or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Chip complex delaying Apple's new iMac line, says analyst
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Chip complex delaying Apple's new iMac line, says analyst - Page 3

post #81 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

There are some major differences in components and size that make these items hard to do a direct comparison, but value in different. The new iMacs will have DDR3 RAM while that Dell has DDR2, but most importantly is the value difference between a tower and an AIO. If we are jsut comparing CPUs then the Dell would win, but that is very narrow view in which to make a purchasing decision.

DDR3 provides no benefit for Core 2 Quad systems. In fact 1066 DDR3 memory performs worse compared to 1066 DDR2 because of the increased latency in the memory chip. Core 2 processors are bandwidth starved due to the memory architecture and using the ancient FSB way of accessing the memory. No matter how much you increase the memory speed, it will not the overcome the bottleneck created by FSB. All of benchmarks done on websites prove that DDR3 offers no benefit on Core 2 platform. Plus any DDR3 speed above 1066 will require extra voltage and iMac cannot afford that

Core i7 benefits from DDR3. It leaves the FSB concept behind and instead uses on chip memory controller which significantly increases the memory bandwidth and reduces memory latency.In fact, according to benchmarks, a single channel DDR3 on i7 is able to match and exceed dual channel configuration on Core 2 platforms. It also uses DDR3 in triple channel configuration which also helps to increase performance even more. Also truth to be told, the triple channel offers little improvement in real world situations such as games or programs. This is why (besides the architectural benefits) the lower end i7 is able to outperform the Core 2 Quad Extreme Editions (at 4X the price)

Apple's iMac is very much behind the competition in terms of spec and power. Core 2 Duo might be enough for email, iPhoto, Safari and Photobooth, but a computer at that price MUST have a quad core system considering what the competition offers. In PC world, quad is the new standard. Apple has a long history of innovation and providing high performance computers, they should go quad on all desktops
post #82 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

But that isn't how value is defined. In a cost-per-performance or your cost-per-use comparison there is no AIO is can have a lower total cost of ownership than the desktop equivalent. But being cheaper or having a lower TCO does not define its value. If it did, than there would be no notebook that is ever a better value over a desktop, but that is not the case. I travel 100% of the time so having a desktop of any sort is of zero value to me.

For you a notebook is a much better value. Obviously a comparison between a Mac and a Windows box cannot be done purely on TCO either because there are so many other variables, especially user experience, to consider.

If we restrict our conversation to the iMac and other real or imagined Mac desktops then I think TCO is going to be the major component in any discussion of value.

I think that's probably the main reason why there isn't a mid-range tower Mac. Simply put, you don't get rich by giving your customers any more than you have to.
post #83 of 155
Whatever!

Can we just have a new iMac already. My G5 is too slow and is short on storage. I need a new iMac!!

grover
post #84 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hudson1 View Post

As I think someone may have commented, it wouldn't be surprising if the iMac has models using both duo and quad core processors. Perhaps quad core on a 24" model? Just one possibility but all of this is purely speculative which makes me wonder why me (or anyone) has spent the time typing this out.

Well I like your speculation Hudson1 so rest assured there's one person that values it.

Apple needs to bit the bullet here and get the iMacs up to a point where they aren't melting with 65W TDP procs. It's the only chance we're going to have to get some Core i7 procs in here. I bet the mobile procs will be min 45W when they come out late this year.

Microsoft is not standing still

http://www.infoworld.com/article/09/...lticore_5.html

Quote:

My own testing would seem to corroborate Microsoft's story. If anything, the company is underselling its multicore advantage. Clearly, the optimizations made to the Vista kernel -- both in its original incarnation and in its updated Windows 7 variant -- are having an impact even at the quad-core level. However, better scalability still isn't enough to offset Windows XP's huge performance edge on today's hardware. In fact, it won't be until after Windows 7 has been replaced by the next Windows that the fruit of Microsoft's multicore optimization labors will be fully realized. Then, as we boot our 32- or 64-core netbooks, we can all smile as Microsoft's foresight and perseverance finally start to pay off

Apple "should" have a head start here but in order to convince developers to begin to visualize and modify their apps to have portions run in parallel there needs to be hardware out there to justify the effort.
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 #85 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by archer75 View Post

core i7 please. With a Nvidia gtx260 or better. Or ati 4850 or better.

i7 is still to expensive, even in cheaper PC market. Combination of pricey CPU, chipset (motherboard) and DDR3 RAM would push iMac from mainstream segment - my humble opinion, at least.

iMac with Penryn Quad and graphics above nVidia 9400 would be a way to go. Such hardware still offers great performance and acceptable price tags.
post #86 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by macxpress View Post

April 28th, 2008 was the last iMac update....

This does seem like a long time to me. How often do Windows PC OEMs like Dell and HP refresh their products? I'm willing to bet it takes much less than a year for each of them to do so....
post #87 of 155
Comrades...

My 1st post, haha well I also need a New Mac, currently running a PowerBook G4 on 10.3, I know well well well out dated, man I've waited for a powerful mac to come along and I feel were almost there!

Knowing Apple's launch cycle:- Jan, Apr, Jul and Oct usually 2nd or 3rd week in those months for major updates or new launches. They usually like only one thing to hold centre stage, so iMac and 10.6 being introduced at the same time are slim, guessing April for the iMac and Jul for 10.6, if there aren't any more delays!

