pcworld.com/article/12985..._all_time.html

There are some interesting systems on this list but a quote about Apple and SJ.

It is hard to dismiss these high temp issues with certain Apple products. The AIR being the most recent example. The iMac for the most part have not had a problem.

Over this day I've seen offered up all sorts of claims that the iMac runs hot but for the meet part the claims are worthless.

I've seen people claim that because the case is hot to the touch the iMac is running too hot. First one has to realize that the metal case will transfer heat quickly. The second thing is that "hot to the Touch" says nothing, anything above 30deg C could be precived as hot. Another person seems to think that a burning smell from the iMac is a sign of overheating. Obviously something got hot but anybody that has uafld a power supply go bad realizes that sometimes things fail even with plenty of cooling.

The point is if you want to claim that the IMac overheats then show us some numbers. That is temperature readings from the processor core or the GPU core.

As to the thin case that is actually an advantage as it keeps air flowing over parts. One of the problems with ATX based computers is air flow which is very difficult to establish over parts of the interior. Thin is not bad as long as the design supports air flow over the hot sections.

I still haven't seen anything to convince me that 65 watts isn't doable. Unless Apple has a mid range box planned it is almost a minimal requirement. The problem is simple, if they can't get significantly better performance out of the iMac, they will have an incredible performance gap between iMac and Mac Pro. That when the Mac Pro goes i7, the gap is bad now but i7 will make it a lot worst.

Maybe that is a poor arguement - "Apple has to" but I see it becoming a reality if they don't add a midrange product to the lineup. The gap is large enough right now that people want to fill it with hackentoshes and pystars. Make it much wider and people might just punt and go the DIY mode in mass.
Who knows maybe Apple will ship an xMac at MWSF.

Dave
post #49 of 84
A quad-core "Penryn" iMac would obviously be welcomed, but for gods sake PC's already have quad-core Nehalems.. The iMacs will have old technology and they aren't even out yet!
post #50 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by winterspan View Post

A quad-core "Penryn" iMac would obviously be welcomed, but for gods sake PC's already have quad-core Nehalems.. The iMacs will have old technology and they aren't even out yet!

All-in-One PCs have QuadCore Core i7?

Gateway One: http://www.gateway.com/systems/product/529668183.php

Yes? NOPE.

HP TouchSmart IQ816t series: http://www.shopping.hp.com/webapp/sh...=IQ816t_series

Yes? NOPE.

Dell XPS One 24: http://configure.us.dell.com/dellsto...ktop-xps-a2420

Yes? QuadCore 8200. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819115055

Thermal Power\t95W

Price? USD $1899+ tax.

You can compare the parts yourself.

--------------------

So far I'm seeing one with an extremely hot CPU.

The Thermal Power of the Core i7 is 130W for the lowest cost model:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819115202

Best of luck to you.
post #51 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.

and HOW does that help the iMac/mini keep cool?

agree with the 32GB though, but them my contract doesn't run out till 2010 so might struggle on until theres a 64Gb version.

and if they stick a 4Mp camera in it, at least give it the ability to record video!

actually could have used C&P this morning, but thats the first time in about a month.. so.. meh
I don't see how an anti M$ stance can be seen as a bad thing on an Apple forum I really can't!

nagromme - According to Amazon: "SpongBob Typing Tutor" is outselling Windows
Reply
I don't see how an anti M$ stance can be seen as a bad thing on an Apple forum I really can't!

nagromme - According to Amazon: "SpongBob Typing Tutor" is outselling Windows
Reply
post #52 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

All-in-One PCs have QuadCore Core i7?

Gateway One: http://www.gateway.com/systems/product/529668183.php

Yes? NOPE.

HP TouchSmart IQ816t series: http://www.shopping.hp.com/webapp/sh...=IQ816t_series

Yes? NOPE.

Dell XPS One 24: http://configure.us.dell.com/dellsto...ktop-xps-a2420

Yes? QuadCore 8200. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819115055

Thermal Power\t95W

Price? USD $1899+ tax.

You can compare the parts yourself.

