or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Analyst now says iMacs likely in both dual- and quad-core
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Analyst now says iMacs likely in both dual- and quad-core

post #1 of 144
Thread Starter 
A Wall Street analyst who recently reported that Apple was torn between using dual-core processors and quad-core processors in its next-generation iMac line now believes the company will adopt both.

Kaufman Bros. analyst Shaw Wu told clients on Monday that AppleInsider's latest report on iMac shortages is "consistent" with comments from his supply chain sources that the iMac is due for a refresh in the March or June quarters.

"In our experience, when Apple sends an advisory to its channel partners of limited availability and inventory of existing models are drawn down, it is highly likely that a product refresh is within a few weeks," he said.

Wu generate some headlines exactly one week ago when he reported that new iMacs were almost ready for prime time but were being held up for "business reasons and a potential small technical hurdle."

Specifically, he said Apple was in the "midst of figuring out whether to power the new iMac with Intel quad-core processors or more high-powered dual-core processors with larger caches."

In his note to clients today, Wu now claims to be hearing from his sources "that both types of processors will likely be used," which would "makes sense as this helps Apple create better tiers within the iMac family, utilizing quad-core for the high-end, and dual-core for mid-range and low-end."

Still, it's unclear from precisely what information the analyst is drawing his conclusions. Historically, Wall Street analysts sport a lackluster track record in predicting Apple's future hardware directions, and therefore readers may want to take the latest predictions with a grain of salt. That said, Wu has on at least one occasion defied the odds.

Nevertheless, the Kaufman Bros analyst emphasized to clients the crucial rolled played by the iMac in Apple's Mac story. He estimates sales of the all-in-one desktops comprised 25 percent of the Cupertino-based company's Mac business during the December holiday quarter, adding that the systems can at times represent as much as 36 percent of Mac sales during strong periods immediately following a product refresh.

"We believe having both strong portables and desktops will help the Mac sustain its above-market rate growth rates and maintain its momentum in this tough macroeconomic environment," he said.

Should iMacs go quad-core, Wu speculates the move would also spark an update to the Mac Pro, which is currently offered in both quad- and eight-core configurations.

"As Apple mentioned briefly on its earnings call, Mac Pro sales have become less important and less attractive in this tough economic environment," he told clients. "However, we think a refresh utilizing upcoming Intel 'Nehalem' 8-core processors (and with two enabling a 16-core) would bring it better price performance and help jump start this highly profitable segment."

Wu maintains a Buy rating on Apple shares with a $120 price target.
post #2 of 144
I'll believe it when I see it....

Oh and FW or no sale!
post #3 of 144
OK, analyst says... but, what AI says?
post #4 of 144
I wish Apple would get their butts into gear, I have been waiting to buy a refreshed iMac for 6 months now, its like they skipped a whole product cycle release, how hard can it be, place a different intel chip in change the rubbish underpowered gpu and send it out!
iPad, Macbook Pro, iPhone, heck I even have iLife! :-)
Reply
iPad, Macbook Pro, iPhone, heck I even have iLife! :-)
Reply
post #5 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by saarek View Post

I wish Apple would get their butts into gear, I have been waiting to buy a refreshed iMac for 6 months now, its like they skipped a whole product cycle release, how hard can it be, place a different intel chip in change the rubbish underpowered gpu and send it out!

If it was easy they would have done it ages ago. Most likely they were waiting for something, like the proper new chip to be released or something, development of the new NVIDIA chipset like the MacBook and MacBook Pro has. Its not like Apple is just sitting on their asses all day.
post #6 of 144
I think they should be using that new 8 core Intel for their Mac Pro, and make the iMac a Quad Core machine!
post #7 of 144
LOL these analysts make me laugh.
post #8 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by macxpress View Post

If it was easy they would have done it ages ago. Most likely they were waiting for something, like the proper new chip to be released or something, development of the new NVIDIA chipset like the MacBook and MacBook Pro has. Its not like Apple is just sitting on their asses all day.

But in the mean time they could/should have released a refreshed model with a new CPU and GPU, they did not have to wait for the new nvidia chipset for that.
iPad, Macbook Pro, iPhone, heck I even have iLife! :-)
Reply
iPad, Macbook Pro, iPhone, heck I even have iLife! :-)
Reply
post #9 of 144
Shaw

Who in their right mind is going to spend $1299 on a dual core computer when they walk through Best Buy and see $700 Quad Core setups with monitor?