I agree with a dude's earlier comment, the 1st model of any new design or major update will hold design faults after launch, Apple are aware of this aspect and are in position to combat it. This process is in place due to unseen errors that show themselves later. Not everyone model made, BUT just a larger percentage then normal will appear, Luck or the draw,,, man!

As for chips that's another problem all together, my guess for the iMac will be Quad-Core and Mac Pro may see the NEW i7 chips for Intel, if you look the prices of the chips on Intel's site the i7 for the iMac is not a option it would sky rocket the price of the system and we all know the iMac ethos is about being affordable, and that keep the 2 lines different, if Apple just introduce a improved Core-Duo they feeling the Credit Crunch starting to bite, even if the figures do not show it just yet!

This hype about this new cooling system I think and also feel, know Apple routine history will be some time before its introduced, I'd be surprised to see it with the next refresh.


l8a

MMTM1983
post #88 of 155
If Apple is having a hard time shoehorning the Quad into the 20" form factor, could the LG deal be about Apple looking to source a 22" screen to replace it?
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #89 of 155
Whatever Apple decides to do with the iMac the end result will be the same: Not as fast as it could have been, last year's video chip, lack of some FW port (take your pick), crippled something, slow something else.

Many will complain no matter what.

I would like to see an iMac quad, even if it is only in the 24 inch model. Otherwise, max them out Apple, please!
post #90 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by hillstones View Post

Correct, as a Pro user, the Mac Pro works great for your needs. Most consumers are not developers, so a Mac Pro would be useless to them since the majority of software doesn't take advantage of 8 cores. Yet some people claim they need all the cores they can get, just for bragging rights, yet the software they use doesn't run any faster. I can add 1 TB to an iMac and take advantage of SATA as well. Everytime there is a discussion about the iMac, the Mac Pro is dragged into it for some reason or another.

You are making an assumption that every consumer has the same system demands as you. That is not good. But I agree that some see core counts as a bragging right. The only thing I know of for sure is that two cores in a laptop are not enough for this consumer.

As to the Mac Pro getting dragged into iMac discussions; yeah it is stupid and reflects poorly on this analyst. There is no market overlap here at all. Either you need a Mac Pro or you don't. The capabilities of thetwo systems are so different they assure no canniblization. Frankly I don't like that word because people who use it generally gave weak to stupid arguements to support canniblization

What really bothers me here is why does this forum even bother to report on Wu? Maybe Kasper can pipe in here but I don't see any good reason to support somebody that has a terrible track record and frankly has reports full of fluff. It is not like I'm not interested in rumors, that is one good reason to show up here, but nothing from this guy is based on anything of substance. Sadly by constantly referencing this guy Appleinsider is giving him exactly what he needs to stay in business. I say put him out of business with enforced silence.


Dave
post #91 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by ipodrulz View Post

"new iMac with Intel quad-core processors or more high-powered dual-core processors with larger caches"

I don't even know what'd I'd want.

I thought Intel now has a system where it would disable two of the cores and upclock the other two for the times you need two fast cores. If you have enough load for more than two cores, then it would downclock and reenable the other two cores and it can do more work.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2 View Post

Yeah. As a Mac Pro owner myself I'd sure like to see some kind of upgrade path show up this time. Too often the Mac Pro has been sold as the "upgradeable" computer, only to have a single expensive RAID card be the only realistic upgrade option.

The previous towers (G3's, 4's), all had various upgrade options, processor upgrades, video card upgrades etc. and a lot of them are still in use today. I can't remember seeing a single Mac Pro that had it's CPU upgraded and only one ever that had a new video card installed (out of hundreds that I have personally seen and worked on).

Part of the problem is that Intel's setup doesn't offer much upgrade potential, they change their sockets too often, especially with their Xeons. For a while, they used a different socket when they increased the FSB clock, so you couldn't use a 533MHz FSB chip in a 400MHz FSB computer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by italiankid View Post

One thing is certain...

If Apple has technical problems right now about what chip to use or cooling system, I wont be making the jump into purchasing it. Apple is famous for major design problems during its first cycle....

IE: iPhone light leaks
24" iMac gradient displays - uneven backlighting
20" iMac suffer colour shifting from top to bottom of LCD
Macbook unibody hinge from LCD is loose.

I don't doubt those problems exist for some users, but I don't think they are that widespread.
post #92 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by thompr View Post

Eight cores will be a huge advantage once Snow Leopard arrives. The software will definitely run faster then.

Thompson

There is nothing definite about it. The software in question will have to be writen to take advantage of any parallel capabilities in the machine. More so the software needs to be of the sort that can be paralleled in the first place. Frankly this sort of disinformation just makes life difficult for Apple as it leads to expectations that can't be met.

