Next-gen iMac to include new cooling module? - Page 2

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.

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.

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.

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

They use mobile processors and chipsets in AIO for a reason.

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.

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.


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.

And I'll bet it'll be an even bigger pain in the ass to open up and work on. Apple hates technicians.

I suppose since SJ Hate noise, a Slient iMac makes sense. ( If that is even remotely possible at all )

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.



"According to most accounts, Jobs insisted that the machine be built without a cooling fan; instead, the system's aluminum case served as a heat sink. (A mistake Apple repeated with the Mac G4 Cube in 2000.) Worse, the Apple III crammed too many components into too small a case. As the system overheated, circuit boards warped and chips popped out of their sockets; users were supposed to pick up the machine and drop it to re-seat the chips. List prices between $4300 and $7400, depending on configuration, only added to the misery. "
"Apple was forced to replace the first 14,000 Apple IIIs it shipped, and it redesigned the system twice, but the machine never lost its reputation as a stinker"

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.

Not with E0 stepping, C1 is even worse. I can overclock this chip no problem to 3.4 and run memory at a 1:1 ratio. Even with Vista x64 I can do a full reboot in about 37 seconds.

I have to admit when I first got this chip it drove me nuts because I couldn't get the temps below 46 idle. The first Q9550 simply run hot. However I have had zero issues with this system.

Even at 3.4ghz I can run Prime95 for 72 hours with no errors.

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

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:



The Socket B background: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socket_B

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.

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.

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.

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.