I don't know where this abtraction from reality comes from. Apple competes indirectly with PC and in some cases directly with PC. They just can't magically find success by pricing their computer at a %50 with lesser hardware to boot (no pun intended)

I'm trying to understandy any analysis that suggests that a high volume product like the iMac should come is some watered down flavor when compared to the going rate for computer hardware.

There's little reason to put a dual core processor in an iMac. If Apple has to redesign the case that's what they should do. I don't remember the consensus saying "geez I really like this iMac but if it were only a couple of inches thinner"

If there's a problem with the case it's a problem wholly created by Apple and frankly as a consumer I don't have to give a flying rip.

Today's market doesn't mean that consumers feel that midrange computers are unattractive it means that dubious value is unattractive for consumers. We're all re-assessing what value we expect from computers. Some will find a dual core iMac worth paying $1300 for while many others will realize that that is simply not a good value and pass.
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 #10 of 144
...and he's pulling pure speculation out of his behind.

Still, this does seem fairly plausible. The most likely scenario, if this is true, would be to offer 2 versions each of the 20" and 24" models; something like:

20" dual core: $999
20" quad-core: $1,299
24" dual core: $1,499
24" quad-core: $1,799

with, perhaps, a super-duper "ultimate" speculated 28" uber-iMac for $2,199 or whatever.
post #11 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by PB View Post

OK, analyst says... but, what AI says?

I thought they were in bed together. Regurgitate what was already said months ago to generate hits and gain exposure for Wu.
post #12 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by saarek View Post

I wish Apple would get their butts into gear, I have been waiting to buy a refreshed iMac for 6 months now, its like they skipped a whole product cycle release, how hard can it be, place a different intel chip in change the rubbish underpowered gpu and send it out!

Your comments highlight you ignorance with regards to computer manufacture. Apple are moving their products to an Nvidia mainboard chipset AND will accomodate new intel CPU's. Also Its pretty difficult to design and test hardware when the CPU supplier has not shipped final hardware to your labs.

Would you rather Apple shipped a slightly upgraded iMac last October with a slight CPU upgrade and better GPU, which you then buy and then in Feb/March release a quad core system with far superior GPU which you then piss and moan about as you just bought a new iMac. (BTW, this happened with the 2.1ghz G5 isight Mac which was only out for a few months before the intel iMac hit and lots of buyers were well pissed off.)

By looking at the way Apple have been extending the life cycles of all of its computer products I can see that in the future there will be a significantly longer period between major hardware revisions.

Hardware predictions:

Base iMac 20" - intel 2.4 dual core, NV9400 gfx
Mid iMac 20" - intel 2.6 dual core, NV 9600 gfx
Base 24" - intel 2.6 quad core, NV9600 gfx
Top 24" - intel 2.8 - 3.00 quad core - NV9800GTS/X
post #13 of 144
With Apple putting all this time and effort into Grand Central for SL, it would be silly to not make a quad-core iMac. I can't see how much of a difference GC would make with just a dual core processor over a quad-core CPU.
post #14 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

Shaw

Who in their right mind is going to spend $1299 on a dual core computer when they walk through Best Buy and see $700 Quad Core setups with monitor?

I don't know where this abtraction from reality comes from. Apple competes indirectly with PC and in some cases directly with PC. They just can't magically find success by pricing their computer at a %50 with lesser hardware to boot (no pun intended)

I'm trying to understandy any analysis that suggests that a high volume product like the iMac should come is some watered down flavor when compared to the going rate for computer hardware.

There's little reason to put a dual core processor in an iMac. If Apple has to redesign the case that's what they should do. I don't remember the consensus saying "geez I really like this iMac but if it were only a couple of inches thinner"

If there's a problem with the case it's a problem wholly created by Apple and frankly as a consumer I don't have to give a flying rip.

Today's market doesn't mean that consumers feel that midrange computers are unattractive it means that dubious value is unattractive for consumers. We're all re-assessing what value we expect from computers. Some will find a dual core iMac worth paying $1300 for while many others will realize that that is simply not a good value and pass.

I agree totally.

I can see Apple putting a dual core cpu in the lowest priced iMac but if they try that on the midrange machine I will pass and wait for the next upgrade.
post #15 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by saarek View Post

But in the mean time they could/should have released a refreshed model with a new CPU and GPU, they did not have to wait for the new nvidia chipset for that.

There really wasn't much to upgrade from as far as the CPU without going quad-core. I mean going from a 2.4 GHz to a 2.6GHz or something like that isn't going to amount to anything to the eye. And the general consumer going into buy a new computer doesn't give a rats ass about whether the iMac is using a Penryn or Merom Intel chip. Remember the iMac is a desktop computer using notebook parts too, so things like a Core 2 Duo Extreme or Core 2 Quad wasn't viable at this point until recently. So why release it? GPU, well Apple is always behind on the GPU end.
post #16 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueDjinn View Post

...and he's pulling pure speculation out of his behind.