Now that is not saying that SL won't be faster. Every indication is that it will be. At times this may make some existing software faster depending on the specifics of library use. It is just a huge stretch to say every piece of software will be much faster because of four cores and Snow Leopard. One needs to know the specifics of the app in question.
Dave
post #93 of 155
If Apple has the hardware lined up, with the new socket, chipset and cooling, they are not going to want to unveil a quad core iMac until the Mac Pro is replaced with a Core i7 variant. I will tell you why and I will probably get flamed and/or banned permanently from this forum for saying so.
I own two computers, a 2.16 Core 2 Duo Macbook Pro and a PC I built. The PC is a hackintosh running iatkos Leopard. It has a Q9550 (2.83) Core 2 Quad mildly overclocked to 3.0 with 8GB of DDR2-800 RAM all for $1,200. It gets a considerably better xbench score than a 2.8 Mac Pro 8-core machine. I don't put a lot of faith in synthetic benchmarks, but my PC shouldn't even touch the Mac Pro.
The problem the Mac Pro has is that it runs fully-buffered DIMMs owing to its dual socket configuration. That the two procs have to communicate with the memory and with each other across the FSB is a major memory bandwidth nightmare, choking what should otherwise be a fast system. I would bet that a 2.83 iMac would be within spitting distance of the stock 2.8 Mac Pro with 2 GB FB-DIMMs especially if the iMac ships with 4GB DDR3-1066 RAM. Apple can't have that.
The Core i7 with its freedom from the FSB and with its Quick Path Interconnect will obviate these bottlenecks and make for a screaming fast Mac Pro that will destroy any mac out there, allowing room in the lineup for Core 2 Quad equipped iMacs.
post #94 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by eskimo_soldier View Post

If Apple has the hardware lined up, with the new socket, chipset and cooling, they are not going to want to unveil a quad core iMac until the Mac Pro is replaced with a Core i7 variant. I will tell you why and I will probably get flamed and/or banned permanently from this forum for saying so.
I own two computers, a 2.16 Core 2 Duo Macbook Pro and a PC I built. The PC is a hackintosh running iatkos Leopard. It has a Q9550 (2.83) Core 2 Quad mildly overclocked to 3.0 with 8GB of DDR2-800 RAM all for $1,200. It gets a considerably better xbench score than a 2.8 Mac Pro 8-core machine. I don't put a lot of faith in synthetic benchmarks, but my PC shouldn't even touch the Mac Pro.
The problem the Mac Pro has is that it runs fully-buffered DIMMs owing to its dual socket configuration. That the two procs have to communicate with the memory and with each other across the FSB is a major memory bandwidth nightmare, choking what should otherwise be a fast system. I would bet that a 2.83 iMac would be within spitting distance of the stock 2.8 Mac Pro with 2 GB FB-DIMMs especially if the iMac ships with 4GB DDR3-1066 RAM. Apple can't have that.
The Core i7 with its freedom from the FSB and with its Quick Path Interconnect will obviate these bottlenecks and make for a screaming fast Mac Pro that will destroy any mac out there, allowing room in the lineup for Core 2 Quad equipped iMacs.

Welcome to AI.

You might get flamed (doubt it) but not banned for those comments.

Actually I'm a little surprised your hackintosh performs so well but the MPs memory has been an achilles heel for that machine performance wise. So perhaps its not that surprising after all.
post #95 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by eskimo_soldier View Post

If Apple has the hardware lined up, with the new socket, chipset and cooling, they are not going to want to unveil a quad core iMac until the Mac Pro is replaced with a Core i7 variant. I will tell you why and I will probably get flamed and/or banned permanently from this forum for saying so.
I own two computers, a 2.16 Core 2 Duo Macbook Pro and a PC I built. The PC is a hackintosh running iatkos Leopard. It has a Q9550 (2.83) Core 2 Quad mildly overclocked to 3.0 with 8GB of DDR2-800 RAM all for $1,200. It gets a considerably better xbench score than a 2.8 Mac Pro 8-core machine. I don't put a lot of faith in synthetic benchmarks, but my PC shouldn't even touch the Mac Pro.
The problem the Mac Pro has is that it runs fully-buffered DIMMs owing to its dual socket configuration. That the two procs have to communicate with the memory and with each other across the FSB is a major memory bandwidth nightmare, choking what should otherwise be a fast system. I would bet that a 2.83 iMac would be within spitting distance of the stock 2.8 Mac Pro with 2 GB FB-DIMMs especially if the iMac ships with 4GB DDR3-1066 RAM. Apple can't have that.
The Core i7 with its freedom from the FSB and with its Quick Path Interconnect will obviate these bottlenecks and make for a screaming fast Mac Pro that will destroy any mac out there, allowing room in the lineup for Core 2 Quad equipped iMacs.


I'm still not seeing why Apple has to wait. The needs of the typical Mac Pro owner are different than that of an iMac owner. Apple could wait until march to announce iMacs but then they've basically seeded Q1 and the results will not look good come earnings time. The iMac is a high volume product and needs to be announced ASAP IMO. It and the new iLife and iWork should propel Apple to the proper earnings it needs.
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 #96 of 155
Thanks back to Mac for being civil and welcoming me.
Some further information. The machine has an Asus micro-atx P5E-VM motherboard and an OLD ATI X1950XT that nonetheless outperforms the newer unified shader boards (2600XT 8800GT) in xbench. Again, synthetic benchmarks, but perhaps Leopard isn't optimized for Direct-x 10 boards. Thoughts?
I would hope the next Mac Pro is more open to GPU upgrades. The ATI 3870 Mac & PC Edition offers some hope in this area and may herald future trends. I believe this is going to be fruitful because Open CL may allow Mac performance to scale better with GPU upgrades vs. CPU upgrades.
post #97 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by eskimo_soldier View Post

