Analyst now says iMacs likely in both dual- and quad-core - Page 2

Wu seems to have discovered a method for making his predictions more accurate. Instead of
predicting one processor type to be used, he predicts two. Instead of predicting the new
models will be released within a few weeks, he predicts a six month time frame.

I hereby predict there will be an earthquake in California that measures between 2.0 and
8.0 on the Richter scale and that it will occur during the next 10 years.

When people are shopping for a Mac, and want a Mac, they are not price comparing to piece of shit PC boxes. Pull your head out of your ass.

Hey I agree the Mac is a more elegant solution but let's be a bit more pragmatic here. Apple's recent switcher sales have come from frustrated PC users who don't like Vista and/or the security problems that Windows offered.

Windows 7 may not be sexy but if the reports of it's stability and UI improvements strike a chord in consumerdom Apple's not going to find as much success with campy "I'm a Mac" commercials.

Sure sell a dual core $999 computer w/20" LCD. It's a nice computer for basic use. Anything $1200 and up needs to be quad core IMO. Apple need not give people a reason to keep their money in their wallet.

Pray tell what considerable experience to you draw upon to glean such insightful commentary?

The first one is 1400 bucks and the second one is actually lacking a monitor which would put it in the same general price range as the iMac. They both use crap parts by "also-ran" manufacturers and in the end cost out very close to the iMac.

This is not anywhere close to your original assertion (paraphrased) that a "better" computer than the iMac can be had for approximately half it's price.

Simple. When people want to buy a Mac, they are looking at different Mac models. Period. They aren't browsing the aisles at Best Buy looking at PC's that are not Macs. I have helped many people shop for a Mac, and none of them have any interest in PC boxes, nor do they care how cheap a PC box is when they are only looking for a Mac. If people are shopping for a Windows computer, they aren't shopping in the Apple Store, they are shopping for Dell's, etc.

When you are interested in buying a Honda, you don't go to the Toyota dealer to look for one. It is really not that hard to figure out, but apparently you don't have a clue.

This is not actually a reply to my comment though is it? The original assertion made was that a "better" computer than the iMac could be had for half the price of an iMac. I said to the OP that this is nonsense and to prove it, which none of this does.

Your first item is the same price as the iMac quoted and all the others lack a monitor which would put them in the same range. Also, as above, crap parts etc. ...

I certainly don't deny that there are lots of computers at different price points and some of them might indeed be a better deal than an iMac depending on your needs and wants etc., but the statement about the $700 computer is just crap.

hmurchison has a habit of making ridiculous hyperbolic statements about this kind of stuff so I just wanted to point out what a lot of crap it is.

Mission accomplished IMO.

NIce job. Put him in his place. What a moron, finding a PC that is ON SALE! Regular price, $1400. And the other one doesn't even have a monitor. Great comparison. Just proves what a genius he really is. But that is your typical PC shopper. I am sure both those computers run Vista really well too.

This is not helpful nor relevant discussion. Romper Room is thataway ---->


AMD or Intel Quad parts are not crap parts. You're dreaming and in denial. What "high falutin" parts in the iMac should I be looking for? The 20" doesn't have an IPS monitor anymore and the laptop parts aren't that special. How much do you think a TN monitor costs chief? A 22" is $149 USD.


I've worked for 2 Mac VAR and the Mac Zone. I'd spoken to thousands of people and sold thousands of Macs. Yes there are people that know they want a Mac and people who are on the fence. Pricing is always a concern regardless of what you're selling provided the product has competition.

Plus let it be noted that I see value in the Mac but not every person out there cares about the beauty of OS X or Jonathan Ive design.

Yes and Virgil you're just ridicuous. Take a poll if you want and see if your bloviating and nonsensical posting is worth more than mine.

BTW the Dell system

4GB of RAM
640GB HD
24 Inch monitor

I've EXCEEDED the iMac specs in almost every category save for the GPU.

Well I did acknowledge that it couldn't be done fro $700 didn't I?

And what 'crap' parts are you referring to later in your post?

Nonetheless my point that there is a widening value gulf (at least performance wise) developing between desktop pcs and iMacs still stands. Apple don't need to match pc makers item for item but they need to get closer. That's my point.

Exactly. Say Apple delivers a $999 core 2 duo computer. For Mac users that's already the baseline for Tier 1 Quad Core systems with monitors and beefier specs today. The BS about "that's on sale" doesn't cut muster because PCs are always on sale somewhere. Their price doesn't remain stagnant.

