Holy transistors, Batman! 45nm by end of the year. . ATI + AMD is seriously fracked. Intel and nVidia are holding their heads over the toilet bowl now for some time.
Dual core 3.16/3.33 for a CONSUMER mac!!!!?!?!???!??!!!!! Wow that would be impressive/insane. I highly doubt it would happen though.
I don't see why this would be insane. It's just a logical progression. Yes I agree it will be impressive , but processor clock speeds used to evolve much faster than they do these days.
New iMac 20" and 24" should be 2.2ghz and 2.4ghz respectively, with 2GB RAM each. Same as MacBookPros. Not likely to have LED Backlight screens, though I don't know... Anyways all this my instinct for now.
I was expecting the same thing for the new iMac,but after all this hype about new redesign iMacs i am not so sure this will be the case,Steve always has a way to surprise us and maybe this is one of those times.
This would be perfect for the consumer desktop Macs. Come on Apple, give us a comsumer tower already...
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpinDrift
I don't see why this would be insane. It's just a logical progression.
You do realize that the suggestion was to put a Xeon in a consumer machine? That's definitely insane. If you want a Xeon-based machine, then the Mac Pro is a pretty good deal.
Quote:
Yes I agree it will be impressive , but processor clock speeds used to evolve much faster than they do these days.
There wasn't as much of a concern about power use either because not much power was consumed, but now, chips consume a lot of power because of the clock speed. Now, clock speed gains have to be made with process shrinks to keep a lid on power consumption.
I can't help but bring up a sore subject and that is the big mistake(IMO) on designing the iMac such that it requires mobile parts. With intels new price cuts it's now possible to get either a 3 ghz core 2 chip or a 2.4 ghz quad core chip for less than the 2.4 ghz merom that is likely to make it's way into the high end iMac. I seriously doubt the 2.6 ghz merom gets chosen for cost reasons.
The iMac is an attractive design but let's make it such that there isn't such a performance and cost penalty when you choose this computer.
I know this is likely to start a big flame war but so be it. I had to get this off my chest.
You do realize that the suggestion was to put a Xeon in a consumer machine? That's definitely insane. If you want a Xeon-based machine, then the Mac Pro is a pretty good deal.
There wasn't as much of a concern about power use either because not much power was consumed, but now, chips consume a lot of power because of the clock speed. Now, clock speed gains have to be made with process shrinks to keep a lid on power consumption.
Well, don't forget that there will be:
- at least 3 low-voltage Xeons released: one 3.16 dual-core and two 2.33/2.66 quad cores at respectively 40 and 50W,
- a new entry level chipset (San Clemente) that uses standard DDR2 RAM (instead of FB-DIMMs) and a lower cost southbridge (ICH9R) that can also be found on some desktop 30 series chipsets.
If the trend was not to make the iMac thinner and thinner, I think that it would be a possibility... IMO, the 17" iMac is a/the consumer machine, the 24" is already a luxury item the 20" is in between.
Current prices for low voltage Xeons (65nm) are between $455 and $519 while 2.2/2.4GHz 800FSB Meroms are priced at $316 and $530 and extreme editions are $851. So in terms of cost of goods, using LV Xeons or high-end Meroms is similar, the Xeons with faster FSB and clock bringing more power to the machine.
So if the iMac could cope with 40/50W, I think it could be a good thing in terms of making the iMac look and feel more like an AIO workstation than a mobile-on-desktop computer.
I'm not saying they should do it, but it would make the iMac stand even more apart from PCs, in a very good way. MWSF 2008.
- at least 3 low-voltage Xeons released: one 3.16 dual-core and two 2.33/2.66 quad cores at respectively 40 and 50W,
- a new entry level chipset (San Clemente) that uses standard DDR2 RAM (instead of FB-DIMMs) and a lower cost southbridge (ICH9R) that can also be found on some desktop 30 series chipsets.
[...]
You are overlooking the obvious. If notebook processors are too slow for your liking for an iMac, the logical thing is to move to the desktop processors (not directly to the server ones).
The desktop processors are now (or in the near future) also available as quad-core chips. They run as fast if not faster than the server ones (in clockspeed). And they are cheaper and use cheaper memory than the Xeons.