If Apple has the hardware lined up, with the new socket, chipset and cooling, they are not going to want to unveil a quad core iMac until the Mac Pro is replaced with a Core i7 variant. I will tell you why and I will probably get flamed and/or banned permanently from this forum for saying so.
I own two computers, a 2.16 Core 2 Duo Macbook Pro and a PC I built. The PC is a hackintosh running iatkos Leopard. It has a Q9550 (2.83) Core 2 Quad mildly overclocked to 3.0 with 8GB of DDR2-800 RAM all for $1,200. It gets a considerably better xbench score than a 2.8 Mac Pro 8-core machine. I don't put a lot of faith in synthetic benchmarks, but my PC shouldn't even touch the Mac Pro.
The problem the Mac Pro has is that it runs fully-buffered DIMMs owing to its dual socket configuration. That the two procs have to communicate with the memory and with each other across the FSB is a major memory bandwidth nightmare, choking what should otherwise be a fast system. I would bet that a 2.83 iMac would be within spitting distance of the stock 2.8 Mac Pro with 2 GB FB-DIMMs especially if the iMac ships with 4GB DDR3-1066 RAM. Apple can't have that.
The Core i7 with its freedom from the FSB and with its Quick Path Interconnect will obviate these bottlenecks and make for a screaming fast Mac Pro that will destroy any mac out there, allowing room in the lineup for Core 2 Quad equipped iMacs.

Looks like a fine post to me. I don't pay attention to the Pro, so you've educated me.

I've been waiting for the Mini update and have said plenty worse things about Apple here. They deserve it.
post #98 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phong View Post

Looks like a fine post to me. I don't pay attention to the Pro, so you've educated me.

I've been waiting for the Mini update and have said plenty worse things about Apple here. They deserve it.

Thanks Phong. A big problem is there is no interim step between the mac Mini and the Mac Pro.
Ideally, Apple would market a quad core user-upgradeable mid-tower around the $1,800 mark. With future iterations of the machine, Apple could sell motherboards only form factor (proprietary motherboard vs. ATX) compatible with that case, but still allowing people, who paid the money for an Apple before, to upgrade without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
But honestly, if I were Apple with their highly successful business model, there is no reason for me to do that. Apple loses profits.
Their operating system is so much better than Windows that they can hold a gun to our heads with over the top prices and limited to no upgrade paths. That is fine for laptops and is why I purchased a refurbished Macbook Pro direct from Apple.
But I own a monitor and have money invested in a case and a power supply and an optical drive (just like you do with an iMac actually). If Apple is so earth friendly, why the really eco-unfriendly policy of having us throw out iMacs even though a lot of the components are still good like the PSU and screen?
Enter the hackintosh. I pay $1,200 for parts and build a machine that matches or beats the $2,800 Mac Pro rival. I don't recommend it though, not unless you (like me) are used to pulling your hair out getting PCs to work properly. I bought a Leopard install disk and it took me the better part of the weekend tooling around in the terminal and downloading enthusiast drivers to get the install to work. If you grew up on Mac, don't touch a hackintosh. If you grew up on a PC and spent a Saturday getting your ACL '97 audio drivers to work, go ahead, give it a shot.
You see, Apple's claims of the benefits of tight software/hardware integration are not over-hyped. That part is definitely worth it. That and the design which is way better than any craptastic PC I have owned.
But the economy may call for Mac to take another look at their business model because users may not be able to afford future upgrades.
post #99 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by eskimo_soldier View Post

Thanks Phong. A big problem is there is no interim step between the mac Mini and the Mac Pro.
Ideally, Apple would market a quad core user-upgradeable mid-tower around the $1,800 mark

You're preaching to the choir, man. We've been clamoring for this machine for a while, and safe to say if apple offered one, I'd already own it.
post #100 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by eskimo_soldier View Post

Thanks Phong. A big problem is there is no interim step between the mac Mini and the Mac Pro.
Ideally, Apple would market a quad core user-upgradeable mid-tower around the $1,800 mark. With future iterations of the machine, Apple could sell motherboards only form factor (proprietary motherboard vs. ATX) compatible with that case, but still allowing people, who paid the money for an Apple before, to upgrade without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
But honestly, if I were Apple with their highly successful business model, there is no reason for me to do that. Apple loses profits.
Their operating system is so much better than Windows that they can hold a gun to our heads with over the top prices and limited to no upgrade paths. That is fine for laptops and is why I purchased a refurbished Macbook Pro direct from Apple.
But I own a monitor and have money invested in a case and a power supply and an optical drive (just like you do with an iMac actually). If Apple is so earth friendly, why the really eco-unfriendly policy of having us throw out iMacs even though a lot of the components are still good like the PSU and screen?
Enter the hackintosh. I pay $1,200 for parts and build a machine that matches or beats the $2,800 Mac Pro rival. I don't recommend it though, not unless you (like me) are used to pulling your hair out getting PCs to work properly. I bought a Leopard install disk and it took me the better part of the weekend tooling around in the terminal and downloading enthusiast drivers to get the install to work. If you grew up on Mac, don't touch a hackintosh. If you grew up on a PC and spent a Saturday getting your ACL '97 audio drivers to work, go ahead, give it a shot.
You see, Apple's claims of the benefits of tight software/hardware integration are not over-hyped. That part is definitely worth it. That and the design which is way better than any craptastic PC I have owned.
But the economy may call for Mac to take another look at their business model because users may not be able to afford future upgrades.

