Maybe Clarksdale/Arrandale will make an early appearance in iMac and surprise all of us. These dual core devices with integrated graphics and memory controllers may certainly enable Apple to offer a thinner form factor and lower price points.
I want to buy an iMac, and it will be my "standard" computer. I will use it for games, internet, movies, film/photo/music-editing, studies etc. I plan to have it for a while. I have around $2,100, 2,200 to spend but want a better one than the most expensive iMac you can order today. I want quad-core (preferably the i5 or i7) and overall, better parts in the computer than today's iMac, since I'm going to be spending a lot on it. Rumour tells me that an upgrade is coming, and I hope that the hardware will be better, otherwise I'm buying a PC instead.
However, I have no idea if these rumours are good. What worries me is that they're going to add a version of the i7 core that only has 1.60 GHz to 2.00 GHz in CPU. This doesn't sound really good? I don't really know what it means but I know that the higher GHz, the better. 1.60 sounds like a grandpa computer! *prejudice*
Overall - I want my games and future games to run very smoothly on my new, very expensive computer, I want a full version of Adobe Photoshop to work extremely well and that the computer is FAST and sexy. The iMac design IS sexy.
So, why so low GHz? Doesn't the iMacs of today have higher? Why would the lower it??
The answers are quite simple:
1- You should buy a new computer ONLY when you cannot go without one, meaning that, if you can wait a bit longer, you probably should;
2- The upcoming iMac is a bit late and should be launched next Monday or Tuesday, possibly along with Monday's Apple financial results for the third quarter ended September 30;
3- A wise buyer should look for USB 3.0 and a quad-core Core i7 processor. If you can wait a little bit more, the iMac of your dreams should be available in the March-April-May 2010 time horizon;
4- For a quad-core or dual-core processor, you can add up each core to get an idea of the power of the CPU. For instance, a quad-core @ 2.5 GHz is almost equivalent to a 10 GHz single core CPU.
Hope this helps. I'm a bit like you, I don't get a tax deduction for my computer and want it to last for a long time.
SONY FOCUSING ON IPTV, NOT BLU-RAY RECORDING OR TIMESHIFTING
"As far as the consumer experience goes, we (Sony) think we can deliver a much better experience through components (vs integrated Blu-ray recorders), reliability and the future with IPTV, moving to that medium to deliver timeshifting.?*
Especially with Apple's billion dollar server on the horizon and recent video streaming patent application coming.
Maybe an iMac/Blu-ray RW will be as prevalent as homes with a pool. But equally as useful or used.
I totally agree. Why people think these HDDs are better is ridiculous. Weren't optical discs made to last hundreds of years?
Working backwards here, with respect to optical disks there is a potential for them to last a very long time. However that isn't likely to happen with run of the mill optical disks. Your best bet there is archival disks, the big but though is that in a hundred years people will be askng what is a CD.
Back to your first comment, back ups to a harddisk are actually a smart move as part of an overall plan to secure your data. Time Machine is actually a smart development on Apples part, especially if the back up volume is a RAID device. Like all good back up plans that isn't the end of the story. Optical can be part of the rest of the plan but I'm not convinced it is a universally excellent plan.
4- For a quad-core or dual-core processor, you can add up each core to get an idea of the power of the CPU. For instance, a quad-core @ 2.5 GHz is almost equivalent to a 10 GHz single core CPU.
False. You cannot add up the operating frequency of each core of a quad-core processor (in this case 2.4GHz) and call it equivalent to a 10GHz single-core processor, if there is/ever was such a thing. For one, a quad-core is more efficient, and two, each core is capable of running at up to 2.4GHz each (unless you overclock, but that really isn't a Mac user thing, so don't worry). The benefits lie in running multiple applications, but only if such applications take advantage of multiple cores.
The first two pages of comments were an absolutely amazement to me. Virtually all about BlueRay. Who the heck cares? (And I say this as someone who wants BlueRay.) All this BlueRay talk is irrelevant when it most assuredly will be a BTO option at some point. So let it go!
Now if you want to talk about the real meat of this article, this comment is more spot on...
Quote:
Originally Posted by iMacmatician
I would expect the 1.6 GHz to replace the current 2.67 GHz, the 1.73 GHz to replace the 2.93 GHz, and the 2.0 GHz to probably replace the 3.07 GHz.