- at least 3 low-voltage Xeons released: one 3.16 dual-core and two 2.33/2.66 quad cores at respectively 40 and 50W,
- a new entry level chipset (San Clemente) that uses standard DDR2 RAM (instead of FB-DIMMs) and a lower cost southbridge (ICH9R) that can also be found on some desktop 30 series chipsets.
I don't see why this would be insane. It's just a logical progression. Yes I agree it will be impressive , but processor clock speeds used to evolve much faster than they do these days.
It isn't insane. We simply won't see any chips that aren't low power in the iMac, or the Mini, until Apple feels as though they can meet their requirements for size and coolness. These chips are not designed for that. They use too much power, and require too much in the way of cooling.
Possibly, slower chips in the line *could* be used, such as 2.66 GHz, which use less power. But, even then...
I can't help but bring up a sore subject and that is the big mistake(IMO) on designing the iMac such that it requires mobile parts. With intels new price cuts it's now possible to get either a 3 ghz core 2 chip or a 2.4 ghz quad core chip for less than the 2.4 ghz merom that is likely to make it's way into the high end iMac. I seriously doubt the 2.6 ghz merom gets chosen for cost reasons.
The iMac is an attractive design but let's make it such that there isn't such a performance and cost penalty when you choose this computer.
I know this is likely to start a big flame war but so be it. I had to get this off my chest.
I think that what's being forgotten by some here, is that even the Meroms are powerful enough, esp. in that they are dual core, that they can preform most tasks people buying an iMac could really need, with more than enough speed.
These machines, after all, are not intended for high end cpu intensive tasks. It appears as though some people expect Apple to make consumer, and business class machines (which the iMac is), to equal the performance of their pro machines.
That will never happen.
Performance has increased so much since the Intel conversion that even with new versions of programs, and I can testify to the results for CS3 and FC Studio, that even though newer upgrades, with their more complex algorithms used for higher quality, the speeds are greater than they ever were before, which is a break from the past.
The speeds with a top iMac equals, or moves past, the speeds attained with the fastest dual config G5 machines. That's saying something, esp. considering that those were pretty fast.
In another year, or less, they will equal, or surpass the Quad G5, and even the dual Intel Pro's available at the beginning of 2007.
That's progress!
I really feel as though the complaints are unfounded.
- at least 3 low-voltage Xeons released: one 3.16 dual-core and two 2.33/2.66 quad cores at respectively 40 and 50W,
- a new entry level chipset (San Clemente) that uses standard DDR2 RAM (instead of FB-DIMMs) and a lower cost southbridge (ICH9R) that can also be found on some desktop 30 series chipsets.
If the trend was not to make the iMac thinner and thinner, I think that it would be a possibility... IMO, the 17" iMac is a/the consumer machine, the 24" is already a luxury item the 20" is in between.
Current prices for low voltage Xeons (65nm) are between $455 and $519 while 2.2/2.4GHz 800FSB Meroms are priced at $316 and $530 and extreme editions are $851. So in terms of cost of goods, using LV Xeons or high-end Meroms is similar, the Xeons with faster FSB and clock bringing more power to the machine.
So if the iMac could cope with 40/50W, I think it could be a good thing in terms of making the iMac look and feel more like an AIO workstation than a mobile-on-desktop computer.
I'm not saying they should do it, but it would make the iMac stand even more apart from PCs, in a very good way. MWSF 2008.
Check the power requirements of the Meroms, you will find a big difference still. Then remember that they are still 65nm, and that they will also be moving to 45nm.
The relative difference in power will remain. Lower power isn't a philosophical concept. It isn't just a difference in power used by the chip, or the heat produced. It also results in a smaller power supply, which also gives off heat. It's the difference between a large external brick, and a smaller, cooler, internal supply. It also results in a different arrangement of the parts inside, wasted space needed for extra cooling paths, etc. This all contributes to the usability of the machine, as well as the manufacturing cost. Using a slightly cheaper cpu (which may not even be true, as Intel will be making another round of price cuts within a few weeks), could easily be offset by the other required expenses, which would possibly require a complete re-design.
With Apple supposedly not only making these new machines even thinner, but reducing the "chin" height, where most of the electronics have been located, along with the power supply, these chips would be counterproductive.