I agree with you 100%. I built one because I switched to a mbp and wasn't using my windows desktop, even though it was still pretty fast, which seemed really wasteful. Getting that thing to be stable is frustrating, though it's a dream once you get it working. The thing is that although Apple's tight integration is really helpful in a LOT of ways, it also seems to be fairly well compatible with a wide range of hardware, when people write the drivers. Driver's aren't necessary with a processor upgrade from what I've seen. As long as it has the same pin pattern as your motherboard, it seems pretty plug and play (can't say if Logic Boards have restrictions that plain jane motherboard don't, since I haven't done that yet). I'm confused as to why it's thought that you'd need to get an Apple approved processor... I'm not definite, but it looks like if it fits, it works. Can't say that if they add new features to it, but it should at least run faster.

On a side note, I think an i7 Mac Pro is the one to go for, and if they can scale more easily, maybe we can see even more cores, and have them be accessible through Snow Leopard.
post #101 of 155
I think Apple has pretty much settled on using the Intel Core 2 Quad Q9xxxS series CPU's rated at 65 W thermal design power (TDP), which will allow Apple to not need a radical overhaul of the iMac system case.

Why quad-core? The reason is simple: iLife '09. Three components of iLife '09--iMovie, iPhoto, and GarageBand--will probably need the computing power of a quad-core CPU, since editing multimedia files tend to use a LOT of CPU power.
post #102 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

I agree. They need to upgrade the whole line and continue to differentiate the iMac and Mac Pro by putting more power in the Pro too. I guess at some point though even the lowest configuration is going to be plenty powerful enough for 90% of the buyers. Only video editors, engineers or scientists will have a need for high end super computers.

Pros are the only viable option for any designer, not just vid editors. I know graphic designers who won't touch Photoshop or InDesign without 8GB of memory--one of them I know has to keep all 3 CS apps launched all the time pretty much and with only 4GB her old desktop was paging constantly. The iMac maxes out at 4GB. Plus a lot of creative software, like Adobe's, is fairly well written, and can take advantage of all 8 cores, so the more CPUs/cores the better.

The new Penryn 4 core processors just introduced are actually comparable to the Harpertowns Apple is including in the Mac Pro. The Mac Pro would be faster, but not enough to justify $1200 price difference--and in some cases, the Penryn might edge the Mac Pro due to the Mac Pro's lower speed memory bus. That's probably why Apple is holding back. They just need to bite the bullet and put an i7 into the Mac Pro already--the server Nehalem variants are going to be a long ways away still it looks like.
post #103 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by skittlebrau79 View Post

They just need to bite the bullet and put an i7 into the Mac Pro already--the server Nehalem variants are going to be a long ways away still it looks like.

Can't. The desktop Core I7 stuff is single socket only.
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 #104 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

Can't. The desktop Core I7 stuff is single socket only.

True but at least they're faster/cheaper than the Harpertowns. You won't have an 8 core option anymore, but at least you wont be worried about your $1200 computer cannibalizing your $2800 computer. Rumors are that Gainestown and Lynnfield may be delayed by a quarter so the economy woes don't bring Intel's financials down further. If that's true, Mac Pros may be another 6 months off, and if Apple waits until the Mac Pro is updated to release updated iMacs, that would mean 12 months between iMac refreshes.

Of course the i7 is out now, is much faster than Penryn and cheaper than the Harpertown procesors Apple uses in the Pro. Too bad Apple can't use them in any "desktop" they have...
post #105 of 155
I wouldn't even *think* about number 3 below. Number 1 is good enough to tie you over. Get an external DVD burner, just swap out the hard disk in the MacBook to a 7200rpm and put 2GB RAM there. You will be *surprised* that it is quite a reasonable Intel Mac even driving 24" (just don't go nuts on the graphics side)... Run CS4 instead of CS3, CS4 is not bad, actually.

I'm also really waiting for clear indication on the iMac and Mac Mini front. I'm just saving cash now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueDjinn View Post

I have a 2.0 GHz 20" iMac G5 and a 1.86 GHz MacBook (first generation combo drive).

The iMac is getting quite long in the tooth; I need an Intel machine for decent performance of software (Office '08, Adobe CS3) as well as for running Parallels. I also want a 24" display.

I was planning on replacing the G5 iMac with whatever new 24" iMac they came out with at MacWorld, and was thrown for a loop when they didn't do so. Now I'm in a holding pattern. My options include:

1. Upgrade current MacBook w/larger 3rd-party hard drive & DVD burner, get a 24" LCD, and sell the G5 iMac on eBay.

COST: appx. $300 for upgrades, $300 for LCD, minus $500 for the iMac sale = appx. $100, but with a lot of nervousness about ripping apart the MacBook. Dirt cheap but the system would still be very low-end by MacIntel-era standards.

2. Replace current MacBook with the new $1,000 model + LCD; sell off *both* the iMac and current MacBook.

COST: appx. $1,000 MacBook, $250 AppleCare, $100 for HD upgrade, $300 for LCD = $1,650, minus perhaps $500 each for the two systems = around $650.

3. Say "screw it" and buy the *current* 24" iMac, sell the G5 iMac and keep the current MacBook.

COST: appx. $1,550 (refurb) + $250 AppleCare = $1,800 - $500 for selling off the G5 iMac = around $1,300.

