Does anyone else think a quad-core iMac is in the pipeline? I would've guessed that iMacs would stay dual-core for some time, as Apple continues to segregate their line-up (as they tend to do by delineating iMacs as "consumer-targeted" products, and MacPros as more "professionally targeted" machines), relegating quad-core processors solely to MacPro towers. Also, they would need to wait for a quad-core mobile processor for an iMac form factor build, right? Anyone else agree?
Mobile quad-core cpus are already available:
QX9300 quad 2.53GHz 45W $1,038
Q9100 quad 2.26GHz 45W $851 (same price as the dual-core 3.06GHz)
and a new one should be available late 2008/early 2009:
Q9000 quad 2.00GHz possibly at 35W and $348 (that's an interesting one).
Intel has some benchmarks QX9300 vs X9100 (dual-core 3.06GHz), if you are interested in. It would be better to have real world ones, but it gives an idea...
I think the that iMac is the perfect candidate for Intel's mobile quad-cores. It doesn't have the cooling/space restrictions of the MBP. And offering quad iMacs could be a way to prepare for Snow Leopard. Apple may not use quads on all models, but I think that the following models would make sense:
$1299 20" iMac DC 2.40GHz
$1599 20" iMac QC 2.00GHz
$1899 24" iMac DC 2.80GHz
$2299 24" iMac DC 3.06GHz or QC 2.26GHz
$2499 24" iMac QC 2.53GHz
Pricing could be a little off, since it is also probable that the iMacs will have LED-BL displays, making them slighlty more expensive than current ones (I would expect and increase of $100-200) and/or a slight decrease in processor speed (just like the new MacBook had).
Unless Apple has other ideas for the mobile quad-core cpus...
Mobile quad-core cpus are already available . . . I think the that iMac is the perfect candidate for Intel's mobile quad-cores. It doesn't have the cooling/space restrictions of the MBP. And offering quad iMacs could be a way to prepare for Snow Leopard. Apple may not use quads on all models, but I think that the following models would make sense:
$1299 20" iMac DC 2.40GHz
$1599 20" iMac QC 2.00GHz
$1899 24" iMac DC 2.80GHz
$2299 24" iMac DC 3.06GHz or QC 2.26GHz
$2499 24" iMac QC 2.53GHz
Pricing could be a little off, since it is also probable that the iMacs will have LED-BL displays, making them slighlty more expensive than current ones . . .
Great post! Thanks for that comprehensive quad-core update! Well, I just couldn't put off my iMac purchases any longer--I just had to escape WindowsLand. Had I known a quad-core iMac may be a plausable expectation, I would've waited (arduous as that may have been). I knew I probably shouldn't have splurged on the top-of-the-line, 24" iMac as my main machine, but I just couldn't resist. Any guess on when a quad-core iMac may hit the streets? I would guess next year, 2009, perhaps Q2 or Q3? Sooner?
How'd it look? Were you able to notice any discernible difference between the current 24" iMac's LCD, and the new LED display? Better contrast? Wider color gamut? Anything?
Actually, I have seen the new 24" LED Cinema displays at two different Apple Stores in my area. I didn't get a whole lot of hands-on time in either store. I think I was more amazed that the base was thinner than the cinema display. And I guess I was floored that they were able to make it thinner there. I was impressed with what I saw. I think it's almost perfect — outside of the fact that it's glossy. That said, I think I was struck most by how minimal the reflection was considering the bright environment they are in. The glare seemed less than the MacBook Pro, where my uncertainty about glossy screens is the only thing holding me back from buying the new MacBook Pro.
They present the new 24" attached to the new MacBook Pro, of course, where the MacBook Pro sits atop one of those Griffin Elevators (or some such stand) and the display has got the wired Apple Keyboard and Mighty Mouse attached to it.
The black frame and the brightness of the display make it look like the iMac should have probably looked all of this time...chin-less. I am still somewhat disappointed that the display is not height adjustable like nearly every other manufacturer offers, but it's a relatively small point on the whole.
When I saw the display and the three connectors and their implementation, I can only think that the next Mac mini will connect this way —*Mag Safe/USB/Mini DisplayPort. Also when I saw the display is when I thought to myself that they are waiting for these babies to ship in quantity before they roll out the next iMacs.
UGHHHHH! Im a senior highschool student who has been saving money for months (I had planned on buying the 24" 2.8Ghz iMac). I finally get the money, and now there is talk of an update....
Do what I'm doing and wait patiently. I've had too many incidents were I buy an Apple product and within weeks, they release an update, but I won't let it happen with something as major as an iMac. Nevertheless, I'll be annoyed if I'm still waiting in December.