The ultra-low power chips are also not intended for performance, and likely are even slower (lower performance) than the Meroms.
Also, a faster FSB, contrary to popular opinion, has been shown to add little to the practical speed of most operations, giving possibly a 5% speed boost overall. Not much.
Performance has increased so much since the Intel conversion that even with new versions of programs, and I can testify to the results for CS3 and FC Studio, that even though newer upgrades, with their more complex algorithms used for higher quality, the speeds are greater than they ever were before, which is a break from the past.
Melgross,
Are you currently running CS3 on an iMac? I have been considering it as a lower cost alternative to a Mac Pro and was wondering how the performance stacked up.
Specifically, I would be using it to create illustrations in both Illustrator and PhotoShop. Some InDesign and Dreamweaver work also, but primarily Illustrator and PhotoShop.
- at least 3 low-voltage Xeons released: one 3.16 dual-core and two 2.33/2.66 quad cores at respectively 40 and 50W,
- a new entry level chipset (San Clemente) that uses standard DDR2 RAM (instead of FB-DIMMs) and a lower cost southbridge (ICH9R) that can also be found on some desktop 30 series chipsets.
I don't think that matters. The Xeon CPUs and workstation chipsets are too expensive to put into consumer machines. It still requires registered memory, so you won't be able to buy your memory upgrades at Best Buy or wherever it's on sale.
Are you currently running CS3 on an iMac? I have been considering it as a lower cost alternative to a Mac Pro and was wondering how the performance stacked up.
Specifically, I would be using it to create illustrations in both Illustrator and PhotoShop. Some InDesign and Dreamweaver work also, but primarily Illustrator and PhotoShop.
Any feedback is appreciated.
Thanks.
I'm not. I don't have one. But, several people I know, are. As a result, I've used it on two iMacs. The performance is more than credible.
Can you do better on a Mac Pro? Of course. But, these people are professionals, as I was before I retired. They are quite pleased with their units (two 24" and one 20").
I think that what's being forgotten by some here, is that even the Meroms are powerful enough, esp. in that they are dual core, that they can preform most tasks people buying an iMac could really need, with more than enough speed.
These machines, after all, are not intended for high end cpu intensive tasks. It appears as though some people expect Apple to make consumer, and business class machines (which the iMac is), to equal the performance of their pro machines.
That will never happen.
Performance has increased so much since the Intel conversion that even with new versions of programs, and I can testify to the results for CS3 and FC Studio, that even though newer upgrades, with their more complex algorithms used for higher quality, the speeds are greater than they ever were before, which is a break from the past.
The speeds with a top iMac equals, or moves past, the speeds attained with the fastest dual config G5 machines. That's saying something, esp. considering that those were pretty fast.
In another year, or less, they will equal, or surpass the Quad G5, and even the dual Intel Pro's available at the beginning of 2007.
That's progress!
I really feel as though the complaints are unfounded.
I agree that cpu power and performance has really progressed nicely since the Intel transition. It's definitely noticeable on the notebook side. Perhaps the mobile cpus offer all the performance that the 'average' iMac user needs, that is certainly possible. Yet Apple could deliver more for less. Perhaps there could be some tradeoffs in design to accommodate the faster but hotter desktop cpus.
It seems to me that as users work more and more with audio, video and photographic media they'll always appreciate greater processing power. In the not to distant future I suspect that the Mac platform will be attacked by viruses and spyware and we'll all be running protection programs in the background. That'll use up a core right there.
iMacs with either a 2.4 ghz quad core chip or the 3.0 ghz core 2 dual core chip would offer significantly better performance than current iMacs but still lag the current Mac Pros. They would slot in nicely IMO because they would open up some room for the mini to be upgraded but keep it form bumping into the iMac.
In the PPC days Apple was limited by the choices that IBM and Freescale offered. Intel has a tremendous product variety in their cpus but Apple are only using two chips at three different speeds. If Apple wants to differentiate their products they would be wise to use a greater variety of chips that are available.
I agree that cpu power and performance has really progressed nicely since the Intel transition. It's definitely noticeable on the notebook side. Perhaps the mobile cpus offer all the performance that the 'average' iMac user needs, that is certainly possible. Yet Apple could deliver more for less. Perhaps there could be some tradeoffs in design to accommodate the faster but hotter desktop cpus.
