march update, now when will imac get core i7?

Never

See Core i5

What murch said. if you think about it, the real advantage i7 has is QPI and that is used to connect to a north bridge with all those PCI Express lanes. The i5 gets rid of that middleman and in return you get 16 PCI E lanes on the processor (for graphics) and DMI bus to connect directly to the IO control chip. The i5 chips are perfect for iMac and mini type computers that will not have any slots for expansion outside of graphics.

No the real advantage in i7 is the three lane on board memory controller which is ideal for the types of apps seen on Macs. Secondaryly GPI is a very fast interconnnect which would ideally feed into a high performance Nvidia integrated graphics chip bypassing the slow PCI Express.


What middle man? Even on i5 you will still need a controller for that PCI Express bus a bus that is profoundly slower than QPI. Frankly intel has yet to show that this arraingement will work well. Frankly it is why I think Intel is taking legal action against Nvidia for the attempted use of QPI. Even on i5 it might make more sense to put the graphics on DMI and use those legacy PCI Express slots for conventional I/O.

Intel can trummpet it's marketing plan all they want but it won't convince me that their offered arraingement is the best for performance in the future.

Mini maybe but Apple has nothing in the way of a middle of the road performance machine. Right now this hurts them alot in the market place and opens them up to things like Mucrosofts current marketing attempts. The point here is that if Apple continues to implement the same cookie cutter low end hardware as everybody else they will not have an opportunity to distinguish themselves from the low cost pack. i7 gives Apple an opportunity to think different, thinking different doesn't involve putting graphics on what is now a slow interface.

Unfortunately intel seems to think that blocking innovation here is a way to protect their market share. That is sad.


Dave

My guess is that the nehalem chip that the iMac will eventually get will be an overclocked Arrandale chip. Apple could have adopted a low power desk top chip for the iMac but passed. I think they've pretty cast their lot with mobile chips except with the Mac Pro.

Apple could use Clarksfield chips in the iMac and perhaps MBP lineup but I'm not really optimistic. Those chips will be expensive and Apple haven't used the current quad core mobile chips.

I think that you're mistaken. QPI or not, graphics are on PCIe and are "limited" to 16x PCIe speeds whatever the link to the cpu is. Core i7 is simply to "hot" for the iMac. Apple is in fact using Xeon flavored Core i7 on the single cpu Mac Pro, and you've seen at what price? Even if Apple could put a Core i7 in the iMac, it would probably end-up costing more than the low-end Mac Pro... this isn't middle of the road in terms of price. Then I realize that you want a Core i7 cpu on a nvidia integrated gpu (that you call high-performance)??? It is getting absurd. If you need the power of a Core i7 cpu, you will probably want dedicated graphics too. FWIW, there are no graphics cards/gpus that talks directly to QPI links, so even if PCIe 16x is "slow", there is nothing better today.

Intel is taking legal action against nvidia because they want to continue selling chipsets, they have lost Apple and others on the mid/high-end notebooks, now nvidia wants to make more chipsets for more desktop computers and netbooks/nettops. Given that most nvidia chipsets are better than Intel's, they fear for their chipset business, and if they can slow nvidia a little, they will.

I don't think that it is Intel that is blocking innovation: they are offering a multitude of cpus within many power and thermal envelops. And they also offering customized products. Apple is limiting their choices with their own designs:
- the mini, the MB, the MBP don't seem to be able to handle more than 35W cpus... or Apple doesn't want to
- the iMac doesn't seem to be able to handle more than 55W cpus... or Apple doesn't want to
- the new Mac Pro is simply too expensive

Everybody and their sister is offering Core i7 computers, except Apple that choosed to offer Xeon W3500 series in the Mac Pro at "crazy prices", Apple is distinguishing themselves by NOT using Core i7, by not using real desktop cpus on their desktop computers. Today, they are not looking like any other manufacturer, what you are suggesting is that they offer the same products...