--------------------

So far I'm seeing one with an extremely hot CPU.

The Thermal Power of the Core i7 is 130W for the lowest cost model:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819115202

Best of luck to you.

I think he probably means for an equivilently priced desktop PC, not specifically an AIO. Look at the Dell XPS desktops... Core i7, 6GB RAM, 640GB hard drive and 23" monitor for about the same price as the bottom end iMac. No comparison at all really.
post #53 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrochester View Post

I think he probably means for an equivilently priced desktop PC, not specifically an AIO. Look at the Dell XPS desktops... Core i7, 6GB RAM, 640GB hard drive and 23" monitor for about the same price as the bottom end iMac. No comparison at all really.

The thread topic is the iMac. It is an All-in-One.

One should make a topic on the Mac Pro, but that wouldn't work because the Xeons are there.

One then should make a thread on the much desired Mid-tower and watch it turn into a cesspool of wish in one hand and s*** in the other.
post #54 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

The thread topic is the iMac. It is an All-in-One.

One should make a topic on the Mac Pro, but that wouldn't work because the Xeons are there.

One then should make a thread on the much desired Mid-tower and watch it turn into a cesspool of wish in one hand and s*** in the other.

The thread topic is about the iMac. It's a mid-range computer, just like the Dell, so in that respect it does make them comparable.
post #55 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrochester View Post

The thread topic is about the iMac. It's a mid-range computer, just like the Dell, so in that respect it does make them comparable.

They are comparable in that sense, but it is a bit disingenuous on here knowing that the iMac is at the EoL for the current model while the Dell offering is fairly new.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #56 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

They are comparable in that sense, but it is a bit disingenuous on here knowing that the iMac is at the EoL for the current model while the Dell offering is fairly new.

That's fair enough but unless Apple has some amazing cooling technology up it's sleeve, it looks like even the new, refreshed Imac is gonna be using yesterdays technology.
post #57 of 84
I have it on good authority that the new iMac will have beer cooler built into the back.
post #58 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by webmail View Post

I have it on good authority that the new iMac will have beer cooler built into the back.

I know you were joking but....

More like an oven built into the back. Current ones get pretty hot as it is...at least my 24" iMac does. Sometimes it gets so hot you can't leave your hand on the top of the case. That being said, the CPU's aren't reading very hot at all. Around 120-130º F at most. Far less than my iMac G5 ever did. I would attribute some of the heat to the display. If I remember to turn down the brightness a little the case doesn't get no where near as hot.

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 #59 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by macxpress View Post

I know you were joking but....

More like an oven built into the back. Current ones get pretty hot as it is...at least my 24" iMac does. Sometimes it gets so hot you can't leave your hand on the top of the case. That being said, the CPU's aren't reading very hot at all. Around 120-130º F at most. Far less than my iMac G5 ever did. I would attribute some of the heat to the display. If I remember to turn down the brightness a little the case doesn't get no where near as hot.

That's great! That means that alu case is doing just what it's supposed to. Pull heat away from the CPU and motherboard and spread it throughout the case. I can deal with a hot case but I just can't have the CPU going supernova.

Are you using the iSlayer stuff to monitor CPU thermals?
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 #60 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

That's great! That means that alu case is doing just what it's supposed to. Pull heat away from the CPU and motherboard and spread it throughout the case. I can deal with a hot case but I just can't have the CPU going supernova.

Are you using the iSlayer stuff to monitor CPU thermals?

I use a program called Temperature Monitor. Gives the temps of the CPUs, GPUs, wireless card, HD Temp, Ambient Temp, and a few other things.

The temp doesn't concern me. It never locks up or shuts off on my when its hot like that. My iMac has AppleCare until 2010 so if it dies...well its all under warranty!

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 #61 of 84
So how long till PHOTOS? This is only weeks away now???!???
I never get tired of being right all the time... but I do get tired of having to prove it to you again and again.
Reply
I never get tired of being right all the time... but I do get tired of having to prove it to you again and again.
Reply
post #62 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Not Unlike Myself View Post

So how long till PHOTOS? This is only weeks away now???!???

