Apple rumored to release new iMacs with Sandy Bridge, Thunderbolt by early May

1235

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 109
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by skeane87 View Post


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EaKWHvUASgk



    The guy doing Ives was spot on.
  • Reply 82 of 109
    davegeedavegee Posts: 2,765member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


    So what is "rip lock"? I don't really use my optical much at all but have had little in the way of problems with it.



    a nasty feature the MPAA forced some drive makers and/or system builders into implementing... In short, it purposefully reduces the read speed of a DVD to 2x or 3x instead of allowing the drive to perform at it's engineered read speed of 16x or more.
  • Reply 83 of 109
    asciiascii Posts: 5,941member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


    The guy doing Ives was spot on.



    LoL, nice crazy stare. No one takes the p*ss quite as bitingly as the Brits.
  • Reply 84 of 109
    Specs leaked! It can be fake but it can be also true:



    http://www.mojipod.sk/pozname-konfig...novych-imacov/
  • Reply 85 of 109
    reganregan Posts: 474member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by LoganHunter View Post


    Specs leaked! It can be fake but it can be also true:



    http://www.mojipod.sk/pozname-konfig...novych-imacov/



    That doesn't make any sense. So Apple can squeeze an i7 into a 13" MacBook pro....but NOT a 21.5" iMac? Um....I'm calling FAKE on this one.
  • Reply 86 of 109
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,548moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by regan View Post


    That doesn't make any sense. So Apple can squeeze an i7 into a 13" MacBook pro....but NOT a 21.5" iMac? Um....I'm calling FAKE on this one.



    Mobile chips are different from desktop ones though and the i7 in the 13" is dual-core. But they could have used the 65W quad i7-2600s in the iMac as it pretty much costs the same as the 73W i5-580.



    It makes sense to me that Apple would do this though to coerce people into buying the 27" models to get a quad, like they do now.



    It's clear to see why when you see the two quad-core models with those specs. You do get 8GB RAM in the $1999 model but I suspect people will just go for the lower quad this time. For reference, the configs listed are:



    21.5″ / 3.2GHz Core i5 / 4GB / 750GB / ATI Radeon HD 5630 512MB $1199

    21.5″ / 3.6GHz Core i5 / 4GB / 1.5TB / ATI Radeon HD 5850 1GB $1499

    27″ / 2.8GHz Quad-Core Core i5 / 4GB / 1.5TB / ATI Radeon HD 5850 1GB $1699

    27″ / 3.3GHz Quad-Core Core i5 / 8GB / 1.5TB / ATI Radeon HD 6850 1GB $1999
  • Reply 87 of 109
    reganregan Posts: 474member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


    Mobile chips are different from desktop ones though and the i7 in the 13" is dual-core. But they could have used the 65W quad i7-2600s in the iMac as it pretty much costs the same as the 73W i5-580.



    It makes sense to me that Apple would do this though to coerce people into buying the 27" models to get a quad, like they do now.



    It's clear to see why when you see the two quad-core models with those specs. You do get 8GB RAM in the $1999 model but I suspect people will just go for the lower quad this time. For reference, the configs listed are:



    21.5″ / 3.2GHz Core i5 / 4GB / 750GB / ATI Radeon HD 5630 512MB $1199

    21.5″ / 3.6GHz Core i5 / 4GB / 1.5TB / ATI Radeon HD 5850 1GB $1499

    27″ / 2.8GHz Quad-Core Core i5 / 4GB / 1.5TB / ATI Radeon HD 5850 1GB $1699

    27″ / 3.3GHz Quad-Core Core i5 / 8GB / 1.5TB / ATI Radeon HD 6850 1GB $1999



    Again....calling fake on this. So Apple is going to get rid of the i7 in the 27" iMac too??? Gimme a friggin break! LOL. This doesn't make ANY sense whatsoever. What is that blog site? Hungarian? Totally lame completely made up rumor if you ask me.



    Rumors about the next iMac are so lacking that people are just making crap up now.