Considering that the new 24-inch Cinema Display has such a reduction in bulk ? no more power brick ? and the thickness is less all possible because of the LED backlighting, I wonder how this might affect the look of the next iMacs? Might the chin finally go away?
Well in light of the news that Apple aren't releasing anything new til next year, would you say it's worth waiting? Apple say they are only working on "speed bumps" yet reports believe they could potentially include Blu-Ray drives etc.
Well in light of the news that Apple aren't releasing anything new til next year, would you say it's worth waiting? Apple say they are only working on "speed bumps" yet reports believe they could potentially include Blu-Ray drives etc.
I think any new iMacs will come on or shortly after MWSF in two short months. So as the old saying goes if you need it now, get it, otherwise wait for the revision after the turn of the year.
Well in light of the news that Apple aren't releasing anything new til next year, would you say it's worth waiting? Apple say they are only working on "speed bumps" yet reports believe they could potentially include Blu-Ray drives etc.
Apple never said they were only working on "speed bumps", those are just rumors. And Blu-Ray drives are probably the most inaccurate rumor of them all.
Anything iMac, you may as well as wait until laptop Nehalem chips come out. Because it sure looks like Apple will never use Conroe desktop variant in it. So quad-core may take some time.
Looks like second half 09 for the iMac of your dreams.
Meanwhile, the Mac Pro will hopefully answer our prayers in the meantime...
I was planning on getting a new imac for christmas, but now i am not sure if i should wait until january. Is a quad core worth it. I know that most programs are not made for quad core yet. I was planning on upgrading to the nvidia card anyways. Any thoughts.
I was planning on getting a new imac for christmas, but now i am not sure if i should wait until january. Is a quad core worth it. I know that most programs are not made for quad core yet. I was planning on upgrading to the nvidia card anyways. Any thoughts.
Thanks
You're right. And the 8800 will serve you well.
But you DO KNOW that an iMac update is imminent in Jan? If you swallow that buy now. I'd rather wait two months...
Don't know about you guys, but a Nehalem iMac in January is pretty long shot. If they are refreshed, I think it will be Penryn quad-cores or higher MHz dual-cores. The Nehalems shipping this month are 130 Watt TDP. The mainstream desktop parts look to have 75 Watt TDP, and they don't arrive until Q1 09. At this point, if Apple wants Nehalem, it looks like they have to wait a few more months and redesign the internals for higher TDP. So, I wouldn't expect Nehalem iMacs until Snow Leopard is out.
If Apple announces a new line of desktops during MWSF09, I'd expect Nehalem Mac Pros and Penryn iMacs and Mac minis. The leap in performance from a dual-core to a quad-core isn't really that great. If DVD ripping/trasncoding was legal, quad-cores would be absolutely worth it, or if you have specific apps that benefit, but for general purpose computing, Apple doesn't really have to make a leap. If they could get 2.67, 2.83 and 3.00 GHz dual-cores with 1333 MHz FSB, with a 3.16 GHz upgrade and higher end GPUs, that'll be enough. I wouldn't be surprised if that's what you'll see.
Considering the PC competition, quad-core would almost be a requirement. That's what I was thinking, and perhaps it'll still be true. That's only if Apple can't ship a 3+ GHz dual-core in the iMac though. But they do have options with 1333 MHz FSB and 3+ GHz dual-cores.
Don't know about you guys, but a Nehalem iMac in January is pretty long shot. If they are refreshed, I think it will be Penryn quad-cores or higher MHz dual-cores. The Nehalems shipping this month are 130 Watt TDP. The mainstream desktop parts look to have 75 Watt TDP, and they don't arrive until Q1 09. At this point, if Apple wants Nehalem, it looks like they have to wait a few more months and redesign the internals for higher TDP. So, I wouldn't expect Nehalem iMacs until Snow Leopard is out.
If Apple announces a new line of desktops during MWSF09, I'd expect Nehalem Mac Pros and Penryn iMacs and Mac minis. The leap in performance from a dual-core to a quad-core isn't really that great. If DVD ripping/trasncoding was legal, quad-cores would be absolutely worth it, or if you have specific apps that benefit, but for general purpose computing, Apple doesn't really have to make a leap. If they could get 2.67, 2.83 and 3.00 GHz dual-cores with 1333 MHz FSB, with a 3.16 GHz upgrade and higher end GPUs, that'll be enough. I wouldn't be surprised if that's what you'll see.