You can have the photos you want next week IF its released. The event is next week, earlier than normal.

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 #63 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeskater View Post

I'm not sure its possible to run a Q9550 in a iMac. I have one running in my gaming system right now and with an extended size case and a massive heatsink/fan it get about 50c with no load and as high as 74c gaming. I just don't see anyway the iMac design could keep this chip cool.

Also didn't Apple try the transfer to the outer shell theory way back with the Apple 2?

In any case I do not see the Q9550 making into an iMac. I just don't believe they can keep the chip under the recommended temp of 71.4 c.

1 - My Mac Mini runs much hotter.
2 - Your system is running over the rec'd temp

I would, however, tend to go with the middle chip as is is similar to the higher speed one, but should run cooler.
post #64 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

I still haven't seen anything to convince me that 65 watts isn't doable. Unless Apple has a mid range box planned it is almost a minimal requirement. The problem is simple, if they can't get significantly better performance out of the iMac, they will have an incredible performance gap between iMac and Mac Pro. That when the Mac Pro goes i7, the gap is bad now but i7 will make it a lot worst.

Maybe that is a poor arguement - "Apple has to" but I see it becoming a reality if they don't add a midrange product to the lineup. The gap is large enough right now that people want to fill it with hackentoshes and pystars. Make it much wider and people might just punt and go the DIY mode in mass.

No, not performance gap between the iMac and the MP, but between the iMac and PC competition. The iMac and MP aren't really competing. Apple really only has two choices, well three: go 3.2/3.33 GHz dual-core, go 2.66 GHz quad-core, or radical design for the iMac. The MP will take care of itself as they can put a 2-socket i7 system in it, but the iMac is at a huge performance disadvantage right now to quad PC systems, and it's design advantages isn't enough to make up for it.

Apple's desktop strategy doesn't really offer a "range" per se. It's really a high-end specialty consumer desktop (AIO form factor), a workstation specifically targeted towards audio/video/graphics professionals, and an upsell machine in the form of the Mac mini. If you want to go all Apple, a mini+Apple monitor has a horrible price/performance, and the iMac is basically you're only choice for a desktop. Heck, a Mac mini + 3rd part monitor ain't great, but I digress. It's really 3 specialty computers that Apple has in it's lineup. They don't play the margins game by going with a simple box + monitor, and they always go the route of selling something close in price/perf and make up for the rest in design.

So, Apple is sticking with the iMac AIO design and putting a CPU/GPU in that'll be a little more expensive than the competition, whether it's high GHz dual-core, quad-core, or radical design, who knows. I doubt radical design.

If the xMac happens, I predict the iMac will die. I don't think those two can live in harmony in Apple's budget.
post #65 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by THT View Post

No, not performance gap between the iMac and the MP, but between the iMac and PC competition. The iMac and MP aren't really competing. Apple really only has two choices, well three: go 3.2/3.33 GHz dual-core, go 2.66 GHz quad-core, or radical design for the iMac. The MP will take care of itself as they can put a 2-socket i7 system in it, but the iMac is at a huge performance disadvantage right now to quad PC systems, and it's design advantages isn't enough to make up for it.

Apple's desktop strategy doesn't really offer a "range" per se. It's really a high-end specialty consumer desktop (AIO form factor), a workstation specifically targeted towards audio/video/graphics professionals, and an upsell machine in the form of the Mac mini. If you want to go all Apple, a mini+Apple monitor has a horrible price/performance, and the iMac is basically you're only choice for a desktop. Heck, a Mac mini + 3rd part monitor ain't great, but I digress. It's really 3 specialty computers that Apple has in it's lineup. They don't play the margins game by going with a simple box + monitor, and they always go the route of selling something close in price/perf and make up for the rest in design.

So, Apple is sticking with the iMac AIO design and putting a CPU/GPU in that'll be a little more expensive than the competition, whether it's high GHz dual-core, quad-core, or radical design, who knows. I doubt radical design.

If the xMac happens, I predict the iMac will die. I don't think those two can live in harmony in Apple's budget.