    Looks like we are just gonna have to wait until they are actually updated to know anything. :-)
  • Reply 88 of 109
    flounderflounder Posts: 2,674member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by regan View Post


    Again....calling fake on this. So Apple is going to get rid of the i7 in the 27" iMac too??? Gimme a friggin break! LOL. This doesn't make ANY sense whatsoever. What is that blog site? Hungarian? Totally lame completely made up rumor if you ask me.



    Rumors about the next iMac are so lacking that people are just making crap up now.



    Looks like we are just gonna have to wait until they are actually updated to know anything. :-)



    I'm not saying the specs are correct, but the current $1999 model iMac has an i5, not an i7. The i7 is a BTO option for an extra $200.
  • Reply 89 of 109
    reganregan Posts: 474member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Flounder View Post


    I'm not saying the specs are correct, but the current $1999 model iMac has an i5, not an i7. The i7 is a BTO option for an extra $200.



    It makes NO sense. You can currently get an i7 Quad core for $1,999 standard.



    So you're saying Apple will change it to an i5 and then force you to pay $200 for a BTO i7?



    Not bloody likely. :-)
  • Reply 90 of 109
    flounderflounder Posts: 2,674member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by regan View Post


    It makes NO sense. You can currently get an i7 Quad core for $1,999 standard.



    So you're saying Apple will change it to an i5 and then force you to pay $200 for a BTO i7?



    Not bloody likely. :-)



    No, I'm saying you are incorrect, and you DON'T currently get an i7 quad for $1999. It is an i5. You have to shell out another $200 for the i7 RIGHT NOW.



    For your edification:
  • Reply 91 of 109
    reganregan Posts: 474member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Flounder View Post


    No, I'm saying you are incorrect, and you DON'T currently get an i7 quad for $1999. It is an i5. You have to shell out another $200 for the i7 RIGHT NOW.



    For your edification:



    Actually I get a special student discount, so that is why I was off on the current pricing. You're right about the regular price currently.



    HOWEVER...I still think these specs are completely bogus. Again...simply look at the recent MacBook pro updates. i7s across the board....even on the higher end 13" model.



    Secondly, that graphic with the supposed future models and pricing is totally bogus! Why? BECAUSE the iMacs haven't been updated yet and won't be for at least another month....maybe not until the late summer even.



    Apple won't update their store until then. Anyone who believes that graphic of the actual update page is smoking crack. I'm sorry. :-)
  • Reply 92 of 109
    flounderflounder Posts: 2,674member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by regan View Post


    Actually I get a special student discount, so that is why I was off on the current pricing. You're right about the regular price currently.



    HOWEVER...I still think these specs are completely bogus. Again...simply look at the recent MacBook pro updates. i7s across the board....even on the higher end 13" model.



    Secondly, that graphic with the supposed future models and pricing is totally bogus! Why? BECAUSE the iMacs haven't been updated yet and won't be for at least another month....maybe not until the late summer even.



    Apple won't update their store until then. Anyone who believes that graphic of the actual update page is smoking crack. I'm sorry. :-)



    I agree.
  • Reply 93 of 109
    Well... I just gave you the link. I don't think the source is trustworthy either. And yes, it would be bad if you couldn't get an i7 this time (BTO options apart).

    The graphics aren't bad and the 8GB on the 27" looks nice, however...
  • Reply 94 of 109
    brlawyerbrlawyer Posts: 828member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Flounder View Post


    No, I'm saying you are incorrect, and you DON'T currently get an i7 quad for $1999. It is an i5. You have to shell out another $200 for the i7 RIGHT NOW.



    For your edification:



    Correct. It may very well be that those specs are simply showing the basic configs - the BTO option always shows in the specific model page, as is the case with the i7 option.



    Difficult to assess whether the czech site is trustworthy, but the specs don't seem that absurd either...
  • Reply 95 of 109
    mode 5mode 5 Posts: 59member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by brlawyer View Post


    but the specs don't seem that absurd either...