Thus if Apple delivers a $999 C2D iMac...we're going to be living with that price/config for what 6 months. If it ain't cutting it compared to PC at launch what's another 6 months of Intel price cuts going to do to the gulf?

Yes this is a Mac enthusiast sight but we shouldn't fail to lose sight of the market around us. $1299+ should bring a Quad Core. $999 is passable for a fast C2D IMO.

..and that is what we are all waiting for



--

its funny how the absence of a hardware "fix" at macworld09 has made a lot of people cranky and prone to taking, what THEY believe, to be the only truth.

chill out kids

That's the big issue IMO.

Even if Apple move to the low power desk top quad core cpus, the iMacs aren't going to look like a good value 6 months from now when Nehalem cpus will be pretty common. Maybe Apple will have an update then, who knows.

But a dual core iMacs look like a weak value to me know and will be an absolute embarrassment in 6 months.

And some members here have Stockholm syndrome or something. Hey Virgil and Hillstones, you don't have to apologize for wanting a decent performing iMac. Its ok to want quad core. You don't need to go to confession for dreaming of a quad core iMac. Geez.

Indeed. Though the incredulity of Apple shipping C2D iMacs when the baseline for a kilobuck PC is rapidly approaching Quad Core/4GB and half Terabyte hard drive.

I like the iMac but it's in a tough spot. Mobile parts aren't helping it remain amongst its priceband in performance. I'm sorry but it still has to perform lest it become "all show ..no go"

See post 54 Walter.

Repeat after me: Quad core is NOT a SIN.

Oh, jeeez.. just get one of these. You could get a 4 core and toss in another one later.

Has Appleinsider not gotten a clue here. We really don't want to see Wu referenced in this forum anymore.

Dave

Apologies, I didn't catch that part, it was looking like a "pile-on" led by hmurchison form my point of view, in that you were replying to my reply to him.

The "crap parts" comment (and this is aimed at hmurchison too), is that generally speaking, the computers pointed to use AMD processors instead of the intel ones. They also use no-name hard drives most of the time, bulk memory, cheap plastic boxes, etc. etc. Lots of folks don't seem to value this kind of thing, but then if they don't value quality, I can't see why they are buying an Apple product in the first place.

I would agree with the "gulf" for the most part, but I would call it a crack more than a gulf.

Also, I would argue that this "crack" opens up pretty much every year just before Apple updates it's iMac line. I think it makes no sense to talk about how poor the iMac may or may not be, when it's literally on the verge of a massive update. I also think that if you look at the specs overall and take the long view of it, that the iMac is usually the best computer you can get for the price that it sells at on average.

Again, I wasn't really saying anything personal here and certainly not aiming it at you. I merely picked the one sentence out of hmurchisons original post that was (IMO) hyperbolic nonsense and asking him to prove it.

I can't even consider it piling on Apple because , as you correctly state, they've released no hardware and frankly I put little credence towards Wu's claims.

I'm not really attempting to compare the iMac with today's PC but rather discuss the ramifications of not delivering delivering Quad-core alongst a majority of iMac models.

If a person is buying a desktop over a laptop it would seem that they are looking for more speed than what a laptop offers. I think Apple should redesign to accomodate 64W TDP Quad core products and if they want to leverage C2D do it at $999 for a 2.4 or 2.66Ghz model.

It would suck to deliver Snow Leopard and only have quad core support in a small fraction of shipping Macs.

It really doesn't work that way. The "new" CPU and GPU would probably require a new cooling setup which would mean case modifications. And if you are going to perform case modifications you might as well just do a complete redesign of the case, and now that you have redesigned the case, your motherboard needs to be redesigned to fit that case.

This isn't your normal PC where you go buy an ATX motherboard, a CPU, a PCI Express GPU and slap it in and the computer is built. All these parts are manufactured from scratch for Apple, the Motherboards are different, CPUs are sometime different, cooling systems are very much different. And you go and cram all this into a computer case the size of an LCD monitor. There is a lot of design work and variables to be crunched in order to produce a design.

If it was as easy as throwing a new CPU and GPU in the case they would have done it, but it's not. Plus they already did a CPU refresh when they introduced the 3.06Ghz anything faster is going to require a new chipset to support a faster bus which means a new motherboard.