Now think deeply, people. Think. Do you honestly expect that a 1.7 or even a 2.0GHz 4-core CPU (even i7 based) could hold a candle to a 3.06GHz 2-core iMac in terms of "real world performance"? If you do think that, you are deceived. As was the case with the very first PPC Macs that were slow because there wasn't enough "native" software out there for them, slow clocked 4-core CPUs will be hindered by the lack of multi-core software available for them. The end result is that a 4-core iMac -- at sub-2GHz clock speeds -- would certainly feel much slower than the current high-end iMac.
Don't get me wrong. I too want a quad-core iMac. My goodness do I want that. But I want it at a clock speed that rivals what we have now. It doesn't necessarily need to go as high as 3.06GHz (which may be impossible in terms of cooling in an iMac), but it certainly should be above 2.5GHz.
Again, think "real world" practical performance here people. With all this talk of low clock speeds, a dark cloud has come over what was an otherwise exciting time for me: the imminent release of new iMacs with "compelling new features." But for me, just how "compelling" those new iMacs will be will be locked to the clock speed (i.e., real world performance).
Hint: it is NOT to work on it. It is just to carry it for Keynote and PowerPoint presentations. Thus, a light full Mac with video-out and USB2 ports is a must.
I do freelance wedding photography & wedding photo montage dvds part-time. More & more clients have been asking for blu-ray montages instead of standard dvds. That's the main reason why I'm waiting for a blu-ray burner. I'm also waiting for a quad-core 17"-19" macbook pro with lightpeak before I upgrade my 1.67ghz 17" Powerbook.
Now think deeply, people. Think. Do you honestly expect that a 1.7 or even a 2.0GHz 4-core CPU (even i7 based) could hold a candle to a 3.06GHz 2-core iMac in terms of "real world performance"? If you do think that, you are deceived. As was the case with the very first PPC Macs that were slow because there wasn't enough "native" software out there for them, slow clocked 4-core CPUs will be hindered by the lack of multi-core software available for them. The end result is that a 4-core iMac -- at sub-2GHz clock speeds -- would certainly feel much slower than the current high-end iMac.
Core i7 920XM (2GHz Clarksfield) runs at 3.2GHz when only one core is active and at 2.8GHz when only 2 cores are active. For any single-threaded application, Core i7 920XM should give you much better performance than a Core-2 running at 3.06GHz.
When running multiple applications, or running an application that can take advantage of parallel processing (e.g. video encoding), 920XM with four cores / eight threads should provide significantly better throughput than a Core2 Duo even if each core/thread runs only at 2GHz on the 920XM.
Hint: it is NOT to work on it. It is just to carry it for Keynote and PowerPoint presentations. Thus, a light full Mac with video-out and USB2 ports is a must.
I stated I use it for specific things that I want to see in the best definition. Usually I only care about ?good enough? which tends to fall in line with the majority. I don?t own a single DVD or Blu-ray disc.
And that is the reason that the Mac market share will never rise past 10%, because other computers are "good enough" for the majority of people.
And that is the reason that the Mac market share will never rise past 10%, because other computers are "good enough" for the majority of people.
The Mac marketshare is on the verge of rising past 10%. They now have 9.4% in the US. While Apple?s marketshare can?t possibly match HP?s 25% as long they sell machines with an average selling price of $1,500, compared to that of non-Mac PC at $800 (and likely lower if you count netbooks), you are comparing disparate things since I know you are looking at the OS not the OEM sales. There are very different business models that will keep Apple from ever having the OS marketshare that MS has. Plain and simple.
Comments
Hmm, those mobile GPUs really put a damper on the whole gaming experience though...
O, oh... The graphics sucks?
Yeah, I'm not a hard-core gamer and thanks to Uni-studies and work, I won't have time for more than maybe 2 h a day at most.
I found that sleep was optional.
I found that sleep was optional.
Haha, I can relate although I work hard on not getting that obsessed with games. Even though it happens sometimes.
? They still didn?t add AACS support to the OS so that even a 3rd-party developer could have Blu-ray software on OS X.
Any idea on how difficult that would be? Obviously adding that support would be a giveaway for their plans.
I want to buy an iMac, and it will be my "standard" computer. I will use it for games, internet, movies, film/photo/music-editing, studies etc. I plan to have it for a while. I have around $2,100, 2,200 to spend but want a better one than the most expensive iMac you can order today. I want quad-core (preferably the i5 or i7) and overall, better parts in the computer than today's iMac, since I'm going to be spending a lot on it. Rumour tells me that an upgrade is coming, and I hope that the hardware will be better, otherwise I'm buying a PC instead.
