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 - Page 3

post #81 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by hillstones View Post

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.

For me it is a race:
Updated Mini or sensible mid-range desktop

Versus

Windows 7 (and a Core i7 desptop to go with it)

Whichever comes first...
post #82 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

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.

Quads don't have to be 4x faster than single core cpus or 2x than dual core machines in order to be a nice upgrade. Wouldn't you be happy if a quad core iMac was 40% faster than the dual core machine it replaces? We don't know if this will be true or not but its not an unreasonable expectation IMO. Certainly with SL, I would hope this is attainable.

If you run Windows or linux in VM Ware, 4 cores are the sweet spot. Two cores fro the guest and two cores for the host. There is most definitely a difference in performance running Windows under VM Ware with two cores enabled vs one in my experience.
post #83 of 144
This can work well under proper conditions. But I don't see it being a great deal more effective with slower processors. Even if the OS is able to spread applications around to various cores, the software is still utilizing the resources of one core.

Quote:
Originally Posted by @homenow View Post

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.
post #84 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

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.

I can see this being the case with the 2.8GHz Quad, but I don't see it with a 2.4 GHz Quad. Plus a couple of the PC's you highlighted have 800MHz FSB and less cache, than the 3.06GHz currently in the iMac.


Quote:
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.

What you've described is a lot more going on than only 4 cores. No processor has unlimited resources they all hit a wall at some point.
post #85 of 144
Apple has already said they won't lower prices, they are just going to ride out the economic downturn until it gets better. The problem with lowering prices is that you cannot raise them again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bugsnw View Post

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.
post #86 of 144
Having four cores isn't better simply for the fact of having four cores irregardless of other factors. Most of the gain in processor performance is still going to come from each core itself.



Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

Quads don't have to be 4x faster than single core cpus or 2x than dual core machines in order to be a nice upgrade. Wouldn't you be happy if a quad core iMac was 40% faster than the dual core machine it replaces? We don't know if this will be true or not but its not an unreasonable expectation IMO. Certainly with SL, I would hope this is attainable.

If you run Windows or linux in VM Ware, 4 cores are the sweet spot. Two cores fro the guest and two cores for the host. There is most definitely a difference in performance running Windows under VM Ware with two cores enabled vs one in my experience.
post #87 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

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

Core 2 Quad mobile chips are already available to OEMs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

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)

It'll take some research, but shouldn't be hard to find... With the new i7s out, even low-power Core 2 Quad CPUs should be dirt cheap.. Certainly nowhere NEAR the price of the fastest Core 2 Duos when they were somewhat new...

Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

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.

Final Cut Pro video encoding and effects rendering is limited to two threads? I have a hard time believing that. And your second question depends on the application. Video encoding, 3D rendering, and other parallel tasks will greatly benefit from a quad-core that is 4/5 the speed of a similar dual core.


Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

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.

Excuse me? How exactly would they be "better"? Intel CPUs are Intel CPUs. Apple does not have exclusive access to some special Core 2 Quad. At most, they are using newer, lower-power models.


Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

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.

1) It entirely depends on the application and speeds of the chips. If a user doesn't use applications that readily utilize many processing threads, then they are better off with a fast dual-core. For those doing 3D rendering, video encoding, and other DCC (in addition to different types of engineering and scientific processing), a quad-core that is 80% of the clock speed of a similar dual-core will be much faster in those tasks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by @homenow View Post

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.

It greatly depends on the OS kernel, applications, etc. But in general, 4 or 8 cores is not that difficult to manage and schedule across a whole OS and multiple applications.
Obviously Snow Leopard is going to greatly improve the utilization of multi-core processors for applications that are not traditionally very easy to "parallelize".
post #88 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Having four cores isn't better simply for the fact of having four cores irregardless of other factors. Most of the gain in processor performance is still going to come from each core itself.

Bad TenoBell, bad TenoBell!
post #89 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by winterspan View Post

Core 2 Quad mobile chips are already available to OEMs.

He's talking about these processors, Core 2 Quad Q8200 (2.33GHz/4MB L2), Core 2 Quad Q9400 (2.66GHz/6MB L2) and Core 2 Quad Q9550 (2.83GHz/12MB L2).

They have only recently become available.


Quote:
It'll take some research, but shouldn't be hard to find... With the new i7s out, even low-power Core 2 Quad CPUs should be dirt cheap.. Certainly nowhere NEAR the price of the fastest Core 2 Duos when they were somewhat new...