We don't know yet how Intel wil call their next nehalem cpus, but for the iMac, here are the choices:
- current mobile 45W quads 2.00-2.53GHz, $350-850-1,050 --- too expensive?
- current 65W quads (QXXXXs series) 2.33-2.83GHz, $245-320-369 --- too hot?
- future mobile 55W quads (Clarkfield) 2.00-2.53GHz (rumored) $350-850-1,050 --- too expensive?
- future nehalem 65W quads (65W Lynnfield) 2.xxGHz (speeds unknown), $245-320-369 --- too hot?
- future westmere 35/45W dual-core+IGP (Arrandale) 2.xxGHz (speeds unknown) $209-530 --- too plain?

If you do video editing for a living then just get a Mac Pro. If it's only a hobby you can get by with an iMac. But I would make sure to get one with a dedicated graphics card.

What video editing app so you use?

You're in a tough spot. From what I've read, the Mac Pro should be *way* faster than an iMac. But the form factor of the iMac is nice. I like it a lot as well.

For you, it's probably worth waiting for Nehalem to make its way into an iMac. Whatever iteration they choose will likely give pretty significant gains.

FYI

The Ars review of the new Mac Pros. Didn't run benchs with FCP but did test with compressor.

No time for a long response so this will be quick.


I've heard the same thing but I'd wait for wide spread benchmarks before falling to Intels marketing. Admittedly reports are already positive with respect to the new Mac Pros. Unfortunately that processing power isn't in the new iMacs.

I would not go core 2 duo unless I had absolutely no choice. That given todays software. Interestingly Snow Leopard an the new release of FCP ought to change that opinion some if the speculation turns out to be true.

Today though you do have an alternative and that would be the new XServe. Just released today and it gives you an Apple alternative to the Mac Pro. You just need to be able to stand the noise . Seriously though this could be an excellent option for you and is worth looking into. Yeah I know it is server hardware but that can be an advantage with respect to size and it is cheaper than a Mac Pro.


Dave

The power of multi-core computing. I will not buy an iMac until it has quad-cores or greater. My needs are not dependent on a high megahertz computer with fewer core I need a decent speed and breadth across cores.

The iMac needs a redesign to accomodate a 95W Core i5 processor. Anything less will tell me that the executive staff at Apple are gutless wonders that cannot and will not stand up to Steve Jobs.

THe Xserve is more expensive than the Mac Pro: the single 2.26GHz is $2999 with a 160GB HDD, the dual 2.26GHz is $3599 with just 3GB of RAM and the 160GB HDD.
The single quad Mac Pro at $2499/2999 has better specs than the $2999 Xserve.
The dual quad 2.26 Mac Pro at $3299 has more RAM and a bigger HDD for $300 less than the dual quad 2.26 Xserve.
And I'm not sure that the Xserve can run the regular version of Mac OS X (while it's true the other way around).


The iMac needs much more than a redesign to accomodate a 95W processor, something like losing its head and putting the rest in a small tower design with a couple of efficient fans.

There are less radical solutions TODAY to offer the iMac (and the consumer) quad-core cpus (65W quads of the desktop s series, LV xeons or even mobile quads).

I don't know how much it's on Steve Jobs why quad iMacs are not offered yet, but I blame Apple as a whole. I don't even think that SJ knows Apple is still making desktop computers: the 3 legs are iPhone - iPod - notebooks, AppleTV and desktop computers are hobbies now.

I think its going to be really depressing for Mac computer enthusiasts this fall when i5 is released. Like Mjteix I don't see Apple using these in any Macs.

Now you can get an i7 system for about 1k. When i5 comes out there could(should?) be pc systems that are $750 that will *destroy* 2k iMacs and will only be rivaled by the current Mac Pro. An i5 pc might be as fast or faster than last gen Mac Pros.

That will be depressing.

I think if there's one thing we can trust Apple to never do, it is to use Intel's best bang-for-the-buck desktop processors.

Which is why I'll keep buying those low margin Mac mini and building my ideal system.

How Apple snatched defeat from the jaws of Intel victory is beyond me.

You know, Apple might just stick Arrandale chips in the iMac. \

I think they will, see my earlier post.

But Arrandale won't be here till q4 at the earliest. And while they will probably be a nice improvement over the Core 2 chips they iMacs currently use, they likely won't come near they performance that i7 and i5 will give.

Arrandale in an iMac?

Only if they want to destroy the brand. The simple thing to do is redesign the iMac chassis and if Apple needs to use 65W Core2 Quads sobeit.

They need Quad Core iMac for Snow Leopard this year period.