The third option has the ever-present risk that they'll release the iMac upgrade after all a couple of weeks after I buy it, of course.
post #106 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

If Apple is having a hard time shoehorning the Quad into the 20" form factor, could the LG deal be about Apple looking to source a 22" screen to replace it?

I don't see the 20" having quad-core at all. I think if there is a "decision" waiting to be made, it's whether the higher-end 24" iMac will have a quad-core and how to do some more cooling for that.

Also with the Nvidia 9800 S or something going into the 24" higher-end iMac, again, decisions on GPUs and cooling.

I just want 20" LED iMac with Nvidia 9600GT for just over USD$1,000. Is that too much to ask for?
post #107 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wakashizuma View Post

...Apple's iMac is very much behind the competition in terms of spec and power. Core 2 Duo might be enough for email, iPhoto, Safari and Photobooth, but a computer at that price MUST have a quad core system considering what the competition offers. In PC world, quad is the new standard. Apple has a long history of innovation and providing high performance computers, they should go quad on all desktops

I'd really rather the PC world realise GPU power is more important than Quadcores, but the Intel juggernaut outweighs Nvidia + AMD-ATI.

I'm seeing so many "high end" or so-called "gaming" desktops coming out of Dell and HP, but their graphics are fairly crippled, you can't even really play Crysis on the higher settings.

My personal bias is forget the quadcore, give me an ATI 4870 or Nvidia 9800GT. In the next few years I'd rather have more powerful GPUs than more CPU cores.

Badaboomit.com using Nvidia CUDA absolutely destroys the CPU in terms of encoding speed.

A shift in thinking, design, and budgeting, and I would rather have more powerful GPUs if the software development and OpenCL / CUDA can keep up.

But the massive marketing and mindshare in four CPU cores is really making PC systems makers pushing CPU hard and then saying "oh it has Directx10" graphics but only with limp cards like a Nvidia 9300 or 9400 or the weaker ATI's nowhere near even the ATI 3870.
post #108 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by elliots11 View Post

I agree with you 100%. I built one because I switched to a mbp and wasn't using my windows desktop, even though it was still pretty fast, which seemed really wasteful. Getting that thing to be stable is frustrating, though it's a dream once you get it working. The thing is that although Apple's tight integration is really helpful in a LOT of ways, it also seems to be fairly well compatible with a wide range of hardware, when people write the drivers. Driver's aren't necessary with a processor upgrade from what I've seen. As long as it has the same pin pattern as your motherboard, it seems pretty plug and play (can't say if Logic Boards have restrictions that plain jane motherboard don't, since I haven't done that yet). I'm confused as to why it's thought that you'd need to get an Apple approved processor... I'm not definite, but it looks like if it fits, it works. Can't say that if they add new features to it, but it should at least run faster.

On a side note, I think an i7 Mac Pro is the one to go for, and if they can scale more easily, maybe we can see even more cores, and have them be accessible through Snow Leopard.

Core i7 does work with Leopard though it will be somewhat gimped. Benchmarks I have seen are comparable if not a tad slower than a similarly clocked Q9XXX. That is because Leopard doesn't include all of the code to take advantage of the Core i7's new architecture.
Leopard will recognize any Core 2 and prior Intel, but will misidentify a Core i7. Snow Leopard should add full support for Core i7 as well as support for 4870 and maybe even a future 5870/RV870 which I am personally waiting for (40nm process, possibly 512-bit GDDR5).
I do believe it will take some time for folks like Netkas to get Snow Leopard working on PC hardware because Snow Leopard will need all new driver support (fully 64-bit) and it may not be a guarantee that our older parts will work.
post #109 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by skittlebrau79 View Post

True but at least they're faster/cheaper than the Harpertowns. You won't have an 8 core option anymore, but at least you wont be worried about your $1200 computer cannibalizing your $2800 computer. Rumors are that Gainestown and Lynnfield may be delayed by a quarter so the economy woes don't bring Intel's financials down further. If that's true, Mac Pros may be another 6 months off, and if Apple waits until the Mac Pro is updated to release updated iMacs, that would mean 12 months between iMac refreshes.

Of course the i7 is out now, is much faster than Penryn and cheaper than the Harpertown procesors Apple uses in the Pro. Too bad Apple can't use them in any "desktop" they have...

I like the "desktop" comment because it's true that Apple doesn't produce any desktop computers, only a bunch of notebooks and a Xeon based machine that's starting to look really old next to i7's with only half as many cores.

I know Apple doesn't want a repeat of the G3 incident where consumer priced desktops managed to keep up with much more expensive models that used an older chip design, but I think they have to do something. The PC desktop world is already onto its third generation of quad core chips while Apple debates the use of another dual core chip. The graphics chips in Mac desktops are all 2-4 years old too. Don't get me started on "pro" towers with 320GB hard drives, it's enough to make a grown man cry. If Apple gets any further from the leading edge they won't even be on the wing anymore.
post #110 of 155
Hmmm. Apple has typically held back lower models to prop-up the higher models. iBooks have been stifled to keep Powerbooks appearing to be faster. iMacs have had slower ships to keep PowerMacs the speediest.

The problem with the Mac Pro is it is a PRO machine with a PRO price. But i feel you get better bang for your buck when you buy a top-of-the-line iMac more often than spending the same amount of money (over time) on a Mac Pro.