The Core 2 Quad processors are $245, $320 and $369 in lots of 1000.

Quote:
Final Cut Pro video encoding and effects rendering is limited to two threads? I have a hard time believing that. And your second question depends on the application. Video encoding, 3D rendering, and other parallel tasks will greatly benefit from a quad-core that is 4/5 the speed of a similar dual core.

Compressor is the only application in Final Cut Studio that takes advantage of more than 2 cores. Final Cut Pro itself does not, at least not yet.

Can you link to a test where software was significantly faster with quad core that is 4/5th the speed of a faster dual core?

Quote:
Excuse me? How exactly would they be "better"? Intel CPUs are Intel CPUs. Apple does not have exclusive access to some special Core 2 Quad. At most, they are using newer, lower-power models.

No, Intel CPU's are not all the same. What would be the purpose of making so many if they were all the same.

Apple has had early access to special Intel chips in the past.
post #90 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Outsider View Post

Bad TenoBell, bad TenoBell!

Hhmm, alright.
post #91 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Having four cores isn't better simply for the fact of having four cores irregardless of other factors. Most of the gain in processor performance is still going to come from each core itself.

You know there already are apps that take advantage of more than two cores.

As well, VM Ware benefits from more than two cores.

When SL arrives then the advantages could be even greater.

I hope to keep my next desktop for 5 years so I suspect I'll see the advantages of having a quad core machine. If you're only going to keep your iMac for 12-18 months I think you're probably safe with a dual core machine. Frankly the only reason to get a fast dual core Mac is if you think SL will be a failure.
post #92 of 144
Nothing I've said disputes the fact that their are high level applications that take advantage of more than 2 cores. These are extremely few. What I am saying is that you reach diminishing returns because most apps cannot use and do not need multiple cores. Because of this you sacrifice performance if you use quad cores with a slower speed.

Apple is likely to use Intel's newest mobile quad processors which essentially equal the speed of the current iMac's. So this isn't really a problem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

You know there already are apps that take advantage of more than two cores.

As well, VM Ware benefits from more than two cores.

When SL arrives then the advantages could be even greater.

I hope to keep my next desktop for 5 years so I suspect I'll see the advantages of having a quad core machine. If you're only going to keep your iMac for 12-18 months I think you're probably safe with a dual core machine. Frankly the only reason to get a fast dual core Mac is if you think SL will be a failure.
post #93 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

He's talking about these processors, Core 2 Quad Q8200 (2.33GHz/4MB L2), Core 2 Quad Q9400 (2.66GHz/6MB L2) and Core 2 Quad Q9550 (2.83GHz/12MB L2).
They have only recently become available.

No, he said "mobile quad-core chips". Those are NOT laptop CPUs.


Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Can you link to a test where software was significantly faster with quad core that is 4/5th the speed of a faster dual core?

Again, it depends on the application. Google is your friend, and you should be able to find countless tests done, but it is not even that necessary. Obviously it is more complex than this, but here is a simplification:

If the application scales very well (i.e. almost linearly) and is not being limited by things like memory or disk bandwidth, then:

2 cores * 1 unit of work = 2
4 cores * 0.8 unit of work = 3.2

anyways, I'll track down some good benchmarks with Core 2 processors and paste them in here...


Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

No, Intel CPU's are not all the same. What would be the purpose of making so many if they were all the same.
Apple has had early access to special Intel chips in the past.

Clearly you understood the context of my statement. The poster said that Apple is rumored to use "special" Core 2 Quad CPUs that have better performance than those used in the PCs that were linked. My point was that only a few factors like clock frequency and L2 Cache size have any non-negligible effect on the performance of a (Penryn) Core 2 Quad, and all the PC companies have access to the same chips. There is no magic switch that Intel is going to flip on Core 2 Quads for Apple that is going to dramatically change their characteristics. The only thing customized in the past for Apple had to do with power usage, package size, etc and NOT major performance characteristics.


Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Nothing I've said disputes the fact that their are high level applications that take advantage of more than 2 cores. These are extremely few. What I am saying is that you reach diminishing returns because most apps cannot use and do not need multiple cores. Because of this you sacrifice performance if you use quad cores with a slower speed.