Considering the PC competition, quad-core would almost be a requirement. That's what I was thinking, and perhaps it'll still be true. That's only if Apple can't ship a 3+ GHz dual-core in the iMac though. But they do have options with 1333 MHz FSB and 3+ GHz dual-cores.
I'm probably picking nits, but if you feel that adding additional cores does little to improve performance for most users you ought to feel that increasing the FSB does even less.
If all Apple can do to improve iMac performance is change processors to ones with faster FSB, (and the same or only slightly faster cpu frequencies), they shouldn't bother and just lower the price to something more reasonable.
I'm probably picking nits, but if you feel that adding additional cores does little to improve performance for most users you ought to feel that increasing the FSB does even less.
If all Apple can do to improve iMac performance is change processors to ones with faster FSB, (and the same or only slightly faster cpu frequencies), they shouldn't bother and just lower the price to something more reasonable.
Yeah, Apple could do that. But they won't. That's simply not there common practice. Just look at the new MB and MBP. Their processor speeds were basically unchanged, and they decided to add value through the industrial design (unibody case design, glass screen and higher performance IGP, higher FSB). You are setting yourself up for disappointment if you think the January iMac will have Nehalem or even Penryn quad-cores. Just looking at the competition, one would think - as I would - that Apple has to put quad-core into the iMac. That's only true if they can't get high enough MHz dual-cores.
My only interjection is that Apple could very easily go this way. There is one speed grade left in Penryn dual-cores that Apple could exploit (cherry picked extreme editions), and combined with a higher FSB, that could be enough. If they go with mobile quad-cores, they'll be limited to 2.53 GHz, maybe 2.66 GHz. But if they go dual-core, they can probably get 3.16 GHz on 1333 MHz FSB. That's enough of a MHz advantage to make it a fairly even trade on dual-core versus quad-core. The better single threaded performance will be more useful to Leopard than the lower MHz quad-cores, with the exception of the well-threaded apps for n-cores. That's enough of an advantage in my mind that Apple will make due with higher MHz dual-cores until Nehalem comes in better TDP in the Summer. Maybe they'll have a 2.53 GHz quad-core option though.
But if they go dual-core, they can probably get 3.16 GHz on 1333 MHz FSB. .
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.
I don't know what Apple can or will do to make new iMacs more appealing than the ones they currently offer. Mobile Neahlem is quite a way off in 09 and that's the only 'game' changing product on the map for the foreseeable future.
The 17" Core Duo iMac is soon 3 years old. Yet for a large part of users, it's hardly worse than a new iMac. It runs Leopard and all the same apps, you can browse the web, read your mails, listen to music. That's pretty much everything a basic user will do.
I do more complex and varied stuff, like programming, but I require no more performance. If I didn't specifically need a laptop, I could easily replace my Macbook with one of these iMacs as well.
Thing is, I think that people who don't need much performance are not even a minority, but the majority. 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.
From this viewpoint, what's the point of the new low end iMacs compared to the three year old ones? A better quality, 3" larger screen. And that's about it. Apple has failed to deliver value even compared to its own old products, never mind a random PC on sale.
To fix the value problem, I'd do a price drop, axe higher spec 20" model and in its place, add a low spec 24" model to have a viable upgrade for the non-performance crowd.
20", 2GB memory stock, nevermind processor speed and graphics (edit: sub $1k)
24", same specs and a small price differential to the 20"
two more models with higher performance
Gamers don't care much about processor speed, either, so being able to BTO the 8800 graphics onto a 24" whose price wasn't inflated by processor and fluff specs would result in a reasonably interesting machine. You'd see more people going for a loaded iMac instead of a slower Mac+console/gaming PC combo. This would mean a decent saving for the user, and bring some more money Apple's way, which sounds like win/win.
Comments
Does anyone else think a quad-core iMac is in the pipeline? I would've guessed that iMacs would stay dual-core for some time, as Apple continues to segregate their line-up (as they tend to do by delineating iMacs as "consumer-targeted" products, and MacPros as more "professionally targeted" machines), relegating quad-core processors solely to MacPro towers. Also, they would need to wait for a quad-core mobile processor for an iMac form factor build, right? Anyone else agree?
Mobile quad-core cpus are already available:
QX9300 quad 2.53GHz 45W $1,038
Q9100 quad 2.26GHz 45W $851 (same price as the dual-core 3.06GHz)
and a new one should be available late 2008/early 2009:
Q9000 quad 2.00GHz possibly at 35W and $348 (that's an interesting one).
Intel has some benchmarks QX9300 vs X9100 (dual-core 3.06GHz), if you are interested in. It would be better to have real world ones, but it gives an idea...