Apple's budget dwarfs Dell's. I think you're trying to express the notion that the mid-tower would cannibalize iMac sales. It won't.

The problem people are facing is that the Core i7 is an LGA1366 versus the LGA775 which would top out with the Core2Quad.

Would people feel cheated that their Mid-tower would basically be a one-off? Should Apple wait to do the Mid-tower when it moves to LGA1366? I'm betting they'd rather wait and then produce them when the LGA1366 is offered on their entire line.
post #66 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by THT View Post

No, not performance gap between the iMac and the MP, but between the iMac and PC competition. The iMac and MP aren't really competing. Apple really only has two choices, well three: go 3.2/3.33 GHz dual-core, go 2.66 GHz quad-core, or radical design for the iMac.
.

If they don't use the low power desk top quad core cpus, why not use the mobile quad core cpus?

They're all 35 watt cpus. No need for radical redesign although that wouldn't be a bad idea IMO if it was done to accommodate 65 watt cpus. I suspect that the low power desktop cpus will always be a bit cheaper and will get released sooner than the comparable mobile cpu part . It's a smart move for the future IMO.

Nevertheless, the iMac should get quad core cpus at the next refresh.
post #67 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

Apple's budget dwarfs Dell's. I think you're trying to express the notion that the mid-tower would cannibalize iMac sales. It won't.

The problem people are facing is that the Core i7 is an LGA1366 versus the LGA775 which would top out with the Core2Quad.

Would people feel cheated that their Mid-tower would basically be a one-off? Should Apple wait to do the Mid-tower when it moves to LGA1366? I'm betting they'd rather wait and then produce them when the LGA1366 is offered on their entire line.

Or Apple could be waiting for the Core i5 that uses LGA1056(was LGA1060). It's better suited for midrange systems. It has an integrated dual channel DDR3 memory controller, a built in 16x PCIe bus for graphics, and the chipset, the P55, will be a single chip design.
post #68 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Outsider View Post

Or Apple could be waiting for the Core i5 that uses LGA1056(was LGA1060). It's better suited for midrange systems. It has an integrated dual channel DDR3 memory controller, a built in 16x PCIe bus for graphics, and the chipset, the P55, will be a single chip design.

That's a rational approach. I'd like to make the correction that the socket is the LGA 1160.

http://www.techpowerup.com/78383/Pre...Conducted.html

Excerpt:

Quote:
i5? i5! Core i5 would be the brand name Intel's mainstream desktop derivatives of the Nehalem architecture based on the Lynnfield core would carry. It is similar to its big brother, the Core i7 for the most of the part except for a few differences:

  • A current generation Direct Media Interface (DMI) Interconnect as chipset interface
  • A 128-bit wide DDR3 memory interface (Dual Channel) instead of triple-channel
  • Some more machinery from the northbridge migrated to the CPU, such as the PCI-Express root complex
  • The newer LGA 1160 socket


The Socket B background: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socket_B
post #69 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

If they don't use the low power desk top quad core cpus, why not use the mobile quad core cpus?

They're all 35 watt cpus. No need for radical redesign although that wouldn't be a bad idea IMO if it was done to accommodate 65 watt cpus. I suspect that the low power desktop cpus will always be a bit cheaper and will get released sooner than the comparable mobile cpu part . It's a smart move for the future IMO.

Nevertheless, the iMac should get quad core cpus at the next refresh.

They could. The problem with Intel's mobile quads is that they are really expensive. Especially for the speeds they run at compared to desktop CPUs at the same price.
post #70 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by FuturePastNow View Post

They could. The problem with Intel's mobile quads is that they are really expensive. Especially for the speeds they run at compared to desktop CPUs at the same price.

Yes the mobile quad cores are insanely expensive. Maybe they've come down in price. They did release one with a smaller cache that was much more reasonable though, $348 for a 2.5 ghz qc chip.

I wonder if Apple couldn't get special mobile quad core chips that are overclocked but with higher TDP? Maybe they'd run at 45 or 50 watts.