However, I have no idea if these rumours are good. What worries me is that they're going to add a version of the i7 core that only has 1.60 GHz to 2.00 GHz in CPU. This doesn't sound really good? I don't really know what it means but I know that the higher GHz, the better. 1.60 sounds like a grandpa computer! *prejudice*
Overall - I want my games and future games to run very smoothly on my new, very expensive computer, I want a full version of Adobe Photoshop to work extremely well and that the computer is FAST and sexy. The iMac design IS sexy.
So, why so low GHz? Doesn't the iMacs of today have higher? Why would the lower it??
The answers are quite simple:
1- You should buy a new computer ONLY when you cannot go without one, meaning that, if you can wait a bit longer, you probably should;
2- The upcoming iMac is a bit late and should be launched next Monday or Tuesday, possibly along with Monday's Apple financial results for the third quarter ended September 30;
3- A wise buyer should look for USB 3.0 and a quad-core Core i7 processor. If you can wait a little bit more, the iMac of your dreams should be available in the March-April-May 2010 time horizon;
4- For a quad-core or dual-core processor, you can add up each core to get an idea of the power of the CPU. For instance, a quad-core @ 2.5 GHz is almost equivalent to a 10 GHz single core CPU.
Hope this helps. I'm a bit like you, I don't get a tax deduction for my computer and want it to last for a long time.
A 1.7ghz quad core, vs a 3ghz quad core in a Dell consumer desktop. And the Dell comes with a blu-ray burner and a desktop GPU.
Hilarious. Apple should just give up making desktops and stick to laptops and handhelds devices.
SONY FOCUSING ON IPTV, NOT BLU-RAY RECORDING OR TIMESHIFTING
"As far as the consumer experience goes, we (Sony) think we can deliver a much better experience through components (vs integrated Blu-ray recorders), reliability and the future with IPTV, moving to that medium to deliver timeshifting.?*
Especially with Apple's billion dollar server on the horizon and recent video streaming patent application coming.
Maybe an iMac/Blu-ray RW will be as prevalent as homes with a pool. But equally as useful or used.
*http://www.current.com.au/2009/09/22...VAYYNOVMX.html
Any idea on how difficult that would be? Obviously adding that support would be a giveaway for their plans.
That I don?t know.
I totally agree. Why people think these HDDs are better is ridiculous. Weren't optical discs made to last hundreds of years?
Working backwards here, with respect to optical disks there is a potential for them to last a very long time. However that isn't likely to happen with run of the mill optical disks. Your best bet there is archival disks, the big but though is that in a hundred years people will be askng what is a CD.
Back to your first comment, back ups to a harddisk are actually a smart move as part of an overall plan to secure your data. Time Machine is actually a smart development on Apples part, especially if the back up volume is a RAID device. Like all good back up plans that isn't the end of the story. Optical can be part of the rest of the plan but I'm not convinced it is a universally excellent plan.
Dave
http://www.hardmac.com/news/2009/10/...implementation
I f that is the case. We could be singing the Blu Ray Blues for a long while.
Don't get me wrong I want Blu Ray in the iMac as much as the next guy. I just don't believe it's going to happen.
4- For a quad-core or dual-core processor, you can add up each core to get an idea of the power of the CPU. For instance, a quad-core @ 2.5 GHz is almost equivalent to a 10 GHz single core CPU.
False. You cannot add up the operating frequency of each core of a quad-core processor (in this case 2.4GHz) and call it equivalent to a 10GHz single-core processor, if there is/ever was such a thing. For one, a quad-core is more efficient, and two, each core is capable of running at up to 2.4GHz each (unless you overclock, but that really isn't a Mac user thing, so don't worry). The benefits lie in running multiple applications, but only if such applications take advantage of multiple cores.
Now if you want to talk about the real meat of this article, this comment is more spot on...
I would expect the 1.6 GHz to replace the current 2.67 GHz, the 1.73 GHz to replace the 2.93 GHz, and the 2.0 GHz to probably replace the 3.07 GHz.
Now think deeply, people. Think. Do you honestly expect that a 1.7 or even a 2.0GHz 4-core CPU (even i7 based) could hold a candle to a 3.06GHz 2-core iMac in terms of "real world performance"? If you do think that, you are deceived. As was the case with the very first PPC Macs that were slow because there wasn't enough "native" software out there for them, slow clocked 4-core CPUs will be hindered by the lack of multi-core software available for them. The end result is that a 4-core iMac -- at sub-2GHz clock speeds -- would certainly feel much slower than the current high-end iMac.