The iMac isn't cheap, but is still is the best all-in-one machine out there (overall, looks especially).

My iMac is now 3-years old. I really want a 24" 64-bit machine, but if I can wait another year for a quad core that supports 4-8GB of RAM, I will wait.

Do the right thing, Apple. Do the right thing.
post #111 of 155
I can see the refreshed iMac with a new Cinema Display foot. It's very subtle, but it gives you such a nice feel
post #112 of 155
If Apple play the waiting game to get all 5 lines of computers "aligned" for every CPU/GPU upgrade we have had our last upgrade ever
If they can boost the high end iMac with a quad core Nehalem or not they should do it, Pro sales or not. The money they make on additional iMac sales more than make up for the loss of the aggrevated slump in MacPro sales.

The Mini would be better of slightly larger, adding an inch in with and lenght would make it possibel to have a fast 3.5" driver, better graphics etc. My dream would be a "Cube 2" with a PCI express card that can be upgraded etc
post #113 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eriamjh View Post

Hmmm. Apple has typically held back lower models to prop-up the higher models. iBooks have been stifled to keep Powerbooks appearing to be faster. iMacs have had slower ships to keep PowerMacs the speediest.

The gap was at least within reason in the past. Now it seems the MacPro is getting progressively higher end while the iMac is getting progressively lower end.

[qutoe]The problem with the Mac Pro is it is a PRO machine with a PRO price. But i feel you get better bang for your buck when you buy a top-of-the-line iMac more often than spending the same amount of money (over time) on a Mac Pro.[/quote]

I would disagree. In fact, I would say I feel seriously ripped off when it comes my aluminum iMac compared to my previous PowerMac. When the iMac G5 first came out, you had a desktop class CPU that was the same as the PowerMac, a desktop class GPU, an easily replaceable hard drive all in a slim enclosure with that used VESA standard mounting at $1499. At the same price, you had the PowerMac with the same CPU and GPU, but you added a replaceable full size optical drive, two hard drive bays, two additional DIMM slots, and your choice of upgrade cards through an 8x AGP graphics slot and three PCI slots. You had the choice of the machine you wanted: slim space saver design or maximum expandability and both were good choices.

Now, the PowerMac option is gone as are the desktop class CPU, desktop class GPU, easily accessible hard drive, and VESA mounting from the iMac. All for purely aesthetic reasons. If you want a better video card, you're paying $1950 minimum. What want better storage and expansion options? They require taking your iMac completely apart and/or populating your desk and power strip with external devices.

Quote:
The iMac isn't cheap, but is still is the best all-in-one machine out there (overall, looks especially).

If you factor in the huge OS advantage and asthethics, yes. If you go on the pure practicality of the design, I would say the XPS One has the edge. It has an additional USB2.0 port on back, TV tuner, better speakers, easily access side ports for the single slot multipurpose card reader, 2 USB 2.0, headphone/line in jacks, and the power button, proximity activated hidden front controls, and an indicator for the optical drive. Like the original iMac G5, its also designed to be user serviceable. I would sell my soul to have those on the current iMac. If It had a TV tuner with front row support, I wouldn't need a TV. With the additional ports and the card reader, I wouldn't need my hub/card reader combo. With the user upgradable hard drive, I wouldn't have to worry about how fast the 320GB hard drive is filling up with video.

Quote:
My iMac is now 3-years old. I really want a 24" 64-bit machine, but if I can wait another year for a quad core that supports 4-8GB of RAM, I will wait.

Do the right thing, Apple. Do the right thing.

I would definitely wait, and not become impatient and get the wrong thing. Then again, knowing how willing Apple is to remove features for design reasons, you might end up in a worse position then you would be if you bought one now.
post #114 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig View Post

I would definitely wait, and not become impatient and get the wrong thing. Then again, knowing how willing Apple is to remove features for design reasons, you might end up in a worse position then you would be if you bought one now.

Very true. It's not natural to keep this in mind, when buying a new computer, but one must do so when waiting for a new Mac.
post #115 of 155
Apple doesn't need to remove any features. No matter how fast they are, Most machines bought this spring-fall will become instantly outdated by early 2010.

USB 3 will almost certainly arrive in early 2010, if not before. And it will likely extend the bus' reach on hard drives, iPods, camcorders and other devices. It will seem restrictive to have a computer that doesn't have it. If Firewire 3200 sees any significant market acceptance, that will mean the machines will be even more outdated.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #116 of 155
And here is the processor that we will see in the iMac, Q9550S with 65W TDP.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...oc.aspx?i=3505
post #117 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by megatrick View Post

As a general rule, I find the granularity of Shaw Wu's analysis kind of ridiculous. How does this knowledge (garnered in a vague and clandestine manner) benefit his clients. Simultaneously, it harms Apple and (its shareholders, his clients) by spreading rumors about unannounced products that might affect overall sales. The best thing he could do is shut the ____ up.

As Mr Rogers might have said, boys and girls, can you say "Speculators"?
post #118 of 155
Quote:
The reason why every time there is a discussion about the iMac, the Mac Pro is dragged into it is because there no Mac model in between the iMac and Mac Pro. The Mac Mini is not that model. It should have been, and that's what people were hoping for. But clearly it isn't. If you admit admit that the Mac Pro is not for everyone, then you should also be able to admit that the iMac is not for everyone either. Furthermore, it does not necessarily mean that people who don't need a Mac Pro will automatically be better off with an iMac. If you don't like Mac Pro owners forcing themselves on everyone, then iMac owners shouldn't do it either. It's ironic that people who like to preach tolerance for those with different needs are also the ones who get dismissive every time someone asks for a midrange Mac tower or an iMac without a built in monitor.