20" dual core: $999
20" quad-core: $1,299
24" dual core: $1,499
24" quad-core: $1,799

I like this. I don't see a DC iMac being worth anything more than $999
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 #17 of 144
It makes sense that the top-end iMac would have quad-core processors.
post #18 of 144
Actually, I think we will see a bump in the quality of the GPUs, now that SL is coming around. OpenCL takes advantage of the GPU's number crunching power, correct? It might make sense for Apple to stick in some actually decent GPUs to get the most benefit when they show off the performance improvements of SL.
post #19 of 144
So what are the current rumors for a release date for Snow Leopard? If we are talking about it being as late as next quarter for the new hardware, then perhaps I'll just wait until I can get SL included instead of paying extra for it later.
post #20 of 144
Isn't this the same 'analyst' that everyone concluded last time didn't have a clue what he was talking about? Why are we even wasting bandwidth commenting on this?
post #21 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

Who in their right mind is going to spend $1299 on a dual core computer when they walk through Best Buy and see $700 Quad Core setups with monitor?

These numbers sound like they were pulled straight out of your rear end. Please post an actual detailed comparison with links to the $700 computer that's the equivalent of the $1299 iMac. (or STFU)
In Windows, a window can be a document, it can be an application, or it can be a window that contains other documents or applications. Theres just no consistency. Its just a big grab bag of monkey...
Reply
In Windows, a window can be a document, it can be an application, or it can be a window that contains other documents or applications. Theres just no consistency. Its just a big grab bag of monkey...
Reply
post #22 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueDjinn View Post

...and he's pulling pure speculation out of his behind.

Still, this does seem fairly plausible. The most likely scenario, if this is true, would be to offer 2 versions each of the 20" and 24" models; something like:

20" dual core: $999
20" quad-core: $1,299
24" dual core: $1,499
24" quad-core: $1,799

with, perhaps, a super-duper "ultimate" speculated 28" uber-iMac for $2,199 or whatever.

I thought it was a 30" and not a 28" that was rumored? Anyway, let's start a new rumor on a rumor.
post #23 of 144
Don't forget that the iMac still doesn't have Penryn, still uses LCD instead of LED, still uses DDR2 memory, has only a 6MB L2 cache, and the 3.06 GHz CPU is basically a "special edition" of a lower-clock-speed design.

So yeah, it's way overdue for an update. If they would have updated those features at the same time as the MacBook Pros, it would definitely have been an improvement (and I would have bought one).

I hope the delay is not just because of a change in the case (like the 17-inch MacBook Pro), but because they're making even greater improvements in the technologies (and optimizing for Snow Leopard). If that's the case, I don't mind waiting, although my iMac G5 (single core 1.8) is crying out to be retired.
post #24 of 144
Once again, I have to ask where this rumoured 28" flat screen is being sourced from.

I seriously doubt that a 30" iMac would see any significant buyers. People like Macs, but they're not crazy.
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 #25 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by irnchriz View Post

Your comments highlight you ignorance with regards to computer manufacture. Apple are moving their products to an Nvidia mainboard chipset AND will accomodate new intel CPU's. Also Its pretty difficult to design and test hardware when the CPU supplier has not shipped final hardware to your labs.

Would you rather Apple shipped a slightly upgraded iMac last October with a slight CPU upgrade and better GPU, which you then buy and then in Feb/March release a quad core system with far superior GPU which you then piss and moan about as you just bought a new iMac. (BTW, this happened with the 2.1ghz G5 isight Mac which was only out for a few months before the intel iMac hit and lots of buyers were well pissed off.)

By looking at the way Apple have been extending the life cycles of all of its computer products I can see that in the future there will be a significantly longer period between major hardware revisions.

Hardware predictions:

Base iMac 20" - intel 2.4 dual core, NV9400 gfx
Mid iMac 20" - intel 2.6 dual core, NV 9600 gfx
Base 24" - intel 2.6 quad core, NV9600 gfx
Top 24" - intel 2.8 - 3.00 quad core - NV9800GTS/X

I understand that Apple is moving their product line, however the speed with which they have updated the iMac and the Mac Mini is far too slow.

A revision should have been released, those that have bought an iMac in the last 6 months will off course want the new model with the nvidia graphics system.

Having said that, those people that did buy an iMac in the last 6 months would have been better served by a speed bump and GPU update.