Again, it completely depends on the intended use of the computer. For someone who browses the web and uses iPhoto, a quad-core is of no concern. But that hardly means that there are "very few" applications that can take advantage of quad-core CPUs. I'm not going to make a list, but you are talking about entire software industries... Video, 3D modeling and other DCC, Image processing, Audio processing, financial/securities analysis, scientific simulations, Oil and Gas exploration, theoretical mathematics, cryptology and security analysis, etc..
post #94 of 144
If Apple puts a quad-core or octo-core for that matter in that same tired shell - it will be bad news. It's time for a redesign- the current one is like 5 years old. Yawn.
You can't even adjust its viewing height.
post #95 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by hillstones View Post

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.

Um... it is not so simple. at least not here in New Zealand.

I just did a bit "stronger" scenario. I started with 24" iMac with following specs:

Intel Core 2 Duo 2.8GHz
320GB HDD
2GB RAM
ATI Radeon HD 2600 PRO 256MB graphics card
24 monitor
Price: NZ$2799 (roughly US$1400)

I compared it with following PC:

Intel Core 2 Quad Q9400 2.66GHz
WD 500GB SATA HDD
CRUCIAL DDR2 4GB PC2 6400 DUAL CHANNEL 2x2GB
ATI Radeon HD 4850 512MB graphics card
Asustek P5Q, Intel P45, DDR2. ATX motherboard
Thermaltake W0103 Toughpower 600W ATX Power Supply
Gigabyte Triton Black MidTower ATX Chassis
LG GH20NS10 20X SATA DVD Writer
Viewsonic VX2433WM 23.6" 1920x1080 2ms Hdmi monitor
Logitech Cordless Desktop LX710 kbd + mouse
Price: NZ$1977 (roughly US$989)

No software with PC, mind you, and if you don't want to build it yourself, fine - most shops will build it for you free of charge if you get all parts in the same shop, but price will go a bit higher (as no shop has best prices for everything). If you have it built in the shop, you can also get OEM Windows cheap.

Still. That is one very solid configuration without weak spots... by lowering specs to match those of Mac (2GB RAM, slower graphics, smaller HDD, slower dual core CPU) without compromising components quality, you can get robust PC made of solid components for not far from half the price of equally specified Mac. And if you really want to go down that path, you can save even more by choosing generic kbd and mouse, case and power supply, mATX motherboard - just to mention few.

To my opinion it is big difference, specially considering that hardware is basically same brand wise (Intel, ATI...) and I don't expect to find better quality parts in Mac. Design, check... but it is not worth that much; not for me, at least.

I hope US price difference is more reasonable, but here in NZ...

On the other side, 13" MacBook (previous generation with Intel graphics) was - for some time at least - offered for NZ$1800 (US$900), and was not more expensive at all compared to 13" Lenovo, HP, Toshiba laptops. True, others were a bit higher with specs (more RAM, bigger HDDs etc) but were worst in battery life and, arguably, didn't look that good. Now... that was really good offer and almost got me getting MacBook. But desktops... nah.


If you have any doubts, you can check pricespy.co.nz and, of course, apple.co.nz.
post #96 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by winterspan View Post

No, he said "mobile quad-core chips". Those are NOT laptop CPUs.

Ok I guess he was mistaken. i thought he was saying the quad chips that were to be used in the iMac were not yet available.


Quote:
If the application scales very well (i.e. almost linearly) and is not being limited by things like memory or disk bandwidth, then:
anyways, I'll track down some good benchmarks with Core 2 processors and paste them in here...

I looked up and found a test between the 2.4GHz Core 2 Quad Q6600 and the 3.16GHz Core 2 Duo E8500.

The main advantage of the quad was in 3D rendering with heavily threaded applications, optimized for multiple cores. In video rendering the test found that their was slight to little advantage from the quad. The test found gaming to be worse on the quad because of its slower clock speed, at least until games become heavily threaded.

The majority of other software found no advantage from quad as they don't need to use four cores. Which essentially is my point.


Revisiting The Dual-Core vs. Quad-Core Debate

Quote:
Clearly you understood the context of my statement. The poster said that Apple is rumored to use "special" Core 2 Quad CPUs that have better performance than those used in the PCs that were linked. My point was that only a few factors like clock frequency and L2 Cache size have any non-negligible effect on the performance of a (Penryn) Core 2 Quad, and all the PC companies have access to the same chips. There is no magic switch that Intel is going to flip on Core 2 Quads for Apple that is going to dramatically change their characteristics. The only thing customized in the past for Apple had to do with power usage, package size, etc and NOT major performance characteristics.

