Kentsfield is the desktop version so yes I do. When is another matter. Maybe a Kentsfield iMac before X-Mas, and a Dual Clovertown Mac Pro at MWSF? I should still be able to get decent coin for my woodcrest beast on ebay at that time.
Kentsfield may be a little too spicy to fit in an iMac, and if it does fit it would have to be clocked lower than Conroe, making many apps run slower.
Why would it have to be clocked lower? That makes no sense. If Apple is designing a new iMac (and they are) to go with a quad core processor I doubt they would lower the clock speed. They wouldn't design it with that in mind, They would take frequency, and heat dissipation in to account and design the internals around that.
Why would it have to be clocked lower? That makes no sense. If Apple is designing a new iMac (and they are) to go with a quad core processor I doubt they would lower the clock speed. They wouldn't design it with that in mind, They would take frequency, and heat dissipation in to account and design the internals around that.
I don't think Intel will offer a 2.93GHz Kentsfield, so by definition it will be clocked lower than Conroe. But if the 2.93GHz Kentsfield does exist, it will probably use over 130W. I don't think Apple can fit that in the iMac.
If Apple designs the new iMac for a more realistic 65W TDP, they can fit either a 2.6GHz Conroe or a ~2.1GHz Kentsfield. Those extra two cores aren't free.
According to this article at AnandTech, TDP for Clovertown is expected to be between 80-120W. Projecting from the information in the article, I am guessing that Kentfield will come in around 80W. It's still probably too hot to go with the current design of iMac.
groverat, are you referring to a Mac or a new PC? I was under the impression you jumped ship to PCs years ago... athlon man, aren't you?
The iMac is for consumers... consumers have no need for a quad core processor for the foreseeable future, and Apple wouldn't be able to justify the R&D and extra cost of two more cores.
According to this article at AnandTech, TDP for Clovertown is expected to be between 80-120W. Projecting from the information in the article, I am guessing that Kentfield will come in around 80W. It's still probably too hot to go with the current design of iMac.
I think the point is that there will not be another iMac that uses that same design when the processors are getting up to that level. Apple has to remain competitive, and that is the desktop processor that the industry will be focusing on at that time. Apple knew this when they switched to intel, and Kentsfield is no secret. Apple has probably been working a design around intels projected numbers on it for some time. They have already demoed kentsfield prototypes publicly, and they probably have samples out to a few manufacturers already. Apple being one of them.
Like I've said before, I'm getting a warm and fuzzy feeling.
Yea but as long time Apple watchers that 'warm and fuzzy feeling' tends to be followed by a 'crushed bruised and broken feeling' when that 800 lb grizzly bear finally lands on us..
The iMac is for consumers... consumers have no need for a quad core processor for the foreseeable future, and Apple wouldn't be able to justify the R&D and extra cost of two more cores.
I agree. A quad-core chip and all it's heat and power consumption wouldn't be something for the iMac market. The lower end Mac Pro market maybe with the upper being held by the Dual Woodcrest chips. Still, we'll see what Apple does come "mid-2007" when these come out.
I built my Duron computer my freshman year in college (with Eskimo's kind help). After that I bought a Dell and souped it up and my last purchase was a 1.25ghz PowerbookG4 earlier this year.
A new desktop will be a Mac if they aren't stupid expensive compared to an equivalent PC.
I agree. A quad-core chip and all it's heat and power consumption wouldn't be something for the iMac market. The lower end Mac Pro market maybe with the upper being held by the Dual Woodcrest chips. Still, we'll see what Apple does come "mid-2007" when these come out.
I can not say for sure what Apple plans, but I do think there is no alternate route but to have at least one of these in their iMac lineup. Probably in a 20" iMac.
Again you never know what Apple has planned for the future of their lineups either. The role of the iMac may change with Apples increased marketshare (almost 5% now) Apple may be forced to make the iMac take on a new role, and have another tower besides the Mac Pro. They may have to split the line into an iMac Desktop, Mid tower Desktop, and a workstation.
Then again they may just offer more possible processor configurations in the Mac Pro, and the iMac. That is my current guess, but I think users that have PC envy, and PC users would prefer another alternative.