It seems to me that as users work more and more with audio, video and photographic media they'll always appreciate greater processing power. In the not to distant future I suspect that the Mac platform will be attacked by viruses and spyware and we'll all be running protection programs in the background. That'll use up a core right there.
iMacs with either a 2.4 ghz quad core chip or the 3.0 ghz core 2 dual core chip would offer significantly better performance than current iMacs but still lag the current Mac Pros. They would slot in nicely IMO because they would open up some room for the mini to be upgraded but keep it form bumping into the iMac.
In the PPC days Apple was limited by the choices that IBM and Freescale offered. Intel has a tremendous product variety in their cpus but Apple are only using two chips at three different speeds. If Apple wants to differentiate their products they would be wise to use a greater variety of chips that are available.
As all chips get better, we will se that performance increase across the line.
Intel has stated that 4 core mobile chiops will be coming. When they do, we will see them in the iMac, and any other consumer machine Apple may havw out at the time.
My contention is that having come from a far more primitive past of Apple machines, I can see some trends that other, younger users may not appreciate.
My company, was among the first to go digital, in the '80's.
We had bought an English system called the Crossfield. It did what Photoshop did somewhat later on. This system cost in the six figures.
When PS was able to compete with that feature-wise, I talked to Adobe, and received several copies to try.
It was pretty damned slow!!! But, I went with it as a side to the Crossfield for a couple of years, and charged less for the less demanding work.
By the time I bought my first 950, fully equipped, for $16,000, in 1992, I think it was, I was about ready to cross over.
Let me tell you something.
That machine was the most powerful personal computer in the world, truly! No PC came even close.
It was so fast, that when we applied a Gaussian Blur to a 10 MB file, we barely had time to go get a cup of coffee, put our sugar in, plus milk, get back to the desk, and almost finish it, before the machine completed the task, and the bell rang!
That was how fast that machine was. Nothing else could touch it.
Considering that today, I can do the same blur to a 50 MB image, on an iMac, and have to wait no more than a couple of seconds, my distain for people who think that every command MUST be instantaneous is unavoidable.
That doesn't mean that I dislike progress. Far from it.
But, I've found that on a 2.33 GHz 24" iMac, most commands in PS, on a reasonable sized image, say 30 MBs in size, take place in one second, or less. To me, that's instantaneous. You don't really have time to do anything else before that command completes. Most other commands finish within two seconds, still close to instant, and some within five seconds, still pretty quick. Just a few take longer.
Even an eight core Mac Pro doesn't cut those times down by more than half.
The only time you would NEED a Mac Pro, is when doing work on much more demanding file types, or sizes. We often did work on 500 MB images, and, sometimes, on composites that exceeded 1GB.
I wouldn't recommend an iMac for those today, even though we did them on dual G4's, and later, dual G5's (we later sold the business).
But, anyone who does work on high end productions, as we did, charges enough to afford (and requires) a Mac Pro, fully equipped. I charged $275 an hour for my private work, and we charged, as a company, $350. That was three years ago. colleagues of mine, today, charge even more.
If someone has to ask if they need a Mac Pro, and then also mentions cost, then they don't need it.
It appears as though some people expect Apple to make consumer, and business class machines (which the iMac is), to equal the performance of their pro machines.
What I expect is a desktop Mac to have a desktop CPU. All desktop Macs have had desktop CPUs in the past. It was the Intel transion that changed this. Now all Macs but the Mac Pro have laptop CPUs.
I hope “new Xeons” means “new Mac Pro”, as it would be completely illogical to give iMac a xeon processor as the target market is different, more over xeon processors give efficiency in professional applications targeted for workstation market not for home users.
What I expect is a desktop Mac to have a desktop CPU. All desktop Macs have had desktop CPUs in the past. It was the Intel transion that changed this. Now all Macs but the Mac Pro have laptop CPUs.
Big deal.
For whatever reason, Apple won't make a machine that would benefit from a desktop chip. The iMac won't, so it's a no go.