So sit back, enjoy the products when they do come out and stop whining about not having a new iMac fast enough, you can always buy a Dell and upgrade it yourself whenever you get the need for speed, till then you have got by this long with what you have surely you can go a little longer. After all Macs tend to have a longer life span than your typical PC. Once a year upgrades are more than enough.

Really? It depends on what software or tasks you're running... but for anything demanding more cores wins.

Didn't Wu have a price target of $225 last quarter? He's still nuts. Someone refresh my memory.

A Core i7 quad-core desktop processor and a matte, anti-reflective screen for me, please.

The Intel Core i7 quad-core desktop microprocessor was introduced on November 17, 2008. See:

- Intel unleashes Core i7, beats itself @ http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/40213/135/

- Core i7 PCs launch with prices from $1250 to $13,000 @ http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/40227/135/

- Intel Core i7 processor pricing @ http://files.shareholder.com/downloa..._1ku_Price.pdf

The new AMD Phenom IIs match up very nicely with Penryn Quad core cpus. They aren't quite as fast clock for clock but still are fairly competitive. I wouldn't consider them 'crap' anymore.

Later in the post you said you thought that there was only a 'crack' and not a gulf when comparing iMacs to pcs performance wise. I assume that means you feel that quad core cpus don't offer that much of a benefit performance wise over dual core cpus. If so, are you planning on upgrading to Snow Leopard? If so why?

Well it's about time.. There is no reason whatsoever for the iMac to not have a Core 2 Quad by now. The latest steppings run very cool and hardly use any more power than the original 65nm Core 2 duos used in the iMac before. And not to mention Intel now has low power desktop ones that are way cheaper than the expensive low-power laptop Core 2 Quad chips.

I'm still running a G5 iMac and it's unbearably slow by recent standards. I'm wanting a machine for 3D rendering and a G5 just won't cut it. To give you some idea, my 1.8Ghz G5 takes about four and a half minutes to run the Blender render benchmark. Let's put this in perspective. The current fastest Mac (3.2Ghz Mac Pro) runs this benchmark in a mere 12 seconds. The new Core i7 is pretty impressive. A 2.66Ghz i7 completes the benchmark in a very respectable 22 seconds. Compare this to the current 2.66Ghz 20" iMac which limps home in 53 seconds.

If you're animating at, say, 25 frames per second, these differences soon add up. I've love an i7 iMac (which might be possible with liquid cooling), but any quad core processor would be great.

I've been waiting for a quad core iMac since October and have the money ready. It's for home use, so I can't justify the expense of a Mac Pro. I love OS X, but I'm now realising just how much I'm locked into Apple's release schedule. If I was wanted a Windows or Linux PC, I could go out right now and get a Core i7 machine at a decent price.

Until mobile quadcore chips are released the majority of Macs will only by dualcore. I hope SL comes long before that happens.


I hope you are expecting those for the Mac Pro, not the iMac.

Do you have to take the hockey helmet off to lick the glass?

I don't understand your POV on this topic. You are well aware that low power desktop chips are just being introduced, will likely be in the next iMac and that Apple was key in getting Intel to produce them, but you seems to be dogging Apple for not releasing these systems sooner, before the the existed. You also seem to be comparing desktop towers with a svelte desktop that is well known to contain notebook-grade parts to reduce size and heat.


Out of curiousity, is there any way to compare the prices of the current Intel chips in the iMac and the assumed quadcore chips that should be coming. I know that the chips weren't on Intel's pricesheet when they came out, but since then I know they have released some official hybrid chips. (I be happy to look it up but I'm able to use my iPhone for Internet access)

The most demanding software I currently use is Final Cut Pro, Photoshop, and Toast Titanium. None of which can currently take advantage of more than two cores. Most people aren't even using software that sophisticated.

Have any tests been conducted that show 2.4 quads out perform 3.0 dual? Dual processors don't necessarily double performance over single, it's not likely quads will quadruple performance.

No I have little info to where Apple's going. My response is primarily aimed at Wu's assertion that Core 2 Duo will still be a part of Apple's lineup. While I can see a low end model for $999 utilizing a C2D I think anything above that price level will be C2 Quad and in fact leverage some of the lower power requirements of the new Intel chips along with a redesign of the iMac casing. I don't see any reason why Apple should cling to the current iMac thinness at the expense of processor options.