I think the that iMac is the perfect candidate for Intel's mobile quad-cores. It doesn't have the cooling/space restrictions of the MBP. And offering quad iMacs could be a way to prepare for Snow Leopard. Apple may not use quads on all models, but I think that the following models would make sense:
$1299 20" iMac DC 2.40GHz
$1599 20" iMac QC 2.00GHz
$1899 24" iMac DC 2.80GHz
$2299 24" iMac DC 3.06GHz or QC 2.26GHz
$2499 24" iMac QC 2.53GHz
Pricing could be a little off, since it is also probable that the iMacs will have LED-BL displays, making them slighlty more expensive than current ones (I would expect and increase of $100-200) and/or a slight decrease in processor speed (just like the new MacBook had).
Unless Apple has other ideas for the mobile quad-core cpus...
Mobile quad-core cpus are already available . . . I think the that iMac is the perfect candidate for Intel's mobile quad-cores. It doesn't have the cooling/space restrictions of the MBP. And offering quad iMacs could be a way to prepare for Snow Leopard. Apple may not use quads on all models, but I think that the following models would make sense:
$1299 20" iMac DC 2.40GHz
$1599 20" iMac QC 2.00GHz
$1899 24" iMac DC 2.80GHz
$2299 24" iMac DC 3.06GHz or QC 2.26GHz
$2499 24" iMac QC 2.53GHz
Pricing could be a little off, since it is also probable that the iMacs will have LED-BL displays, making them slighlty more expensive than current ones . . .
Great post! Thanks for that comprehensive quad-core update! Well, I just couldn't put off my iMac purchases any longer--I just had to escape WindowsLand. Had I known a quad-core iMac may be a plausable expectation, I would've waited (arduous as that may have been). I knew I probably shouldn't have splurged on the top-of-the-line, 24" iMac as my main machine, but I just couldn't resist. Any guess on when a quad-core iMac may hit the streets? I would guess next year, 2009, perhaps Q2 or Q3? Sooner?
How'd it look? Were you able to notice any discernible difference between the current 24" iMac's LCD, and the new LED display? Better contrast? Wider color gamut? Anything?
Actually, I have seen the new 24" LED Cinema displays at two different Apple Stores in my area. I didn't get a whole lot of hands-on time in either store. I think I was more amazed that the base was thinner than the cinema display. And I guess I was floored that they were able to make it thinner there. I was impressed with what I saw. I think it's almost perfect — outside of the fact that it's glossy. That said, I think I was struck most by how minimal the reflection was considering the bright environment they are in. The glare seemed less than the MacBook Pro, where my uncertainty about glossy screens is the only thing holding me back from buying the new MacBook Pro.
They present the new 24" attached to the new MacBook Pro, of course, where the MacBook Pro sits atop one of those Griffin Elevators (or some such stand) and the display has got the wired Apple Keyboard and Mighty Mouse attached to it.
The black frame and the brightness of the display make it look like the iMac should have probably looked all of this time...chin-less. I am still somewhat disappointed that the display is not height adjustable like nearly every other manufacturer offers, but it's a relatively small point on the whole.
When I saw the display and the three connectors and their implementation, I can only think that the next Mac mini will connect this way —*Mag Safe/USB/Mini DisplayPort. Also when I saw the display is when I thought to myself that they are waiting for these babies to ship in quantity before they roll out the next iMacs.
What to do, what to do....
When is the new iMac coming out ?
Well in light of the news that Apple aren't releasing anything new til next year, would you say it's worth waiting? Apple say they are only working on "speed bumps" yet reports believe they could potentially include Blu-Ray drives etc.
I think any new iMacs will come on or shortly after MWSF in two short months. So as the old saying goes if you need it now, get it, otherwise wait for the revision after the turn of the year.
Well in light of the news that Apple aren't releasing anything new til next year, would you say it's worth waiting? Apple say they are only working on "speed bumps" yet reports believe they could potentially include Blu-Ray drives etc.
Apple never said they were only working on "speed bumps", those are just rumors. And Blu-Ray drives are probably the most inaccurate rumor of them all.
Or give it light and make the whole face black? Get rid of the raccoon look please.
Answer me someone please- why a 24" iMac needs a display port?
Because the owner has a 23" Cinema Display?
Looks like second half 09 for the iMac of your dreams.
Meanwhile, the Mac Pro will hopefully answer our prayers in the meantime...
Lemon Bon Bon.
Thanks
I was planning on getting a new imac for christmas, but now i am not sure if i should wait until january. Is a quad core worth it. I know that most programs are not made for quad core yet. I was planning on upgrading to the nvidia card anyways. Any thoughts.