I suppose the fact that they bought one shows that they may not need the extra power, at the same time Apple's slow refresh of simple specs is frustrating.
iPad, Macbook Pro, iPhone, heck I even have iLife! :-)
Reply
iPad, Macbook Pro, iPhone, heck I even have iLife! :-)
Reply
post #26 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by elroth View Post

I hope the delay is not just because of a change in the case (like the 17-inch MacBook Pro), but because they're making even greater improvements in the technologies (and optimizing for Snow Leopard). If that's the case, I don't mind waiting, although my iMac G5 (single core 1.8) is crying out to be retired.

More like your credit card is burning a hole in your pocket. Your iMac G5 still has plenty of life left in it unless its physically dying.
post #27 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by saarek View Post

I understand that Apple is moving their product line, however the speed with which they have updated the iMac and the Mac Mini is far too slow.

A revision should have been released, those that have bought an iMac in the last 6 months will off course want the new model with the nvidia graphics system.

Having said that, those people that did buy an iMac in the last 6 months would have been better served by a speed bump and GPU update.

I suppose the fact that they bought one shows that they may not need the extra power, at the same time Apple's slow refresh of simple specs is frustrating.

Again, there wasn't a significant enough update to justify a refresh for the iMac. Going from 2.4 to 2.5 or 2.6 isn't going to make one hell of a difference. And like I said earlier, a general consumer isn't going to care which type of processor the iMac is using (Merom or Penryn).

Its not as simple and just throw a processor in there and release it. There still has to be testing to make sure there aren't heating issues and such. Also, you have to try and clear out old inventories or sell off remaining inventories at cheaper prices. All of this for just a 200 or 300 MHz update?
post #28 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2 View Post

These numbers sound like they were pulled straight out of your rear end. Please post an actual detailed comparison with links to the $700 computer that's the equivalent of the $1299 iMac. (or STFU)

http://www.costco.com/Browse/Product...se=&lang=en-US

Intel® Core 2 Quad Processor Q6600 at 2.4GHz
8MB L2 Cache
1066MHz Front Side Bus
4GB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 800MHz


$999 w/24" LCD

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage....=1218038551741

AMD Phenom X4 9100e* quad-core processor
True multicore processing for extreme multitasking performance. Cool'n'Quiet 2.0 technology for efficient energy usage. HyperTransport 3.0 technology to improve 3D graphics performance.

4GB of RAM


Now if I wanted to go off brand (which is fine) I can indeed hit better prices,
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 #29 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2 View Post

These numbers sound like they were pulled straight out of your rear end. Please post an actual detailed comparison with links to the $700 computer that's the equivalent of the $1299 iMac. (or STFU)

Don't know if I can get a machine with a quad cpu and a monitor for $700, but here's a sample of what is available.

Core i7 machine for $1200 sans a monitor.

A quad core penryn machine for $800 sans a monitor.

Several Phenom machines for under a grand. Most around $800 without a monitor.

I know Apple can't match these specs on the iMac. But they need to get closer. Simply putting slightly faster dual core cpus in the iMac ain't gonna cut it IMO.

I won't buy one and I'm in the market for a new desktop machine this year.
post #30 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by xflare View Post

LOL these analysts make me laugh.

me too

____________
iPhone, iPod
Reply
iPhone, iPod
Reply
post #31 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by saarek View Post

But in the mean time they could/should have released a refreshed model with a new CPU and GPU, they did not have to wait for the new nvidia chipset for that.

The new nVidia chipsets ARE required for the New CPU & GPU. ALSO, the new low power Quad core chips are only just shipping.

Please come back from cloud cuckoo land
post #32 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Once again, I have to ask where this rumoured 28" flat screen is being sourced from.

I seriously doubt that a 30" iMac would see any significant buyers. People like Macs, but they're not crazy.

I would buy one. I don't have a TV! I use my iMac G5 PPC 20" as my TV. I'm just CRAZY!
post #33 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

http://www.costco.com/Browse/Product...se=&lang=en-US

Intel® Core 2 Quad Processor Q6600 at 2.4GHz
8MB L2 Cache
1066MHz Front Side Bus
4GB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 800MHz


$999 w/24" LCD

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage....=1218038551741

AMD Phenom X4 9100e* quad-core processor
True multicore processing for extreme multitasking performance. Cool'n'Quiet 2.0 technology for efficient energy usage. HyperTransport 3.0 technology to improve 3D graphics performance.

4GB of RAM


Now if I wanted to go off brand (which is fine) I can indeed hit better prices,

Now, those are nice prices but they have sod all to do with replacing an iMac now do they?!?!?!?!

