OK, let me get this straight...the iMac's processor is not upgradeable (?). Intel has always been upgrading the speed of their processors every few months. Apple now uses Intel chips. Are people that have to have the new, fastest processors supposed to just forget about the iMac line altogether, since it's nuts $$ wise to upgrade an entire computer every 6 months to a year?! I'm not one of them, but it makes me even more wishful for that mini-tower we may never see. I bet Intel does too since they could sell new chips to upgraders.
The current iMac's processor is upgradeable, but only to a particular socket which will be going away next spring. Then the socket will change.
Do you have to have the fastest processor available at any given instant? It's nuts for a user to upgrade the the processor every six months to get the latest chip.
The current iMac's processor is upgradeable, but only to a particular socket which will be going away next spring. Then the socket will change.
Do you have to have the fastest processor available at any given instant? It's nuts for a user to upgrade the the processor every six months to get the latest chip.
No, I don't. It's crazy to get on the upgrade chip speed, inferiority complex. But I guess it's my old PC mentality coming through, I.E. the ability to cheaply upgrade if something comes along that is truely worth the upgrade, like when Intel went from the Pentium 4 to the the D, and now to Core 2 Duo. That kind of change is worth it. With an iMac I assume you have to toss the whole thing. With a tower it's just a matter of getting a new MB and chipset.
I do like the current iMacs, but I'm having more thoughts of just waiting until after MWSF to see if they take another big jump in processors, or if there are any credible rumors of a mini-tower type computer.
Off or on I don't know, but you are talking about four-core chips in a Mac Pro and he is talking about four-core chips in an iMac. Do you really believe that the iMac can handle the heat of four Conroe cores? I say not a chance in a million.
Well, the Mac Pro has two of them. So that would be half the heat for one.
But, you're right, it wouldn't work in the current design, perhaps.
But, the 24" iMac is pretty big. Except for the monitor, there is plenty more room inside than there is for any other iMac. The components for the 20 and the 24 are the same, as far as the computer goes.
A bit of a re-design could allow it. the four core chips don't use twice the power of the two core models.
Actually, this 24" model could lead to quite a few interesting things, if Apple was willing to do them.
I didn't see the thread you said you posted, but I did read that article, linked from another site. I think I saw it linked from Ars.
Unfortunately, the regular forum doesn't get much participation outside of threads linked to news stories. I can't find the thread you said you made, I looked a little in Current and in Future Hardware. I didn't do a search yet.
But yeah, I was talking about stuffing a Kentsfield into an iMac, not Clovertowns into a Mac Pro. The chips are similar, but the computers have two very different enclosures. iMac will go quad core, but my guess is only with the successor to Kentsfield where they are more likely to have a notebook version and all four cores on a single die, and that it's probably going to be a die shrink over what Kentsfield has.
You can just read this part, or you can go to the index at the bottom, and read the entire review, which is interesting.
I am afraid you are mistaken here. A G5 similar to what we found in the Power Mac was used in the first G5 iMac generation and at clock speeds 1.6 - 1.8 GHz. This was just one processing core and we know very well the heat and noise problems it gave.
Later higher clocked iMacs used the low power G5, but even in this case many users report that the new Core Duo iMacs are substantially more quiet. Now a dual core Conroe tops at 10-15 Watts more than those G5s and perhaps it would fit a 24" iMac. Probably this is the reason why Apple go with 24" and not 23" (more space to cool the chip), although for the time being they decided to not redesign the MB and use instead the drop-in replacement Merom. But you cannot push it more than that. Not now at least.
Sure, I wouldn't be expecting them to do it with the first generation 4 cores anyway.
Apple would probably be smart to switch from Woodcrest/Blackford to Kentsfield/965 in the 2.0 and 2.6GHz Mac Pros, since it would be much cheaper for the same performance.
Apple would probably be smart to switch from Woodcrest/Blackford to Kentsfield/965 in the 2.0 and 2.6GHz Mac Pros, since it would be much cheaper for the same performance.
It would be more expensive to keep two different board designs.
Switching from Woodcrest to Kentsfield might drop the parts cost by $400 or more; do you still think it's not worth it?