I hope ?new Xeons? means ?new Mac Pro?, as it would be completely illogical to give iMac a xeon processor as the target market is different, more over xeon processors give efficiency in professional applications targeted for workstation market not for home users.
I'm hearing those rumbles. I'm not sure if we'll see them with Penyrn, or if Apple will wait until Nehalen
Comments
Dual core 3.16/3.33 for a CONSUMER mac!!!!?!?!???!??!!!!! Wow that would be impressive/insane. I highly doubt it would happen though.
I don't see why this would be insane. It's just a logical progression. Yes I agree it will be impressive , but processor clock speeds used to evolve much faster than they do these days.
New iMac 20" and 24" should be 2.2ghz and 2.4ghz respectively, with 2GB RAM each. Same as MacBookPros. Not likely to have LED Backlight screens, though I don't know... Anyways all this my instinct for now.
I was expecting the same thing for the new iMac,but after all this hype about new redesign iMacs i am not so sure this will be the case,Steve always has a way to surprise us and maybe this is one of those times.
This would be perfect for the consumer desktop Macs. Come on Apple, give us a comsumer tower already...
I don't see why this would be insane. It's just a logical progression.
You do realize that the suggestion was to put a Xeon in a consumer machine? That's definitely insane. If you want a Xeon-based machine, then the Mac Pro is a pretty good deal.
Yes I agree it will be impressive , but processor clock speeds used to evolve much faster than they do these days.
There wasn't as much of a concern about power use either because not much power was consumed, but now, chips consume a lot of power because of the clock speed. Now, clock speed gains have to be made with process shrinks to keep a lid on power consumption.
The iMac is an attractive design but let's make it such that there isn't such a performance and cost penalty when you choose this computer.
I know this is likely to start a big flame war but so be it. I had to get this off my chest.
You do realize that the suggestion was to put a Xeon in a consumer machine? That's definitely insane. If you want a Xeon-based machine, then the Mac Pro is a pretty good deal.
There wasn't as much of a concern about power use either because not much power was consumed, but now, chips consume a lot of power because of the clock speed. Now, clock speed gains have to be made with process shrinks to keep a lid on power consumption.
Well, don't forget that there will be:
- at least 3 low-voltage Xeons released: one 3.16 dual-core and two 2.33/2.66 quad cores at respectively 40 and 50W,
- a new entry level chipset (San Clemente) that uses standard DDR2 RAM (instead of FB-DIMMs) and a lower cost southbridge (ICH9R) that can also be found on some desktop 30 series chipsets.
If the trend was not to make the iMac thinner and thinner, I think that it would be a possibility... IMO, the 17" iMac is a/the consumer machine, the 24" is already a luxury item the 20" is in between.
Current prices for low voltage Xeons (65nm) are between $455 and $519 while 2.2/2.4GHz 800FSB Meroms are priced at $316 and $530 and extreme editions are $851. So in terms of cost of goods, using LV Xeons or high-end Meroms is similar, the Xeons with faster FSB and clock bringing more power to the machine.
So if the iMac could cope with 40/50W, I think it could be a good thing in terms of making the iMac look and feel more like an AIO workstation than a mobile-on-desktop computer.
I'm not saying they should do it, but it would make the iMac stand even more apart from PCs, in a very good way. MWSF 2008.
Well, don't forget that there will be:
- at least 3 low-voltage Xeons released: one 3.16 dual-core and two 2.33/2.66 quad cores at respectively 40 and 50W,
- a new entry level chipset (San Clemente) that uses standard DDR2 RAM (instead of FB-DIMMs) and a lower cost southbridge (ICH9R) that can also be found on some desktop 30 series chipsets.
[...]
You are overlooking the obvious. If notebook processors are too slow for your liking for an iMac, the logical thing is to move to the desktop processors (not directly to the server ones).
The desktop processors are now (or in the near future) also available as quad-core chips. They run as fast if not faster than the server ones (in clockspeed). And they are cheaper and use cheaper memory than the Xeons.