The iMac is an all in one, those links are for bog standard boxes. Of course you can get a cheaper base unit than an iMac, and damn fool could make one. The iMac is a different beast entirely and bares no comparison whatsoever to those systems linked.
post #34 of 144
I would rather have a 3GHz dual core than a 2.4GHz Quad.


Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

http://www.costco.com/Browse/Product...se=&lang=en-US

Intel® Core 2 Quad Processor Q6600 at 2.4GHz
8MB L2 Cache
1066MHz Front Side Bus
4GB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 800MHz


$999 w/24" LCD

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage....=1218038551741

AMD Phenom X4 9100e* quad-core processor
True multicore processing for extreme multitasking performance. Cool'n'Quiet 2.0 technology for efficient energy usage. HyperTransport 3.0 technology to improve 3D graphics performance.

4GB of RAM


Now if I wanted to go off brand (which is fine) I can indeed hit better prices,
post #35 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by irnchriz View Post

Now, those are nice prices but they have sod all to do with replacing an iMac now do they?!?!?!?!

The iMac is an all in one, those links are for bog standard boxes. Of course you can get a cheaper base unit than an iMac, and damn fool could make one. The iMac is a different beast entirely and bares no comparison whatsoever to those systems linked.

Yes in your mind you think the comparision is invalid. But to consumers who are looking at value the iMac does indeed have to compare to the sub $999 PC boxen at the local retailer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

I would rather have a 3GHz dual core than a 2.4GHz Quad.

That's understandable. If the applications you run do not support more than 2-cores well then having a higher frequency is going to be faster. However as we begin to move to Snow Leopard and beyond this will not the case because even low level task will be optimized for multiple cores and applications will not expressly have to be written to yield benefit from 4-core and beyond.
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 #36 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

"In our experience, when Apple sends an advisory to its channel partners of limited availability and inventory of existing models are drawn down, it is highly likely that a product refresh is within a few weeks," he said.

Oh, thank God there is a Wall Street Analyst to tell us the obvious! What a moron. This guy is a retard like the others.
post #37 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by saarek View Post

I understand that Apple is moving their product line, however the speed with which they have updated the iMac and the Mac Mini is far too slow.

A revision should have been released, those that have bought an iMac in the last 6 months will off course want the new model with the nvidia graphics system.

Having said that, those people that did buy an iMac in the last 6 months would have been better served by a speed bump and GPU update.

I suppose the fact that they bought one shows that they may not need the extra power, at the same time Apple's slow refresh of simple specs is frustrating.

Launched in July 2007, Refreshed in May 2008 (8 months later) Refresh looming now (feb/Mar 2009) 8 months later.

Do you see a pattern? Do Apple EVER refresh products more often than that? Do their sales dip so much that they see the need to update more often? Does the operating system demand that much more from the hardware that you would need to update more often?
post #38 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by hillstones View Post

Oh, thank God there is a Wall Street Analyst to tell us the obvious! What a moron. This guy is a retard like the others.

As the years have passed and I've read more & more of Mr. Wu's "analysis" - I feel comfortable saying his "predictions" and "analysis" are probably entirely gleaned from the pages of Appleinsider and MR. Seemingly, without the latter 2 sites....Mr. Wu wouldn't have a clue.
post #39 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

Yes in your mind you think the comparision is invalid. But to consumers who are looking at value the iMac does indeed have to compare to the sub $999 PC boxen at the local retailer.

erm.. if this were the case Apple would be bankrupt by now instead of turning a profit from its computers. You know that those looking to get a sub $1000 system are unlikely to be a Mac customer. And those that were teetering around the $1000 mark will probably cough up the extra once they see an iMac or Macbook in person. Especially if they have an iPhone or iPod Touch (and like them !!).
post #40 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

http://www.costco.com/Browse/Product...se=&lang=en-US

Intel® Core 2 Quad Processor Q6600 at 2.4GHz
8MB L2 Cache
1066MHz Front Side Bus
4GB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 800MHz


$999 w/24" LCD

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage....=1218038551741

AMD Phenom X4 9100e* quad-core processor
True multicore processing for extreme multitasking performance. Cool'n'Quiet 2.0 technology for efficient energy usage. HyperTransport 3.0 technology to improve 3D graphics performance.

4GB of RAM


Now if I wanted to go off brand (which is fine) I can indeed hit better prices,

You forgot to mention that you are also getting a piece of shit PC box running Vista. Stop comparing cheap PC's to Macs. If you don't like the price and quality of a Mac, then go to Costco or Best Buy and get your piece of shit PC Box.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Analyst now says iMacs likely in both dual- and quad-core