I think you were addressing a comment I made, and I said the newer processors Apple are rumored to use are better. Better as in more appropriate for the needs of the iMac. Power management, heat dissipation, packaging size, cache are all important factors that change the design of the chip and can raise its price.


Quote:
Again, it completely depends on the intended use of the computer. For someone who browses the web and uses iPhoto, a quad-core is of no concern. But that hardly means that there are "very few" applications that can take advantage of quad-core CPUs. I'm not going to make a list, but you are talking about entire software industries... Video, 3D modeling and other DCC, Image processing, Audio processing, financial/securities analysis, scientific simulations, Oil and Gas exploration, theoretical mathematics, cryptology and security analysis, etc..


In the larger scope of the most widely used software, 3D modeling is a niche. That isn't good or bad, its just the truth.

Most who need 3D modeling, image processing, scientific simulations are primarily using workstations that have been using four/eight cores for the past 3 years. Not an iMac or machines from Best Buy.
post #97 of 144
No software definitely blows a big hole in your comparison. Computer components in a case with no software is completely useless. Once you add Windows and an iLife suite equivalent your machine would be more expensive than the iMac.

The other important factor that needs to be taken into your comparison is the fact that the iMac is 10 months old. Compared with a computer built of current parts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nikon133 View Post

Um... it is not so simple. at least not here in New Zealand.

I just did a bit "stronger" scenario. I started with 24" iMac with following specs:

No software with PC, mind you,
post #98 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by JGBfan View Post

For me it is a race:
Updated Mini or sensible mid-range desktop

Versus

Windows 7 (and a Core i7 desptop to go with it)

Whichever comes first...

Couldn't have said it better myself. Ran W7 beta on bootcamp (imac 2.4 4GB) and did a photoshop cs4 retouchartists speedtest and WIndows 7 finished in 42sec, 10.5.6 in 55sec so apparently the "Vista Killer" seems to be a legit contender. For what I do I need speed over sexiness and right now the only thing making Macs look appealing is their OS and that can't last forever.

And no I'm never going to pay for a Mac Pro.
You win, I've switched sides.
Reply
You win, I've switched sides.
Reply
post #99 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

No software definitely blows a big hole in your comparison. Computer components in a case with no software is completely useless. Once you add Windows and an iLife suite equivalent your machine would be more expensive than the iMac.

The other important factor that needs to be taken into your comparison is the fact that the iMac is 10 months old. Compared with a computer built of current parts.

Not really because I use Firefox/CS3/Office 08/Lightroom 2 99% of the time so for some of us the bundled software doesn't add much 'extra' value.

Not saying it doesn't for the low end consumer user (the iMacs supposed market base) but a lot of web/design professionals are looking to iMac level pricing for our needs because we can't justify the minimum $3.5k price tag (2nd hard drive, airport card, 3rd party ram, real video card) of the Mac Pro so this gaping hole that systems like Dell are filling look way more appealing to us than apples current lineup.
You win, I've switched sides.
Reply
You win, I've switched sides.
Reply
post #100 of 144
If you are interested in making a fair and equal comparison, iLife comes with the iMac and is apart of the cost of the machine.

You did not even add the price of an operating system in your PC configuration.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DdubRes79 View Post

Not really because I use Firefox/CS3/Office 08/Lightroom 2 99% of the time so for some of us the bundled software doesn't add much 'extra' value.
.
post #101 of 144
Don't forget the PITA factor of running maintenance/virus/malware software to keep the PC clean.

Tenon also brought up the excellent reminder that people often complain about the Macs at the end of their cycle, where the hardware is often nearly a year old.

I have a sneaky feeling that Apple will pump more value into the iMacs this time around, bending to the realities of the current economic climate. Even if it's a mere $100 + more competitive prices on upgrade options, it will help narrow the gap.
post #102 of 144
Why does everyone think that because there is reduced availability/delayed shipment of iMacs, until Feb 4, that there will be an iMac update this tuesday?
post #103 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by danz90 View Post

Why does everyone think that because there is reduced availability/delayed shipment of iMacs, until Feb 4, that there will be an iMac update this tuesday?

I don't think Apple specifically said 'until Feb 4' in its notice.

However, iMacs have not been updated for a long time, so it's only logical that a reduction in the current inventory means that new ones are coming soon.