Well, don't forget that there will be:
- at least 3 low-voltage Xeons released: one 3.16 dual-core and two 2.33/2.66 quad cores at respectively 40 and 50W,
- a new entry level chipset (San Clemente) that uses standard DDR2 RAM (instead of FB-DIMMs) and a lower cost southbridge (ICH9R) that can also be found on some desktop 30 series chipsets.
registered ddr2 not ddr2 and more pci-e lanes
I don't see why this would be insane. It's just a logical progression. Yes I agree it will be impressive , but processor clock speeds used to evolve much faster than they do these days.
It isn't insane. We simply won't see any chips that aren't low power in the iMac, or the Mini, until Apple feels as though they can meet their requirements for size and coolness. These chips are not designed for that. They use too much power, and require too much in the way of cooling.
Possibly, slower chips in the line *could* be used, such as 2.66 GHz, which use less power. But, even then...
I can't help but bring up a sore subject and that is the big mistake(IMO) on designing the iMac such that it requires mobile parts. With intels new price cuts it's now possible to get either a 3 ghz core 2 chip or a 2.4 ghz quad core chip for less than the 2.4 ghz merom that is likely to make it's way into the high end iMac. I seriously doubt the 2.6 ghz merom gets chosen for cost reasons.
The iMac is an attractive design but let's make it such that there isn't such a performance and cost penalty when you choose this computer.
I know this is likely to start a big flame war but so be it. I had to get this off my chest.
I think that what's being forgotten by some here, is that even the Meroms are powerful enough, esp. in that they are dual core, that they can preform most tasks people buying an iMac could really need, with more than enough speed.
These machines, after all, are not intended for high end cpu intensive tasks. It appears as though some people expect Apple to make consumer, and business class machines (which the iMac is), to equal the performance of their pro machines.
That will never happen.
Performance has increased so much since the Intel conversion that even with new versions of programs, and I can testify to the results for CS3 and FC Studio, that even though newer upgrades, with their more complex algorithms used for higher quality, the speeds are greater than they ever were before, which is a break from the past.
The speeds with a top iMac equals, or moves past, the speeds attained with the fastest dual config G5 machines. That's saying something, esp. considering that those were pretty fast.
In another year, or less, they will equal, or surpass the Quad G5, and even the dual Intel Pro's available at the beginning of 2007.
That's progress!
I really feel as though the complaints are unfounded.
Well, don't forget that there will be:
- at least 3 low-voltage Xeons released: one 3.16 dual-core and two 2.33/2.66 quad cores at respectively 40 and 50W,
- a new entry level chipset (San Clemente) that uses standard DDR2 RAM (instead of FB-DIMMs) and a lower cost southbridge (ICH9R) that can also be found on some desktop 30 series chipsets.
If the trend was not to make the iMac thinner and thinner, I think that it would be a possibility... IMO, the 17" iMac is a/the consumer machine, the 24" is already a luxury item the 20" is in between.
Current prices for low voltage Xeons (65nm) are between $455 and $519 while 2.2/2.4GHz 800FSB Meroms are priced at $316 and $530 and extreme editions are $851. So in terms of cost of goods, using LV Xeons or high-end Meroms is similar, the Xeons with faster FSB and clock bringing more power to the machine.
So if the iMac could cope with 40/50W, I think it could be a good thing in terms of making the iMac look and feel more like an AIO workstation than a mobile-on-desktop computer.
I'm not saying they should do it, but it would make the iMac stand even more apart from PCs, in a very good way. MWSF 2008.
Check the power requirements of the Meroms, you will find a big difference still. Then remember that they are still 65nm, and that they will also be moving to 45nm.
The relative difference in power will remain. Lower power isn't a philosophical concept. It isn't just a difference in power used by the chip, or the heat produced. It also results in a smaller power supply, which also gives off heat. It's the difference between a large external brick, and a smaller, cooler, internal supply. It also results in a different arrangement of the parts inside, wasted space needed for extra cooling paths, etc. This all contributes to the usability of the machine, as well as the manufacturing cost. Using a slightly cheaper cpu (which may not even be true, as Intel will be making another round of price cuts within a few weeks), could easily be offset by the other required expenses, which would possibly require a complete re-design.
With Apple supposedly not only making these new machines even thinner, but reducing the "chin" height, where most of the electronics have been located, along with the power supply, these chips would be counterproductive.
The ultra-low power chips are also not intended for performance, and likely are even slower (lower performance) than the Meroms.