Or they could just use the low power desk top (quad core) parts. That's the best move IMO.
post #71 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

Yes the mobile quad cores are insanely expensive. Maybe they've come down in price. They did release one with a smaller cache that was much more reasonable though, $348 for a 2.5 ghz qc chip.

I wonder if Apple couldn't get special mobile quad core chips that are overclocked but with higher TDP? Maybe they'd run at 45 or 50 watts.

Or they could just use the low power desk top (quad core) parts. That's the best move IMO.

According to Intel's specs, all mobile quad cores have a TDP of 45W (not 35 nor anything else). Models are:
Q9000 2.00GHz 6MB cache FSB1066 45W $348 *new Dec. 28
Q9100 2.26GHz 12MB cache FSB1066 45W $851
QX9300 2.53GHz 12MB cache FSB1066 45W $1,038

The desktop 65W offerings are (will be on Jan. 18):
Q8200s 2.33GHz 4MB cache FSB1333 65W $245
Q9400s 2.66GHz 6MB cache FSB1333 65W $320
Q9550s 2.83GHz 12MB cache FSB1333 65W $369

The mobile dual-core parts (in the same price range) are the following:
P8700 2.53GHz 3MB cache FSB1066 25W $241 *new Dec. 28
T9550 2.66GHz 6MB cache FSB1066 35W $316 *new Dec. 28
P9600 2.66GHz 6MB cache FSB1066 25W $348 *new Dec. 28
T9800 2.93GHz 6MB cache FSB1066 35W $530 *new Dec. 28
X9100 3.06GHz 6MB cache FSB1066 45W $851

IMO,
- there's nothing much to gain in staying with mobile dual-core cpus for all the iMacs,
- going mobile quad-core will increase the costs but not much the performances (quad 2.26 vs dual 3.06 for the same price?)
- moving to 65W desktop cpus would increase the overall performances and would generate some cost savings (especially in the high-end) that would allow some other enhancements (like LED-BL displays) without increasing the price. But, a new cooling system may be required and that's what the rumor is about.

nvidia is also offering desktop versions of its single chip chipset in 9300 & 9400 flavors that support Intel's quad-core desktop cpus...
post #72 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjteix View Post

According to Intel's specs, all mobile quad cores have a TDP of 45W (not 35 nor anything else). Models are:
Q9000 2.00GHz 6MB cache FSB1066 45W $348 *new Dec. 28
Q9100 2.26GHz 12MB cache FSB1066 45W $851
QX9300 2.53GHz 12MB cache FSB1066 45W $1,038

The desktop 65W offerings are (will be on Jan. 18):
Q8200s 2.33GHz 4MB cache FSB1333 65W $245
Q9400s 2.66GHz 6MB cache FSB1333 65W $320
Q9550s 2.83GHz 12MB cache FSB1333 65W $369

The mobile dual-core parts (in the same price range) are the following:
P8700 2.53GHz 3MB cache FSB1066 25W $241 *new Dec. 28
T9550 2.66GHz 6MB cache FSB1066 35W $316 *new Dec. 28
P9600 2.66GHz 6MB cache FSB1066 25W $348 *new Dec. 28
T9800 2.93GHz 6MB cache FSB1066 35W $530 *new Dec. 28
X9100 3.06GHz 6MB cache FSB1066 45W $851

IMO,
- there's nothing much to gain in staying with mobile dual-core cpus for all the iMacs,
- going mobile quad-core will increase the costs but not much the performances (quad 2.26 vs dual 3.06 for the same price?)
- moving to 65W desktop cpus would increase the overall performances and would generate some cost savings (especially in the high-end) that would allow some other enhancements (like LED-BL displays) without increasing the price. But, a new cooling system may be required and that's what the rumor is about.

nvidia is also offering desktop versions of its single chip chipset in 9300 & 9400 flavors that support Intel's quad-core desktop cpus...

As usual you're correct.

This CNET article suggests that the new mobile qc chip was at 2.5 ghz which it clearly is not.