Kentsfield may be a little too spicy to fit in an iMac, and if it does fit it would have to be clocked lower than Conroe, making many apps run slower.
Eventually, of course it will show up in the iMac. But for now it's not even in the Mac Pro, so, ummm...
I'd bet that by the time Apple is ready for the Clovertown/Kentsfield to trickle down to the iMac, Intel will have a more suitable 8 core processor ready.
Personally I'd like to see the iMac get the Conroe. If it could handle a G5, then it can certainly handle a singe Conroe. Optimally, Apple would keep the iMac at the current two models, and perhaps drop the prices a tad. Isn't the Conroe cheaper than a G5?
What Apple needs is a bread & butter Conroe tower, something with limited expandability, maybe 2 HD bays, and a video card. Make it a MiniTower, build it with inexpensive materials and avoid eccentric designs. Ives can make a cheap box look cool without expensive aluminium and a modern art grill.
If the price of the MiniTower + a decemt monitor is less than an iMac, nobody will buy the iMacs. So here's the iMacs, with projected Conroe speeds:
$1299 17" iMac 2.4 GHz
$1699 20" iMac 2.67 GHz
MiniTower
$1299 1.86 GHz
$1599 2.4 GHz
$1999 2.67 GHz
Of course under this scenario the Mac Pros would all have to be dual CPU, quad core, so the MiniTower didn't beat them. For what they cost, the Mac Pros should be all dual CPU even without a MiniTower. It's time for Apple to get serious about selling towers.
The real problem I suspect is that the MT would eat into Mac Pro sales. As long as Apple's tower sales continue to languish, I don't see them splitting the tower lineup into a "MiniTower" and a "MegaTower". Maybe after a couple of years with the Mac Pros sales will be up and Apple will be confident enough to unleash a MiniTower along with a true MegaTower.
Comments
Oh wait, unless Apple sucks, I'll be able to buy some of these babies and drop them in come Christmas.
Originally posted by shanmugam
sweet!sweet!!
http://news.com.com/Intel+quad-core+...l?tag=nefd.top
Great! Now let's put the Apple elves to work...
Originally posted by trick fall
I need to get a new computer soon. One of those would do nicely.
Think one would show up in an iMac?
Originally posted by aplnub
Think one would show up in an iMac?
Kentsfield is the desktop version so yes I do. When is another matter. Maybe a Kentsfield iMac before X-Mas, and a Dual Clovertown Mac Pro at MWSF? I should still be able to get decent coin for my woodcrest beast on ebay at that time.
Originally posted by wmf
Kentsfield may be a little too spicy to fit in an iMac, and if it does fit it would have to be clocked lower than Conroe, making many apps run slower.
Why would it have to be clocked lower? That makes no sense. If Apple is designing a new iMac (and they are) to go with a quad core processor I doubt they would lower the clock speed. They wouldn't design it with that in mind, They would take frequency, and heat dissipation in to account and design the internals around that.
Originally posted by onlooker
Why would it have to be clocked lower? That makes no sense. If Apple is designing a new iMac (and they are) to go with a quad core processor I doubt they would lower the clock speed. They wouldn't design it with that in mind, They would take frequency, and heat dissipation in to account and design the internals around that.
I don't think Intel will offer a 2.93GHz Kentsfield, so by definition it will be clocked lower than Conroe. But if the 2.93GHz Kentsfield does exist, it will probably use over 130W. I don't think Apple can fit that in the iMac.
If Apple designs the new iMac for a more realistic 65W TDP, they can fit either a 2.6GHz Conroe or a ~2.1GHz Kentsfield. Those extra two cores aren't free.
The iMac is for consumers... consumers have no need for a quad core processor for the foreseeable future, and Apple wouldn't be able to justify the R&D and extra cost of two more cores.
Originally posted by mwswami
According to this article at AnandTech, TDP for Clovertown is expected to be between 80-120W. Projecting from the information in the article, I am guessing that Kentfield will come in around 80W. It's still probably too hot to go with the current design of iMac.