Also, a faster FSB, contrary to popular opinion, has been shown to add little to the practical speed of most operations, giving possibly a 5% speed boost overall. Not much.
Performance has increased so much since the Intel conversion that even with new versions of programs, and I can testify to the results for CS3 and FC Studio, that even though newer upgrades, with their more complex algorithms used for higher quality, the speeds are greater than they ever were before, which is a break from the past.
Melgross,
Are you currently running CS3 on an iMac? I have been considering it as a lower cost alternative to a Mac Pro and was wondering how the performance stacked up.
Specifically, I would be using it to create illustrations in both Illustrator and PhotoShop. Some InDesign and Dreamweaver work also, but primarily Illustrator and PhotoShop.
Any feedback is appreciated.
Thanks.
Well, don't forget that there will be:
- at least 3 low-voltage Xeons released: one 3.16 dual-core and two 2.33/2.66 quad cores at respectively 40 and 50W,
- a new entry level chipset (San Clemente) that uses standard DDR2 RAM (instead of FB-DIMMs) and a lower cost southbridge (ICH9R) that can also be found on some desktop 30 series chipsets.
I don't think that matters. The Xeon CPUs and workstation chipsets are too expensive to put into consumer machines. It still requires registered memory, so you won't be able to buy your memory upgrades at Best Buy or wherever it's on sale.
Melgross,
Are you currently running CS3 on an iMac? I have been considering it as a lower cost alternative to a Mac Pro and was wondering how the performance stacked up.
Specifically, I would be using it to create illustrations in both Illustrator and PhotoShop. Some InDesign and Dreamweaver work also, but primarily Illustrator and PhotoShop.
Any feedback is appreciated.
Thanks.
I'm not. I don't have one. But, several people I know, are. As a result, I've used it on two iMacs. The performance is more than credible.
Can you do better on a Mac Pro? Of course. But, these people are professionals, as I was before I retired. They are quite pleased with their units (two 24" and one 20").
I think that what's being forgotten by some here, is that even the Meroms are powerful enough, esp. in that they are dual core, that they can preform most tasks people buying an iMac could really need, with more than enough speed.
These machines, after all, are not intended for high end cpu intensive tasks. It appears as though some people expect Apple to make consumer, and business class machines (which the iMac is), to equal the performance of their pro machines.
That will never happen.
Performance has increased so much since the Intel conversion that even with new versions of programs, and I can testify to the results for CS3 and FC Studio, that even though newer upgrades, with their more complex algorithms used for higher quality, the speeds are greater than they ever were before, which is a break from the past.
The speeds with a top iMac equals, or moves past, the speeds attained with the fastest dual config G5 machines. That's saying something, esp. considering that those were pretty fast.
In another year, or less, they will equal, or surpass the Quad G5, and even the dual Intel Pro's available at the beginning of 2007.
That's progress!
I really feel as though the complaints are unfounded.
I agree that cpu power and performance has really progressed nicely since the Intel transition. It's definitely noticeable on the notebook side. Perhaps the mobile cpus offer all the performance that the 'average' iMac user needs, that is certainly possible. Yet Apple could deliver more for less. Perhaps there could be some tradeoffs in design to accommodate the faster but hotter desktop cpus.
It seems to me that as users work more and more with audio, video and photographic media they'll always appreciate greater processing power. In the not to distant future I suspect that the Mac platform will be attacked by viruses and spyware and we'll all be running protection programs in the background. That'll use up a core right there.
iMacs with either a 2.4 ghz quad core chip or the 3.0 ghz core 2 dual core chip would offer significantly better performance than current iMacs but still lag the current Mac Pros. They would slot in nicely IMO because they would open up some room for the mini to be upgraded but keep it form bumping into the iMac.
In the PPC days Apple was limited by the choices that IBM and Freescale offered. Intel has a tremendous product variety in their cpus but Apple are only using two chips at three different speeds. If Apple wants to differentiate their products they would be wise to use a greater variety of chips that are available.
I agree that cpu power and performance has really progressed nicely since the Intel transition. It's definitely noticeable on the notebook side. Perhaps the mobile cpus offer all the performance that the 'average' iMac user needs, that is certainly possible. Yet Apple could deliver more for less. Perhaps there could be some tradeoffs in design to accommodate the faster but hotter desktop cpus.