I get the the impression from your post that you would like to see the iMac start using low power desk top cpus and I'm completely with you on that.
post #73 of 84
All this rumor really means, if true, is that the iMac is getting an internal redesign. Speculating on what form that will take is impossible.
post #74 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by FuturePastNow View Post

All this rumor really means, if true, is that the iMac is getting an internal redesign. Speculating on what form that will take is impossible.

Apparently it's easier to speculate on it than you think. Whether or not any of it is correct is a different matter.
post #75 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjteix View Post

According to Intel's specs, all mobile quad cores have a TDP of 45W (not 35 nor anything else). Models are:
Q9000 2.00GHz 6MB cache FSB1066 45W $348 *new Dec. 28
Q9100 2.26GHz 12MB cache FSB1066 45W $851
QX9300 2.53GHz 12MB cache FSB1066 45W $1,038

The desktop 65W offerings are (will be on Jan. 18):
Q8200s 2.33GHz 4MB cache FSB1333 65W $245
Q9400s 2.66GHz 6MB cache FSB1333 65W $320
Q9550s 2.83GHz 12MB cache FSB1333 65W $369

The mobile dual-core parts (in the same price range) are the following:
P8700 2.53GHz 3MB cache FSB1066 25W $241 *new Dec. 28
T9550 2.66GHz 6MB cache FSB1066 35W $316 *new Dec. 28
P9600 2.66GHz 6MB cache FSB1066 25W $348 *new Dec. 28
T9800 2.93GHz 6MB cache FSB1066 35W $530 *new Dec. 28
X9100 3.06GHz 6MB cache FSB1066 45W $851

IMO,
- there's nothing much to gain in staying with mobile dual-core cpus for all the iMacs,
- going mobile quad-core will increase the costs but not much the performances (quad 2.26 vs dual 3.06 for the same price?)
- moving to 65W desktop cpus would increase the overall performances and would generate some cost savings (especially in the high-end) that would allow some other enhancements (like LED-BL displays) without increasing the price. But, a new cooling system may be required and that's what the rumor is about.

nvidia is also offering desktop versions of its single chip chipset in 9300 & 9400 flavors that support Intel's quad-core desktop cpus...

65W for the processor shouldn't really be that much of an issue anyhow. If Apple makes the back alu -> better heat dissipation
LED screen -> less power drain -> less heat, CCFL screens can get pretty warm
I don't know about memory and chipsets, I don't know if the necessary chipsets and/or memory would drain more heat but I don't see this as a real isue. What was the tdp of the original iMac G5's? Those had to fit in a 17 inch all-plastic enclosure, much less advantegeous than the current 20 inch alu.
post #76 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lorre View Post

65W for the processor shouldn't really be that much of an issue anyhow. If Apple makes the back alu -> better heat dissipation
LED screen -> less power drain -> less heat, CCFL screens can get pretty warm
I don't know about memory and chipsets, I don't know if the necessary chipsets and/or memory would drain more heat but I don't see this as a real isue. What was the tdp of the original iMac G5's? Those had to fit in a 17 inch all-plastic enclosure, much less advantegeous than the current 20 inch alu.

Plus the current iMac's 2600 Pro and 8800 GS graphics chips have a tdp of 45w and 105w respectively. If they go with the mobile versions of the 9600M and 9800M then they can make a cooler design.
post #77 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by winterspan View Post

A quad-core "Penryn" iMac would obviously be welcomed, but for gods sake PC's already have quad-core Nehalems.. The iMacs will have old technology and they aren't even out yet!

I'm a little late getting back into this thread but if Apple does indeed go with an iMac update with what Intel has reasonably available for it right now we are in a world of hurt. The problem of course is that big gap in performance vs the Mac Pro.

It is a reality that Intel doesn't have the optimal solution available for the iMac for a January rev. So what I'm expecting to see is very little if anything changed on the iMac except fora processor bump to carry Apple through until they can design in suitable i7 hardware.

It is one thing to rev the Mini as it is obviously far behind the rest of the lineup and there is a good selection of hardware available to give it a decent boost. This however would round out the low end and Apple would have zip available for the mid range. This is why I see a Mini update in January as a certainty.