If it's tomorrow, all the better.
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 #104 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

No software definitely blows a big hole in your comparison. Computer components in a case with no software is completely useless. Once you add Windows and an iLife suite equivalent your machine would be more expensive than the iMac.

The other important factor that needs to be taken into your comparison is the fact that the iMac is 10 months old. Compared with a computer built of current parts.

No, not really. Windows Vista Home Premium is about NZ$190 (US$90) in OEM... which you are entitled if you have your PC built in the shop. Actually, many shops will sell you OEM even if you don't purchase all parts from them.

Office 2007 Basic OEM you can get for a bit bellow US$150... I think. But you can do fine with Open Office for home use, and it is free.

At the end of a day, even if you purchase both Windows and Office, significantly more powerful PC (from my example) still comes almost US$200 bellow iMac... and we are talking about PC made of good components and, hardware wise, stronger than Mac in every aspect (in some cases, completely different league).

If you match them spec for spec (which would be much easier if we'd know exactly what brand/output power is used for iMac, which motherboard and other info not easily available), price difference would be close to double - even with software purchase.

True iMac is 10 months old, but price is current... and that is the problem; Apple is charging too much money for 10 months old hardware. they should go down with prices for their current hardware, and introduce new hardware with prices current hardware is carrying. They would make less money per sold computer, but they would (presumably) sell more computers thus making comparable income, and get more market share...
post #105 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

I don't think Apple specifically said 'until Feb 4' in its notice.

However, iMacs have not been updated for a long time, so it's only logical that a reduction in the current inventory means that new ones are coming soon.

If it's tomorrow, all the better.

Do you expect an iMac refresh by the end of February?

What's the most likely way that new iMacs are announced... via the Apple website?
post #106 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

The majority of other software found no advantage from quad as they don't need to use four cores. Which essentially is my point.
....In the larger scope of the most widely used software, 3D modeling is a niche. That isn't good or bad, its just the truth.

I'm unable to view what looks like an Anandtech article so I don't know what software was tested.. But yes, in the context of the mainstream consumer, applications that take readily to high numbers of processing cores are rare for the time being...

Quote:
Most who need 3D modeling, image processing, scientific simulations are primarily using workstations that have been using four/eight cores for the past 3 years. Not an iMac or machines from Best Buy.

Indeed.. I forgot we were talking about the iMac. I have a million tabs open right now and am participating in multiple threads, and thought I was in the Mac Pro discussion.
post #107 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by danz90 View Post

Do you expect an iMac refresh by the end of February?

What's the most likely way that new iMacs are announced... via the Apple website?

If a significant update is coming, they will probably stage a press event (they haven't advised of one yet).
If the update was going to be today, they probably would have issued the limited stock advisory sooner to resellers (which they didn't). However, end of Feb isn't out of the question. I think 4 weeks is plenty of notice for resellers.

The other possibility is that even if new iMacs are ready, they may hold on for Snow Leopard so they will have a multi-core Mac to show off Snow Leopard's ability's on. Hopefully not, but entirely feasible.
post #108 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by T-rex View Post

If a significant update is coming, they will probably stage a press event (they haven't advised of one yet).
If the update was going to be today, they probably would have issued the limited stock advisory sooner to resellers (which they didn't). However, end of Feb isn't out of the question. I think 4 weeks is plenty of notice for resellers.

The other possibility is that even if new iMacs are ready, they may hold on for Snow Leopard so they will have a multi-core Mac to show off Snow Leopard's ability's on. Hopefully not, but entirely feasible.

I was having a look at a catalogue for a Dept Store which is an Apple Reseller.. and they said that they now have access to Limited Stock of iMacs.
post #109 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Nothing I've said disputes the fact that their are high level applications that take advantage of more than 2 cores. These are extremely few..

I wonder if we aren't about to see more apps take advantage of multi core cpus (>2). In fact I believe we're about to see apps begin to take advantage of the power that the current processors can bring to bear on computing.

Example: The new iMovie has an image stabilization feature. The analysis however can take quite some time. In fact I saw in a thread at Ars that 3 hours of video requires about 10 hours of analysis. This is an area where additional cpu grunt would be beneficial to the end user and this is a 'consumer' app not a 'high level' app.

Does anyone know if iMovie 09 takes advantage of more than 2 cores?

Edit: I asked Jason Snell at MW if he knew. Will post back when I get an answer.
post #110 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikon133 View Post

No, not really. Windows Vista Home Premium is about NZ$190 (US$90) in OEM... which you are entitled if you have your PC built in the shop. Actually, many shops will sell you OEM even if you don't purchase all parts from them.