Not for the Mac Pro. While it's true that the FB memory system has more latency, and is causing some problems, there are probably good reasons why Apple chose that system. we also don't know yet what Intel will do about the 5000 chipset. They may decide to allow DDR 2, 3, or other DIMMS.
But, those other memory systems won't allow as much memory in the machine as does FB.
Not for the Mac Pro. While it's true that the FB memory system has more latency, and is causing some problems, there are probably good reasons why Apple chose that system. we also don't know yet what Intel will do about the 5000 chipset. They may decide to allow DDR 2, 3, or other DIMMS.
But, those other memory systems won't allow as much memory in the machine as does FB.
The Mac Pro is hardly pushing the memory capacity envelope, it's currently not any better than the previous Power Mac in terms of memory capacity, and it's only stacking two deep per channel, no better than regular DDR.
The Mac Pro is hardly pushing the memory capacity envelope, it's currently not any better than the previous Power Mac in terms of memory capacity, and it's only stacking two deep per channel, no better than regular DDR.
I've already read that in the past, I'm not sure what the relevance is with respect to Mac Pro's memory capacity. To be able to access more memory with any currently available memory that's reasonably priced, it would need more memory slots. FB-DIMM can handle more memory modules than DDR-etc, but the Mac pro doesn't have slots for them and doesn't take advantage of that feature.
I've already read that in the past, I'm not sure what the relevance is with respect to Mac Pro's memory capacity. To be able to access more memory with any currently available memory that's reasonably priced, it would need more memory slots. FB-DIMM can handle more memory modules than DDR-etc, but the Mac pro doesn't have slots for them and doesn't take advantage of that feature.
Please explain what you think I am missing with respect to how FB-DIMM helps Mac Pro's max memory capacity. I know FB-DIMM can stack a lot deeper to support more memory, other workstations offer the capability to run 64GB, but Mac Pro can only accept 16GB, just as much memory as its dual core predecesssor.
Please explain what you think I am missing with respect to how FB-DIMM helps Mac Pro's max memory capacity. I know FB-DIMM can stack a lot deeper to support more memory, other workstations offer the capability to run 64GB, but Mac Pro can only accept 16GB, just as much memory as its dual core predecesssor.
Ok. first, we don't know if the Mac Pro can only handle 16 GB. The assumption I've seen is that it can handle 64GB, though Apple, as usual, won't mentjon that until the price of those biggewr DIMMS drop to "market" levels.
This enables four memory channels, rather than the two that parallel memory allows. This gives more bandwidth, normally limited to 128 bits. This gives the equivelant of 256.
As the number of memory slots on unbuffered parallel memory systems increases, the frequency must be lowered.
What most people don't know, is that workstations, and servers, that have more than 4 memory slots have lowered memory frequencies. This allows more slots, and more memory, but the memory is running more slowly.
While the latemcy of that memory is less, it loses much more because of the slower running frequencies.
That's one reason why high end Xeons have had such large (16 MB) level 3 caches. The other, of course, is to increase the apparent performance of the chip itself, but it mainly serves to buffer the memory accesses in these large, but slow, memory systems.
So a Xeon system can handle 16GB, maybe 64GB, while a Core 2 Duo/Quadro system is limited to a mere 8GB (maybe 16GB). I have to wonder how many Mac users actually have more than 8GB of RAM.
Comments
OK, let me get this straight...the iMac's processor is not upgradeable (?). Intel has always been upgrading the speed of their processors every few months. Apple now uses Intel chips. Are people that have to have the new, fastest processors supposed to just forget about the iMac line altogether, since it's nuts $$ wise to upgrade an entire computer every 6 months to a year?! I'm not one of them, but it makes me even more wishful for that mini-tower we may never see. I bet Intel does too since they could sell new chips to upgraders.
The current iMac's processor is upgradeable, but only to a particular socket which will be going away next spring. Then the socket will change.
Do you have to have the fastest processor available at any given instant? It's nuts for a user to upgrade the the processor every six months to get the latest chip.
The current iMac's processor is upgradeable, but only to a particular socket which will be going away next spring. Then the socket will change.
Do you have to have the fastest processor available at any given instant? It's nuts for a user to upgrade the the processor every six months to get the latest chip.