Certainly quads will not quadruple performance but I imagine they will handle favorably under load. I think an iMac with a quad core proc and SSD storage will be quite capable under Snow Leopard. I think we often thing about single apps and how they benefit from multicore but what about the largest app of them all? The OS? Grand Central looks to ride on a new kernel that not only supports 64-bit but likely handles parcing out tasks and messages much more fluidly.

I've always felt that OS X lags in ways that signal cruft down low and while fast procs mask it they don't always hide this cruft.

That Gateway from best buy is a CR@P even at 610.

Processor Speed 1.8 GHz - 24" iMac should be at least 2.66GHz
Sys Bus 800MHz - iMac should be at least 1066MHz
Cache Memory 2MB - iMac should be at least 6MB or 8MB
System Memory DDR2 - iMac should be DDR3
GraphicsATI RADEON HD 3200 (Up to 256MB shared) - iMac 9600
I bet the iMac will have LED display.....

I think it's clear that Apple will use quad processors in the iMac in some capacity. Likely as the most expensive configuration.

I think the advantages of quad are being over stated. The machines with quad that are being used for comparison are not very impressive. The quad cores the iMac is remored to use are better.

True in many ways though with PC it only take a few big numbers in RAM or processor
to get consumers thinking these solutions are superior. Who doesn't want to brag "I got
a quad core!"




I think Apple has to deliver Quad Core on everything beyond the most entery level Mac. Their current priceband:

$1199
$1499
$1799
$2199

At these prices I expect the next refresh to offer quad cores for all but the entry here. If you do a BOM breakdown of a 20" computer and it has a C2D and lacks an IPS monitor it's going to be hard to justify the $1300-1500 pricepoint.

Quad doesn't yet offer that much of an advantage that Apple need to abandon dual core for slower quad core.

Because the thinness is sexy and sells machines better than large hulking machines with loud fans.




I would agree with you under similar clock speed. But the gains of using quad processors are lost with significantly slower clock speeds per core.

I recall reading something a number of years ago stating that adding processors has a diminishing return due to process management. So the more processors you have the less benefit you get out of adding each one. I'm not sure how things changed when multi-core processors were put into the mix but the management of the processes spread out between the cores takes still takes up processing time and memory.

That being said, if you run multiple programs at once you should see a benefit from more cores and/or more processors. The individual programs don't even need to be able to take advantage of them because the OS will spread the processes out over the available cores to do the tasks. I don't know about you but I usually have at least 6 programs open at once at home and often 10 or more. Sure there are a number of them idle but there are also some constantly running in the background and I'm often switching between 3-4 quite a bit on a regular basis. Because of that the more memory and the more cores they give me at an affordable price the better.

Actually I think you're going to be surprised here. Take the C2D 3.06 Extreme chip that Apple uses in the top iMac. I'd bet that a properly threaded app and optimized OS like Snow Leopard would probably be able to deliver equivalent performance with in a lower heat signature. It's like the ARM Cortex, The A8 is fast and a single core but the forthcoming A9 MP is going to pop in another core albeit both will run at a lower frequency but for some designes it makes more sense to go wider than higher in frequency.


Yes I think you take the extra cores which will handle more inflight instructions , mate that with an OS that handles tasks well (Grand Central Dispatch) leverage the GPU (OpenCL and OpenGL) and I think you have very nice multitasking box. Let's face it two cores are nice but it doesn't matter how fast they are ..when they hit the wall they hit the wall.

I actually agree here. I've purchased dozens of Macs for clients and I have to say, the economy has people looking closer at pricing. The last iMac purchase was an easy sell as they wanted a Mac. But I did get a little ribbing at the price. It's hard to get into the details with people who aren't familiar with what differentiates Apple's product from others, aside from appearance and OS X.

I hope Apple is more aggressive in their pricing as I'm sure the component pricing has decreased in this economy. Let savings filter down to the consumer instead of hiking margins at every opportunity. And let's hope this applies to 'upgrading' various components on Apple.com as well. They've made improvements to RAM pricing, and I hope the gap continues to narrow.

For what it's worth, I think Apple needs to go with Quads.

Aside from name calling, I think this is good advice. I have a Mac and went looking for a second computer. Got a great Windows laptop from Best Buy. Duo cord, 2 GB memory, not sure what else as I don't pay too much attention to specs. It runs Vista but I don't run into many malware problems.