They already offer a 3.0 ghz iMac now. The additional 160 mhz isn't going to distinguish the 'new' iMac from the 'old' performance wise.
The 3.16 GHz version moves down to the $1799 price point, while a 3.33 GHz is the high end option. In addition, moving from 1066 MHz to 1333 MHz FSB is approx worth a half-speed grade. The 20" iMacs go to 2.66 and 2.83 GHz and the 24" goes to 3.16 and 3.33 GHz. The 3.33 is a "upgrade" option even though Apple will offer it as a standard machine. I actually think that's reasonable. A 3.16 GHz dual-core will be competitive with a 2.53 GHz quad-core with most things, and much better for single threaded apps which constitute many many applications.
There are other goodies such as better GPUs, faster/more memory, bigger hard drives, maybe even Blu-Ray. It's the usual. Quad-core is only a great option if either most the software supports it or if one can get a quad-core at near the MHz of a dual-core. The latter won't be true for the iMac and the former is waiting on Snow Leopard + developer updates (if parallelism can be extracted).
I'm actually doing a 180 on this. If Apple made the MB and MBP more performance competitive at their price points, it would sway me to say that the iMac is going quad-core, but they didn't and that is sewing seeds of doubt.
. . . A 3.16 GHz dual-core will be competitive with a 2.53 GHz quad-core with most things, and much better for single threaded apps which constitute many many applications.
Great post! OT: Just wondering if either Apple's Final Cut Studio 2 (primarily its editor and Motion apps) and/or Apple Logic Studio/Express can take advantage of quad-core processors? Or are they single-threaded apps? Is there a convenient list of apps posted somewhere indicating their degrees of "threadedness?" Thanks.
. . . The people who *really* care about performance are not looking for an iMac to begin with. If they can afford it, they'll take a Mac Pro. If not, they'll use an old Mac while saving up for the MP, or switch to PCs where they get double the performance at iMac pricing or less.
Although I see the point you're making, this has not been my experience. Several of my friends switched from PC Land to MacWorld, shortly after the introduction of the aluminum Penryn iMacs (apparently, a lot of people simply disliked the cosmetics of white plastic iMacs). Many are doing "performance-oriented" work (Apple Logic, Final Cut Studio, etc.). They're not likely to switch to PCs, 'cause that's where they just came from. iMacs of various levels seemed to be the prevailing choice over MacPros due to price. Another friend of mine runs a working ProTools recording studio on his aging G5, and is considering a new iMac to replace it. Many of us simply can't justify the price of a MacPro system, so a helluva lot of us (who do care about performance) are buying iMacs.
Comments
They already offer a 3.0 ghz iMac now. The additional 160 mhz isn't going to distinguish the 'new' iMac from the 'old' performance wise.
The 3.16 GHz version moves down to the $1799 price point, while a 3.33 GHz is the high end option. In addition, moving from 1066 MHz to 1333 MHz FSB is approx worth a half-speed grade. The 20" iMacs go to 2.66 and 2.83 GHz and the 24" goes to 3.16 and 3.33 GHz. The 3.33 is a "upgrade" option even though Apple will offer it as a standard machine. I actually think that's reasonable. A 3.16 GHz dual-core will be competitive with a 2.53 GHz quad-core with most things, and much better for single threaded apps which constitute many many applications.
There are other goodies such as better GPUs, faster/more memory, bigger hard drives, maybe even Blu-Ray. It's the usual. Quad-core is only a great option if either most the software supports it or if one can get a quad-core at near the MHz of a dual-core. The latter won't be true for the iMac and the former is waiting on Snow Leopard + developer updates (if parallelism can be extracted).
I'm actually doing a 180 on this. If Apple made the MB and MBP more performance competitive at their price points, it would sway me to say that the iMac is going quad-core, but they didn't and that is sewing seeds of doubt.
. . . A 3.16 GHz dual-core will be competitive with a 2.53 GHz quad-core with most things, and much better for single threaded apps which constitute many many applications.
Great post! OT: Just wondering if either Apple's Final Cut Studio 2 (primarily its editor and Motion apps) and/or Apple Logic Studio/Express can take advantage of quad-core processors? Or are they single-threaded apps? Is there a convenient list of apps posted somewhere indicating their degrees of "threadedness?" Thanks.
. . . The people who *really* care about performance are not looking for an iMac to begin with. If they can afford it, they'll take a Mac Pro. If not, they'll use an old Mac while saving up for the MP, or switch to PCs where they get double the performance at iMac pricing or less.
Although I see the point you're making, this has not been my experience. Several of my friends switched from PC Land to MacWorld, shortly after the introduction of the aluminum Penryn iMacs (apparently, a lot of people simply disliked the cosmetics of white plastic iMacs). Many are doing "performance-oriented" work (Apple Logic, Final Cut Studio, etc.). They're not likely to switch to PCs, 'cause that's where they just came from. iMacs of various levels seemed to be the prevailing choice over MacPros due to price. Another friend of mine runs a working ProTools recording studio on his aging G5, and is considering a new iMac to replace it. Many of us simply can't justify the price of a MacPro system, so a helluva lot of us (who do care about performance) are buying iMacs.