It seems to me that as users work more and more with audio, video and photographic media they'll always appreciate greater processing power. In the not to distant future I suspect that the Mac platform will be attacked by viruses and spyware and we'll all be running protection programs in the background. That'll use up a core right there.
iMacs with either a 2.4 ghz quad core chip or the 3.0 ghz core 2 dual core chip would offer significantly better performance than current iMacs but still lag the current Mac Pros. They would slot in nicely IMO because they would open up some room for the mini to be upgraded but keep it form bumping into the iMac.
In the PPC days Apple was limited by the choices that IBM and Freescale offered. Intel has a tremendous product variety in their cpus but Apple are only using two chips at three different speeds. If Apple wants to differentiate their products they would be wise to use a greater variety of chips that are available.
As all chips get better, we will se that performance increase across the line.
Intel has stated that 4 core mobile chiops will be coming. When they do, we will see them in the iMac, and any other consumer machine Apple may havw out at the time.
My contention is that having come from a far more primitive past of Apple machines, I can see some trends that other, younger users may not appreciate.
My company, was among the first to go digital, in the '80's.
We had bought an English system called the Crossfield. It did what Photoshop did somewhat later on. This system cost in the six figures.
When PS was able to compete with that feature-wise, I talked to Adobe, and received several copies to try.
It was pretty damned slow!!! But, I went with it as a side to the Crossfield for a couple of years, and charged less for the less demanding work.
By the time I bought my first 950, fully equipped, for $16,000, in 1992, I think it was, I was about ready to cross over.
Let me tell you something.
That machine was the most powerful personal computer in the world, truly! No PC came even close.
It was so fast, that when we applied a Gaussian Blur to a 10 MB file, we barely had time to go get a cup of coffee, put our sugar in, plus milk, get back to the desk, and almost finish it, before the machine completed the task, and the bell rang!
That was how fast that machine was. Nothing else could touch it.
Considering that today, I can do the same blur to a 50 MB image, on an iMac, and have to wait no more than a couple of seconds, my distain for people who think that every command MUST be instantaneous is unavoidable.
That doesn't mean that I dislike progress. Far from it.
But, I've found that on a 2.33 GHz 24" iMac, most commands in PS, on a reasonable sized image, say 30 MBs in size, take place in one second, or less. To me, that's instantaneous. You don't really have time to do anything else before that command completes. Most other commands finish within two seconds, still close to instant, and some within five seconds, still pretty quick. Just a few take longer.
Even an eight core Mac Pro doesn't cut those times down by more than half.
The only time you would NEED a Mac Pro, is when doing work on much more demanding file types, or sizes. We often did work on 500 MB images, and, sometimes, on composites that exceeded 1GB.
I wouldn't recommend an iMac for those today, even though we did them on dual G4's, and later, dual G5's (we later sold the business).
But, anyone who does work on high end productions, as we did, charges enough to afford (and requires) a Mac Pro, fully equipped. I charged $275 an hour for my private work, and we charged, as a company, $350. That was three years ago. colleagues of mine, today, charge even more.
If someone has to ask if they need a Mac Pro, and then also mentions cost, then they don't need it.
It appears as though some people expect Apple to make consumer, and business class machines (which the iMac is), to equal the performance of their pro machines.
What I expect is a desktop Mac to have a desktop CPU. All desktop Macs have had desktop CPUs in the past. It was the Intel transion that changed this. Now all Macs but the Mac Pro have laptop CPUs.
What I expect is a desktop Mac to have a desktop CPU. All desktop Macs have had desktop CPUs in the past. It was the Intel transion that changed this. Now all Macs but the Mac Pro have laptop CPUs.
Big deal.
For whatever reason, Apple won't make a machine that would benefit from a desktop chip. The iMac won't, so it's a no go.
I hope ?new Xeons? means ?new Mac Pro?, as it would be completely illogical to give iMac a xeon processor as the target market is different, more over xeon processors give efficiency in professional applications targeted for workstation market not for home users.
I'm hearing those rumbles. I'm not sure if we'll see them with Penyrn, or if Apple will wait until Nehalen