Apple isn't giving you a cheaper Home Premium version of OS X. OS X equates to Vista Ultimate.

Quote:
Office 2007 Basic OEM you can get for a bit bellow US$150... I think. But you can do fine with Open Office for home use, and it is free.

iLife isn't equivalent to MS Office. iLife includes video editing, web authoring, audio production, photo management, DVD authoring.

Quote:
True iMac is 10 months old, but price is current... and that is the problem; Apple is charging too much money for 10 months old hardware. they should go down with prices for their current hardware, and introduce new hardware with prices current hardware is carrying. They would make less money per sold computer, but they would (presumably) sell more computers thus making comparable income, and get more market share...

Depends on how you look at it. The 10 month old iMac will do its job just was well today as it did its job 10 months ago. Most people are not involved in the "who has the better specs" race. Most people simply buy a new computer when they need one.
post #111 of 144
Ah, OK.

Quote:
Originally Posted by winterspan View Post

Indeed.. I forgot we were talking about the iMac. I have a million tabs open right now and am participating in multiple threads, and thought I was in the Mac Pro discussion.
post #112 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

I wonder if we aren't about to see more apps take advantage of multi core cpus (>2). In fact I believe we're about to see apps begin to take advantage of the power that the current processors can bring to bear on computing.

Example: The new iMovie has an image stabilization feature. The analysis however can take quite some time. In fact I saw in a thread at Ars that 3 hours of video requires about 10 hours of analysis. This is an area where additional cpu grunt would be beneficial to the end user and this is a 'consumer' app not a 'high level' app.

Does anyone know if iMovie 09 takes advantage of more than 2 cores?

Edit: I asked Jason Snell at MW if he knew. Will post back when I get an answer.

I'd better dollarz 3 donutz that iLife '10 will. Apple tends to trail the newest OS features by a software revision generation. That way when they deliver the new features there's a significant portion of users who will be able to use the new features. For example

Leopard has been shipping for a year with Core Animation goodness but Apple has only just recently embraced Core Animation heavily in iLife with the '09 version. Thus I do not believe Apple would hold off any computer announcement for Snow Leopard. We probably won't see a "Blocks" or OpenCL enabled version of iLife until 2010 2H (i'm guessing the next iLife announcement. By then Snow Leopard will have had a few revisions and there will be millions of SL Macs in the wild.
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 #113 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

If you are interested in making a fair and equal comparison, iLife comes with the iMac and is apart of the cost of the machine.

You did not even add the price of an operating system in your PC configuration.

Um, ? Okay fine knock of a whopping $79 dollars from the cost then? Plus yes I did figure in a copy of the OS, not really sure what you talking about.
You win, I've switched sides.
Reply
You win, I've switched sides.
Reply
post #114 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by bugsnw View Post

Don't forget the PITA factor of running maintenance/virus/malware software to keep the PC clean.

*Sigh*... over 10 years building PC's, never had a virus/worm/malware issue. Why? Firewalls, don't use Torrents/Illegal sharing software/Massive amounts of downloaded Pron. And even if you do have an anti virus scanner you turn it on and it scans in the background, like Time Machine does backups while you work.
You win, I've switched sides.
Reply
You win, I've switched sides.
Reply
post #115 of 144
I hate virus scanners. Great if you have the latest CPU but sucks if you are grasping for every bit of speed that you need.
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 #116 of 144
So the $300 for Windows Vista Ultimate is included in your $989 total? The rest of those components only cost $689?


Quote:
Originally Posted by DdubRes79 View Post

Um, ? Okay fine knock of a whopping $79 dollars from the cost then? Plus yes I did figure in a copy of the OS, not really sure what you talking about.
post #117 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Apple isn't giving you a cheaper Home Premium version of OS X. OS X equates to Vista Ultimate.

Retail price difference between Home Premium and Ultimate is $50-60... I think. OEM difference should not be over $30... but you don't need Ultimate's extra features for home use, and I presume we are doing that scenario. Nevertheless.


Quote:
iLife isn't equivalent to MS Office. iLife includes video editing, web authoring, audio production, photo management, DVD authoring.

My bad, got it mixed with iWork. Doesn't change picture much, though. You'll get some DVD burning/authoring/video editing software with DVD burner. Photo management... Windows Photo Gallery is there, you can get Picasa for free. Audio editing and web, worst possible scenario - you can buy it for the price of Office I stated in my previous post.