No, I don't. It's crazy to get on the upgrade chip speed, inferiority complex. But I guess it's my old PC mentality coming through, I.E. the ability to cheaply upgrade if something comes along that is truely worth the upgrade, like when Intel went from the Pentium 4 to the the D, and now to Core 2 Duo. That kind of change is worth it. With an iMac I assume you have to toss the whole thing. With a tower it's just a matter of getting a new MB and chipset.
I do like the current iMacs, but I'm having more thoughts of just waiting until after MWSF to see if they take another big jump in processors, or if there are any credible rumors of a mini-tower type computer.
Off or on I don't know, but you are talking about four-core chips in a Mac Pro and he is talking about four-core chips in an iMac. Do you really believe that the iMac can handle the heat of four Conroe cores? I say not a chance in a million.
Well, the Mac Pro has two of them. So that would be half the heat for one.
But, you're right, it wouldn't work in the current design, perhaps.
But, the 24" iMac is pretty big. Except for the monitor, there is plenty more room inside than there is for any other iMac. The components for the 20 and the 24 are the same, as far as the computer goes.
A bit of a re-design could allow it. the four core chips don't use twice the power of the two core models.
Actually, this 24" model could lead to quite a few interesting things, if Apple was willing to do them.
I didn't see the thread you said you posted, but I did read that article, linked from another site. I think I saw it linked from Ars.
Unfortunately, the regular forum doesn't get much participation outside of threads linked to news stories. I can't find the thread you said you made, I looked a little in Current and in Future Hardware. I didn't do a search yet.
But yeah, I was talking about stuffing a Kentsfield into an iMac, not Clovertowns into a Mac Pro. The chips are similar, but the computers have two very different enclosures. iMac will go quad core, but my guess is only with the successor to Kentsfield where they are more likely to have a notebook version and all four cores on a single die, and that it's probably going to be a die shrink over what Kentsfield has.
You can just read this part, or you can go to the index at the bottom, and read the entire review, which is interesting.
http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2832&p=6
Of course, when I used that as a reference, I wasn't writing about a literal switch.
I am afraid you are mistaken here. A G5 similar to what we found in the Power Mac was used in the first G5 iMac generation and at clock speeds 1.6 - 1.8 GHz. This was just one processing core and we know very well the heat and noise problems it gave.
Later higher clocked iMacs used the low power G5, but even in this case many users report that the new Core Duo iMacs are substantially more quiet. Now a dual core Conroe tops at 10-15 Watts more than those G5s and perhaps it would fit a 24" iMac. Probably this is the reason why Apple go with 24" and not 23" (more space to cool the chip), although for the time being they decided to not redesign the MB and use instead the drop-in replacement Merom. But you cannot push it more than that. Not now at least.
Sure, I wouldn't be expecting them to do it with the first generation 4 cores anyway.
Though, with Apple, one can never tell...
Apple would probably be smart to switch from Woodcrest/Blackford to Kentsfield/965 in the 2.0 and 2.6GHz Mac Pros, since it would be much cheaper for the same performance.
It would be more expensive to keep two different board designs.
It would be more expensive to keep two different board designs.
they have that as the 20" i-mac has a MXM slot and the old ones do not.
they have that as the 20" i-mac has a MXM slot and the old ones do not.
You mean 24, but yes, you're right about that.
they have that as the 20" i-mac has a MXM slot and the old ones do not.
That's true, though I think only of the 24", not 20". I have to look it up, but I think about 10x as many iMacs are sold than the Pro towers.
Switching from Woodcrest to Kentsfield might drop the parts cost by $400 or more; do you still think it's not worth it?
Not for the Mac Pro. While it's true that the FB memory system has more latency, and is causing some problems, there are probably good reasons why Apple chose that system. we also don't know yet what Intel will do about the 5000 chipset. They may decide to allow DDR 2, 3, or other DIMMS.
But, those other memory systems won't allow as much memory in the machine as does FB.
Not for the Mac Pro. While it's true that the FB memory system has more latency, and is causing some problems, there are probably good reasons why Apple chose that system. we also don't know yet what Intel will do about the 5000 chipset. They may decide to allow DDR 2, 3, or other DIMMS.
But, those other memory systems won't allow as much memory in the machine as does FB.