Don't get me wrong. I too want a quad-core iMac. My goodness do I want that. But I want it at a clock speed that rivals what we have now. It doesn't necessarily need to go as high as 3.06GHz (which may be impossible in terms of cooling in an iMac), but it certainly should be above 2.5GHz.
Again, think "real world" practical performance here people. With all this talk of low clock speeds, a dark cloud has come over what was an otherwise exciting time for me: the imminent release of new iMacs with "compelling new features." But for me, just how "compelling" those new iMacs will be will be locked to the clock speed (i.e., real world performance).
Well from what I've been reading on the web. Apple is still holding out on Blu Ray because they want one license to cover all.
http://www.hardmac.com/news/2009/10/...implementation
I f that is the case. We could be singing the Blu Ray Blues for a long while.
Don't get me wrong I want Blu Ray in the iMac as much as the next guy. I just don't believe it's going to happen.
This is the bag of hurt Steve Jobs described. I understand that the process was at least simplified a little bit since that statement though.
Did you just say the MacBook Air is too heavy?!?!?!?!?
*rubs eyes*
Indeed. Add the AC/DC charger, adapters, bags, cables, etc and you end up carrying 3 kg.
Compare with full PC-Windows machines being just 300 to 500 g. Examples:
http://www.oqo.com
http://www.xpphone.com/en/index.html
http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/...52921644608896
Hint: it is NOT to work on it. It is just to carry it for Keynote and PowerPoint presentations. Thus, a light full Mac with video-out and USB2 ports is a must.
I do freelance wedding photography & wedding photo montage dvds part-time. More & more clients have been asking for blu-ray montages instead of standard dvds. That's the main reason why I'm waiting for a blu-ray burner. I'm also waiting for a quad-core 17"-19" macbook pro with lightpeak before I upgrade my 1.67ghz 17" Powerbook.
Then perhaps JVC's Blu-ray recorder is what you should have. http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-10348492-1.html
Now think deeply, people. Think. Do you honestly expect that a 1.7 or even a 2.0GHz 4-core CPU (even i7 based) could hold a candle to a 3.06GHz 2-core iMac in terms of "real world performance"? If you do think that, you are deceived. As was the case with the very first PPC Macs that were slow because there wasn't enough "native" software out there for them, slow clocked 4-core CPUs will be hindered by the lack of multi-core software available for them. The end result is that a 4-core iMac -- at sub-2GHz clock speeds -- would certainly feel much slower than the current high-end iMac.
Core i7 920XM (2GHz Clarksfield) runs at 3.2GHz when only one core is active and at 2.8GHz when only 2 cores are active. For any single-threaded application, Core i7 920XM should give you much better performance than a Core-2 running at 3.06GHz.
When running multiple applications, or running an application that can take advantage of parallel processing (e.g. video encoding), 920XM with four cores / eight threads should provide significantly better throughput than a Core2 Duo even if each core/thread runs only at 2GHz on the 920XM.
Indeed. Add the AC/DC charger, adapters, bags, cables, etc and you end up carrying 3 kg.
Compare with full PC-Windows machines being just 300 to 500 g. Examples:
http://www.oqo.com
http://www.xpphone.com/en/index.html
http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/...52921644608896
Hint: it is NOT to work on it. It is just to carry it for Keynote and PowerPoint presentations. Thus, a light full Mac with video-out and USB2 ports is a must.
How about using your iPod and a?
http://www.engadget.com/2004/11/16/h...ur-ipod-photo/
I stated I use it for specific things that I want to see in the best definition. Usually I only care about ?good enough? which tends to fall in line with the majority. I don?t own a single DVD or Blu-ray disc.
And that is the reason that the Mac market share will never rise past 10%, because other computers are "good enough" for the majority of people.
And that is the reason that the Mac market share will never rise past 10%, because other computers are "good enough" for the majority of people.
The Mac marketshare is on the verge of rising past 10%. They now have 9.4% in the US. While Apple?s marketshare can?t possibly match HP?s 25% as long they sell machines with an average selling price of $1,500, compared to that of non-Mac PC at $800 (and likely lower if you count netbooks), you are comparing disparate things since I know you are looking at the OS not the OEM sales. There are very different business models that will keep Apple from ever having the OS marketshare that MS has. Plain and simple.