Quote:
Depends on how you look at it. The 10 month old iMac will do its job just was well today as it did its job 10 months ago. Most people are not involved in the "who has the better specs" race. Most people simply buy a new computer when they need one.

Sorry, it does not work for me. It is like saying 8X DVD burner is burning DVDs as fast as it did 2 years ago when it was introduced, so why not keep it at $100? Or, PS3 plays all the games it did when introduced, plus many more... so I guess it should be even more expensive..? IT gear goes down with price relative to ever-changing market and available competition. If Apple can hold on pricing (or reduce them less than competition) and still make good living, good for them... but that automatically makes them utterly unattractive to me. Now... Jobs did mention Apple would like more of a market share... I think they'll have to readjust their pricing policy in order to achieve that.

Don't get me wrong, I do want much stronger Apple (in terms of market share - they are already as strong and healthy as IT company goes) in same way I want stronger AMD... more competition equals better products and more effort from everyone. But... with current pricing policy from Apple, I just don't see that happening.
post #118 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikon133 View Post

Retail price difference between Home Premium and Ultimate is $50-60... I think. OEM difference should not be over $30... but you don't need Ultimate's extra features for home use, and I presume we are doing that scenario. Nevertheless.

People like to nickel and dime down the cost of their PC comparisons, to prove that Macs are unrealistically expensive. Apple offers the full version of OS X, so it should be compared to the full version of Windows.

Looking around I see Vista Ultimate for $260 - $340.

Quote:
Doesn't change picture much, though. You'll get some DVD burning/authoring/video editing software with DVD burner. Photo management... Windows Photo Gallery is there, you can get Picasa for free. Audio editing and web, worst possible scenario - you can buy it for the price of Office I stated in my previous post.

I've never used any of them. But from what I hear those Windows installed apps are nowhere near the quality of iLife. Few people actually use them and end up purchasing software.

Quote:
Sorry, it does not work for me. It is like saying 8X DVD burner is burning DVDs as fast as it did 2 years ago when it was introduced, so why not keep it at $100? Or, PS3 plays all the games it did when introduced, plus many more... so I guess it should be even more expensive..? IT gear goes down with price relative to ever-changing market and available competition. If Apple can hold on pricing (or reduce them less than competition) and still make good living, good for them... but that automatically makes them utterly unattractive to me. Now... Jobs did mention Apple would like more of a market share... I think they'll have to readjust their pricing policy in order to achieve that.

Don't get me wrong, I do want much stronger Apple (in terms of market share - they are already as strong and healthy as IT company goes) in same way I want stronger AMD... more competition equals better products and more effort from everyone. But... with current pricing policy from Apple, I just don't see that happening.

While I agree with you the current iMac is supremely long in the tooth. I wouldn't buy one right now knowing they will be updated at some point soon.

Most people aren't paying any attention to Apple's refresh cycles and buy a new computer when they need one. If Apple can sell a computer at the higher price why lower them. Of course Apple wants to grow marketshare, but they have clearly stated they will not do so at the expense of profits.

I have a friend who was looking to buy a MacBook Pro right before the refresh in October. I told him he should wait because Apple was about to have a major update soon. He said he didn't care about that, he needed a computer right then. Their are many people who feel the same way.
post #119 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

I'd better dollarz 3 donutz that iLife '10 will. .

Looks like you're right.

Haven't heard back from Jason Snell but a member at Ars ran iMovie analysis feature through their quad core Mac pro and apparently it only uses 2 cores for that function.
post #120 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

Looks like you're right.

Haven't heard back from Jason Snell but a member at Ars ran iMovie analysis feature through their quad core Mac pro and apparently it only uses 2 cores for that function.

This is exactly why I want Snow Leopard to be as close to free if not free. Apple won't deliver the big features until there are millions to create a cacophony of adultation towards the Cupertino Pantheon.

We also need to move to Quad Core and i'm not talking about Quad in Apple's $1499+ configs. We're in a chicken-egg scenario here. If I'm a developer why would I expend the programming energy breaking my program into threading Blocks if the only Quad Core machines are higher end iMac configs and Mac Pro?

We need 3 Quad iMac configs with this next refresh. The refresh after that is going to have a 8 threads to manage ..best to battle test Snow Leopard from the jump.
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
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