The Mac Pro is hardly pushing the memory capacity envelope, it's currently not any better than the previous Power Mac in terms of memory capacity, and it's only stacking two deep per channel, no better than regular DDR.
Intel Clovertown Xeon
Processor...Core...Bus......Cache...Price...Availa ble
X5355\t 2.66GHz\t 1333MHz\t 8MB\t $1172 Nov '06
E5345\t 2.33GHz\t 1333MHz\t 8MB\t $851 Nov '06
E5320\t 1.86GHz\t 1066MHz\t 8MB\t $690 Nov '06
E5310\t 1.60GHz\t 1066MHz\t 8MB\t $455 Nov '06
I'm pleased that at least 2 quad Xeons have a 1333 FSB,
eventually expanding the current Mac Pro architecture to
Octo 2.33 (for the same price as a current Quad 3.00)
and Octo 2.66 (+$650).
And from this other article
Intel Kentsfield (Core Quadro and Xeon)
Processor...Core...Bus......Cache...Price...Availa ble
QX6700\t 2.66GHz\t 1066MHz\t 8MB\t $999 Nov '06
Q6600\t 2.40GHz\t 1066MHz\t 8MB\t $ ? ? ? Jan '07
X3220\t 2.40GHz\t 1066MHz\t 8MB\t $851 Jan '07 (single socket xeon)
X3210\t 2.13GHz\t 1066MHz\t 8MB\t $690 Jan '07 (single socket xeon)
Apple has yet to offer a design for Conroe/Kentsfield-based computers,
or maybe they will split the Mac Pro line in two early next year:
Mac Pro (Quad) with Kentsfield (2.40/2.66GHz, 1066 FSB, DDR RAM, $1899/$2199)
Mac Pro (Octo) with Clovertown (2.33/2.66GHz, 1333 FSB, FB-DIMM, $2799/$3499)
The Mac Pro is hardly pushing the memory capacity envelope, it's currently not any better than the previous Power Mac in terms of memory capacity, and it's only stacking two deep per channel, no better than regular DDR.
Here, read this. He explains it well.
http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2811&p=4
Here, read this. He explains it well.
http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2811&p=4
I've already read that in the past, I'm not sure what the relevance is with respect to Mac Pro's memory capacity. To be able to access more memory with any currently available memory that's reasonably priced, it would need more memory slots. FB-DIMM can handle more memory modules than DDR-etc, but the Mac pro doesn't have slots for them and doesn't take advantage of that feature.
I've already read that in the past, I'm not sure what the relevance is with respect to Mac Pro's memory capacity. To be able to access more memory with any currently available memory that's reasonably priced, it would need more memory slots. FB-DIMM can handle more memory modules than DDR-etc, but the Mac pro doesn't have slots for them and doesn't take advantage of that feature.
Then you aren't understanding the article.
Then you aren't understanding the article.
Please explain what you think I am missing with respect to how FB-DIMM helps Mac Pro's max memory capacity. I know FB-DIMM can stack a lot deeper to support more memory, other workstations offer the capability to run 64GB, but Mac Pro can only accept 16GB, just as much memory as its dual core predecesssor.
Please explain what you think I am missing with respect to how FB-DIMM helps Mac Pro's max memory capacity. I know FB-DIMM can stack a lot deeper to support more memory, other workstations offer the capability to run 64GB, but Mac Pro can only accept 16GB, just as much memory as its dual core predecesssor.
Ok. first, we don't know if the Mac Pro can only handle 16 GB. The assumption I've seen is that it can handle 64GB, though Apple, as usual, won't mentjon that until the price of those biggewr DIMMS drop to "market" levels.
This enables four memory channels, rather than the two that parallel memory allows. This gives more bandwidth, normally limited to 128 bits. This gives the equivelant of 256.
As the number of memory slots on unbuffered parallel memory systems increases, the frequency must be lowered.
What most people don't know, is that workstations, and servers, that have more than 4 memory slots have lowered memory frequencies. This allows more slots, and more memory, but the memory is running more slowly.
While the latemcy of that memory is less, it loses much more because of the slower running frequencies.
That's one reason why high end Xeons have had such large (16 MB) level 3 caches. The other, of course, is to increase the apparent performance of the chip itself, but it mainly serves to buffer the memory accesses in these large, but slow, memory systems.