I think the point is that there will not be another iMac that uses that same design when the processors are getting up to that level. Apple has to remain competitive, and that is the desktop processor that the industry will be focusing on at that time. Apple knew this when they switched to intel, and Kentsfield is no secret. Apple has probably been working a design around intels projected numbers on it for some time. They have already demoed kentsfield prototypes publicly, and they probably have samples out to a few manufacturers already. Apple being one of them.
Originally posted by blackbird_1.0
Like I've said before, I'm getting a warm and fuzzy feeling.
Yea but as long time Apple watchers that 'warm and fuzzy feeling' tends to be followed by a 'crushed bruised and broken feeling' when that 800 lb grizzly bear finally lands on us..
Originally posted by onlooker
They would take frequency, and heat dissipation in to account and design the internals around that.
I agree. It's a matter of engineering.
Originally posted by 1337_5L4Xx0R
The iMac is for consumers... consumers have no need for a quad core processor for the foreseeable future, and Apple wouldn't be able to justify the R&D and extra cost of two more cores.
I agree. A quad-core chip and all it's heat and power consumption wouldn't be something for the iMac market. The lower end Mac Pro market maybe with the upper being held by the Dual Woodcrest chips. Still, we'll see what Apple does come "mid-2007" when these come out.
Damned good memory on you.
I built my Duron computer my freshman year in college (with Eskimo's kind help). After that I bought a Dell and souped it up and my last purchase was a 1.25ghz PowerbookG4 earlier this year.
A new desktop will be a Mac if they aren't stupid expensive compared to an equivalent PC.
Originally posted by jdcfsu
I agree. A quad-core chip and all it's heat and power consumption wouldn't be something for the iMac market. The lower end Mac Pro market maybe with the upper being held by the Dual Woodcrest chips. Still, we'll see what Apple does come "mid-2007" when these come out.
I can not say for sure what Apple plans, but I do think there is no alternate route but to have at least one of these in their iMac lineup. Probably in a 20" iMac.
Again you never know what Apple has planned for the future of their lineups either. The role of the iMac may change with Apples increased marketshare (almost 5% now) Apple may be forced to make the iMac take on a new role, and have another tower besides the Mac Pro. They may have to split the line into an iMac Desktop, Mid tower Desktop, and a workstation.
Then again they may just offer more possible processor configurations in the Mac Pro, and the iMac. That is my current guess, but I think users that have PC envy, and PC users would prefer another alternative.
Originally posted by wmf
Kentsfield may be a little too spicy to fit in an iMac, and if it does fit it would have to be clocked lower than Conroe, making many apps run slower.
Eventually, of course it will show up in the iMac. But for now it's not even in the Mac Pro, so, ummm...
I'd bet that by the time Apple is ready for the Clovertown/Kentsfield to trickle down to the iMac, Intel will have a more suitable 8 core processor ready.
Personally I'd like to see the iMac get the Conroe. If it could handle a G5, then it can certainly handle a singe Conroe. Optimally, Apple would keep the iMac at the current two models, and perhaps drop the prices a tad. Isn't the Conroe cheaper than a G5?
What Apple needs is a bread & butter Conroe tower, something with limited expandability, maybe 2 HD bays, and a video card. Make it a MiniTower, build it with inexpensive materials and avoid eccentric designs. Ives can make a cheap box look cool without expensive aluminium and a modern art grill.
If the price of the MiniTower + a decemt monitor is less than an iMac, nobody will buy the iMacs. So here's the iMacs, with projected Conroe speeds:
$1299 17" iMac 2.4 GHz
$1699 20" iMac 2.67 GHz
MiniTower
$1299 1.86 GHz
$1599 2.4 GHz
$1999 2.67 GHz
Of course under this scenario the Mac Pros would all have to be dual CPU, quad core, so the MiniTower didn't beat them. For what they cost, the Mac Pros should be all dual CPU even without a MiniTower. It's time for Apple to get serious about selling towers.
The real problem I suspect is that the MT would eat into Mac Pro sales. As long as Apple's tower sales continue to languish, I don't see them splitting the tower lineup into a "MiniTower" and a "MegaTower". Maybe after a couple of years with the Mac Pros sales will be up and Apple will be confident enough to unleash a MiniTower along with a true MegaTower.