Dave
post #78 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by THT View Post

No, not performance gap between the iMac and the MP, but between the iMac and PC competition. The iMac and MP aren't really competing. Apple really only has two choices, well three: go 3.2/3.33 GHz dual-core, go 2.66 GHz quad-core, or radical design for the iMac. The MP will take care of itself as they can put a 2-socket i7 system in it, but the iMac is at a huge performance disadvantage right now to quad PC systems, and it's design advantages isn't enough to make up for it.

Every thing you say above is valid to an extent but for anybody in the Mac fold already the point remains that the gap between the iMac and the Mac Pro just gets wider and wider. The whole point revolves around the fact that hte Mac Pro is an easy upgrade to i7 when the right chip set combinations come out. The feasibility of putting i7 in the iMac is a bigger question and a valid one in many minds. If Apple decides the engineering effort isn't worth it then we will not see the type of performance increase that is really needed to keep any of the iMacs in the mid range area of performance.
Quote:

Apple's desktop strategy doesn't really offer a "range" per se. It's really a high-end specialty consumer desktop (AIO form factor), a workstation specifically targeted towards audio/video/graphics professionals, and an upsell machine in the form of the Mac mini.

I constantly see the Mini referred to as an upsell machine and frankly don't think that is valid at all. Each time a freshly revved machine comes out it is a good value for the money. It is a machine that many have adopted as their home machine, even a few businesses have been known to standardize around the Mini. If nothing else it has been a stable platform for Apple and the industry types that use it.
Quote:
If you want to go all Apple, a mini+Apple monitor has a horrible price/performance, and the iMac is basically you're only choice for a desktop. Heck, a Mac mini + 3rd part monitor ain't great, but I digress. It's really 3 specialty computers that Apple has in it's lineup.

Well we could discuss that all day. The point is they are a good value at introduction and remain a stable platform for long periods of time. Many of Apples customers like that!

Is it an ideal machine for the consumer looking for something cheap. Certainly not. It is however a good machine for somebody that wants a bit of quality, flexibility and low cost Apple platform. Not to mention that the Mini can effectively operate with little power which is a quality all on its own.
Quote:
They don't play the margins game by going with a simple box + monitor, and they always go the route of selling something close in price/perf and make up for the rest in design.

So, Apple is sticking with the iMac AIO design and putting a CPU/GPU in that'll be a little more expensive than the competition, whether it's high GHz dual-core, quad-core, or radical design, who knows. I doubt radical design.

If the xMac happens, I predict the iMac will die. I don't think those two can live in harmony in Apple's budget.

I doubt the iMac will die anytime soon as it suits a particular customer base very well. But it will quickly end up with a performance problem relative to the Mac Pro. Peopel expect the Mac Pro to be fast, that is what they are paying for. What they won't be happy with is a huge gap between the iMac and the Pro when the markets are ful of PC hardware that could easily fill the role of a midrange machine.

This is why I would not be surprised to see at least one iMac with an i7 processor. If not then maybe XMac is coming after all.

Dave
post #79 of 84
One thing that has to be dealt with if you heat load goes up on a device is the heat removal system. This is commonly refereed to as a CPU cooler, or by the electronically minds a heat sink. At least back in the day we refereed to them as heat sinks.

What prompted this discussion is the use of carbon fiber in heat removal systems. In this case the heat was being removed from gun barrels but the point is it may be possible for Apple to use some new tech here that may be far more efficient at pulling heat away from the processor than copper or aluminum. A system that is solid sate as opposed to fluid.

So I'm wondering has anybody heard about carbon fiber being used in the heat sink industry? I would imagine this would be a composite type of heat sink, which would be dramatically different than the standard aluminum job.

If a heat sink can be developed that transfers heat dramatically faster than cooper over a wide area then Apple can stay with a low velocity air stream. This would manage the noise and considering the width of the iMacs there would be plenty of space for a wide heat sink. Just thinking here.


Dave
post #80 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Apparently it's easier to speculate on it than you think. Whether or not any of it is correct is a different matter.

I should have said "impossible to predict." Obviously, speculation is all we got.
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?