Agreed.


Quote:
Processor Clock Speed L2 Cache L3 Cache TDP Price
Intel Core i7-965 Extreme Edition 3.20GHz 1MB 8MB 130W $999
Intel Core i7-940 2.93GHz 1MB 8MB 130W $562
Intel Core i7-920 2.66GHz 1MB 8MB 130W $284
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9650 3.00GHz 12MB - 95W $316
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550S 2.83GHz 12MB - 65W $369
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 2.83GHz 12MB - 95W $266
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9400S 2.66GHz 6MB - 65W $320
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9400 2.66GHz 6MB - 95W $213
Intel Core 2 Quad Q8300 2.50GHz 4MB - 95W $183
Intel Core 2 Quad Q8200S 2.33GHz 4MB - 65W $245
Intel Core 2 Quad Q8200 2.33GHz 4MB - 95W $163

\

Quote:
The price premium for these new S-parts is huge. The Q9550S costs $103 more than the non-S, the Q9400S will set you back another $107 and the Q8200S is the most affordable with only an $82 premium. Note that in the case of the Q9550S and Q9400S you're actually more expensive than the entry level Core i7-920.

I hope we don't get these quad cores in the upper tiers of the iMac. That would be outrageous. Dell and Co. had i7s in their line ups ages ago.

And it adds fuel to the fire that we should have a desktop cpu option for the Mac Tower with a price cut to reflect this. It would render the debate moot.

Cube 2? Or 'Desktop' Mac Pro. Whatever Apple.

Also, there are some great gpus at good prices. Hopefully Apple will include the best in their Towers and iMac.

Why limit the design of the iMac to underperforming over priced components and fleece iMac buyers? I'd put a proper mid-tower alongside it. They'd still make money on Cinema displays.

Apple should be there by now. Quad core. Decent gpus. They've been available ages now. These machines haven't had an update in over a year, just under a year or years in the case of the Mac Mini.

Their desktop line up is flawed. It's go holes in it. And the fact that Mac Pro sales are taking a hammering says that iMac cannibilization is underway.

Apple could go a long way to keep buyers buying in this economic climate. A desktop mid-tower. A Cube shaped mini-tower. And allow us to pick better gpus and i7s in our desktop machines.

The design is good, Apple. But it's not excellent is it? Otherwise, we'd be able to pick our own components or a broader choice of components. The current desktop is embarrassing, out of date, a bean counter's wet dream and politically etched with Steve Jobs stubborness.

Jeeze. The industry moved to quad core ages ago Apple. And even PC world has decent 1 gig GPUs in their 'mid-towers' at around a £1000 or less. And we're still waiting. I thought post PPC we'd be getting the best of performance at all levels. Design is getting in the way of consumer wants. They need to pull their finger out of their iPhone...

The desktop line has flies over the carcass.

Lemon Bon Bon.

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

 

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

Reply

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

 

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

Reply
post #119 of 155
Quote:
Final Words: So Who Should Buy This Thing?
Over the past few pages of performance, power and efficiency graphs we’ve proved that the Q9550S offers lower power, but also lower efficiency than other Intel CPUs. In particular, the Core i7 is a far more power efficient processor thanks to its significant performance advantage. Then why on earth would anyone ever consider the Q9550S or any of the other new 65W parts for that matter?

?

Quote:
For most users this doesn’t matter, the Core i7-920 would spend more time at idle (31.3C) than the Q9550S since it can complete tasks faster. Where this does matter however is if you’re running in a thermally constrained environment; for example, an all-in-one PC.

The Q9550S and the other 65W quad-cores are designed for OEMs or anyone trying to cram as much power into a very small space. I’d expect that these CPUs would be better suited for something like an iMac rather than a normal sized desktop. The problem is that in a normal desktop you’ve got more than enough room to keep even a Core i7 cool, but in some of these OEM designs (like the iMac or Dell XPS One 24) there’s hardly enough room for a normal heatsink and fan.

The S-series looks like it’s designed to allow OEMs to offer higher clocked quad-core CPUs in smaller form factors. If you’ve got a normal sized case however, there’s no reason to pay the price premium for one of these processors. If you do care about energy efficiency, you’d be much better off spending the extra $100 on a Core i7 system instead.

Guess that's the iMac then. I hope there's a high end iMac with i7.

Lemon Bon Bon.

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

 

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

Reply

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

 

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

Reply
post #120 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon

Jeeze. The industry moved to quad core ages ago Apple. And even PC world has decent 1 gig GPUs in their 'mid-towers' at around a £1000 or less. And we're still waiting. I thought post PPC we'd be getting the best of performance at all levels. Design is getting in the way of consumer wants. They need to pull their finger out of their iPhone...

What industry moved entirely to 4-core mobile CPUs? You like to compare Apple's mini-desktop and AIOs and then cry foul, but you never want to acknowledge that these are a differnt class of machine than towers. Apple currently only wants to make a tower that is a higher-end workstation. What choice do you have but to accept that?
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
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Chip complex delaying Apple's new iMac line, says analyst