    Yeah they seem about right.



    It will be a shame however, if the 21" doesn't get a BTO option for the SB 2.8GHz i7 that's got a 65W TDP.
  • Reply 96 of 109
    pbpb Posts: 4,237member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by brlawyer View Post


    Difficult to assess whether the czech site is trustworthy



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by regan View Post


    What is that blog site? Hungarian?



    Not Czech, nor Hungarian, but Slovak. But yes, it is the first time they are mentioned here and with zero track record no one can know.
  • Reply 97 of 109
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by PB View Post


    Not Czech, nor Hungarian, but Slovak. But yes, it is the first time they are mentioned here and with zero track record no one can know.



    If you use Chrome, you can get Google to translate the page to a much understandable english. The translation is not perfect but much better than trying to figure out what it says...
  • Reply 98 of 109
    reganregan Posts: 474member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mode 5 View Post


    Yeah they seem about right.



    It will be a shame however, if the 21" doesn't get a BTO option for the SB 2.8GHz i7 that's got a 65W TDP.



    Major shame. It better! Lol. Seriously. If they can squeeze an i7 into a 13" MacBook pro...they've gotta be able to get one in the 21.5" iMac.



    I'd also love to see the ability to add a second SSD drive option in the 21.5" as well.



    Can't let it's big brother hog the spotlight. Some people want the features, but not the huge screen of the 27".



    A fully specced 21.5" would had a wide appeal I think.



    Guess we'll find out soon enough.
  • Reply 99 of 109
    brlawyerbrlawyer Posts: 828member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by PB View Post


    Not Czech, nor Hungarian, but Slovak. But yes, it is the first time they are mentioned here and with zero track record no one can know.



    Yep, of course it's Slovak...sk is their ccTLD - I'd thought the top-level domain was .cz; I stand corrected.
  • Reply 100 of 109
    mr. kmr. k Posts: 114member
    Quote:

    21.5″ / 3.2GHz Core i5 / 4GB / 750GB / ATI Radeon HD 5630 512MB $1199

    21.5″ / 3.6GHz Core i5 / 4GB / 1.5TB / ATI Radeon HD 5850 1GB $1499

    27″ / 2.8GHz Quad-Core Core i5 / 4GB / 1.5TB / ATI Radeon HD 5850 1GB $1699

    27″ / 3.3GHz Quad-Core Core i5 / 8GB / 1.5TB / ATI Radeon HD 6850 1GB $1999




    This makes no sense. I'm calling fake. The GPU options don't match Apple's "Good Better Best" strategy, nor does it jive with previous marketing for iMac graphics options. Nor does it even make sense.



    The iMac has always used Mobile graphics. Apple has always present the iMacs as having desktop graphics parts, when in fact the hardware is a mobile GPU (usually of a different identity) that has roughly the same performance as the Desktop part they name. In the current models for example, The top-end 27" iMac is listed as having a Radeon HD 5750. In fact, it is loaded with a Mobility Radeon HD 5850- a part which has the performance of the Desktop Radeon HD 5750.



    Considering this, And being aware of the plethora of mobile graphics parts available from AMD (and formerly ATi): Any iMac having a claimed Radeon HD 5850 is impossible. There is no Radeon HD 5xxx-series Mobility GPU that has the performance of that desktop card. The part simply doesn't exist. There is a Mobility GPU that has the performance of the Desktop 6850: The AMD Radeon HD 6950M. This part is widely believed to be slated for the next iMac revision on rumor sites; it does make sense for it to be in the top option.



    But, this list still doesn't make sense on yet another level.



    In performance comparisons, the Radeon HD 5850 is actually a slightly more powerful graphics chipset than the 6850. This is because the 6850 is successor to the 5750. There is no precedent for Apple to put a GPU in the "Best" model that is inferior to the GPU in the "Better" model.



    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...arts,2776.html



    So, yeah. Calling fake.
Sign In or Register to comment.