Thanks
You're right. And the 8800 will serve you well.
But you DO KNOW that an iMac update is imminent in Jan? If you swallow that buy now. I'd rather wait two months...
Lemon Bon Bon
If Apple announces a new line of desktops during MWSF09, I'd expect Nehalem Mac Pros and Penryn iMacs and Mac minis. The leap in performance from a dual-core to a quad-core isn't really that great. If DVD ripping/trasncoding was legal, quad-cores would be absolutely worth it, or if you have specific apps that benefit, but for general purpose computing, Apple doesn't really have to make a leap. If they could get 2.67, 2.83 and 3.00 GHz dual-cores with 1333 MHz FSB, with a 3.16 GHz upgrade and higher end GPUs, that'll be enough. I wouldn't be surprised if that's what you'll see.
Considering the PC competition, quad-core would almost be a requirement. That's what I was thinking, and perhaps it'll still be true. That's only if Apple can't ship a 3+ GHz dual-core in the iMac though. But they do have options with 1333 MHz FSB and 3+ GHz dual-cores.
Don't know about you guys, but a Nehalem iMac in January is pretty long shot. If they are refreshed, I think it will be Penryn quad-cores or higher MHz dual-cores. The Nehalems shipping this month are 130 Watt TDP. The mainstream desktop parts look to have 75 Watt TDP, and they don't arrive until Q1 09. At this point, if Apple wants Nehalem, it looks like they have to wait a few more months and redesign the internals for higher TDP. So, I wouldn't expect Nehalem iMacs until Snow Leopard is out.
If Apple announces a new line of desktops during MWSF09, I'd expect Nehalem Mac Pros and Penryn iMacs and Mac minis. The leap in performance from a dual-core to a quad-core isn't really that great. If DVD ripping/trasncoding was legal, quad-cores would be absolutely worth it, or if you have specific apps that benefit, but for general purpose computing, Apple doesn't really have to make a leap. If they could get 2.67, 2.83 and 3.00 GHz dual-cores with 1333 MHz FSB, with a 3.16 GHz upgrade and higher end GPUs, that'll be enough. I wouldn't be surprised if that's what you'll see.
Considering the PC competition, quad-core would almost be a requirement. That's what I was thinking, and perhaps it'll still be true. That's only if Apple can't ship a 3+ GHz dual-core in the iMac though. But they do have options with 1333 MHz FSB and 3+ GHz dual-cores.
I'm probably picking nits, but if you feel that adding additional cores does little to improve performance for most users you ought to feel that increasing the FSB does even less.
If all Apple can do to improve iMac performance is change processors to ones with faster FSB, (and the same or only slightly faster cpu frequencies), they shouldn't bother and just lower the price to something more reasonable.
I'm probably picking nits, but if you feel that adding additional cores does little to improve performance for most users you ought to feel that increasing the FSB does even less.
If all Apple can do to improve iMac performance is change processors to ones with faster FSB, (and the same or only slightly faster cpu frequencies), they shouldn't bother and just lower the price to something more reasonable.
Yeah, Apple could do that. But they won't. That's simply not there common practice. Just look at the new MB and MBP. Their processor speeds were basically unchanged, and they decided to add value through the industrial design (unibody case design, glass screen and higher performance IGP, higher FSB). You are setting yourself up for disappointment if you think the January iMac will have Nehalem or even Penryn quad-cores. Just looking at the competition, one would think - as I would - that Apple has to put quad-core into the iMac. That's only true if they can't get high enough MHz dual-cores.
My only interjection is that Apple could very easily go this way. There is one speed grade left in Penryn dual-cores that Apple could exploit (cherry picked extreme editions), and combined with a higher FSB, that could be enough. If they go with mobile quad-cores, they'll be limited to 2.53 GHz, maybe 2.66 GHz. But if they go dual-core, they can probably get 3.16 GHz on 1333 MHz FSB. That's enough of a MHz advantage to make it a fairly even trade on dual-core versus quad-core. The better single threaded performance will be more useful to Leopard than the lower MHz quad-cores, with the exception of the well-threaded apps for n-cores. That's enough of an advantage in my mind that Apple will make due with higher MHz dual-cores until Nehalem comes in better TDP in the Summer. Maybe they'll have a 2.53 GHz quad-core option though.
But if they go dual-core, they can probably get 3.16 GHz on 1333 MHz FSB. .
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.
I don't know what Apple can or will do to make new iMacs more appealing than the ones they currently offer. Mobile Neahlem is quite a way off in 09 and that's the only 'game' changing product on the map for the foreseeable future.
I do more complex and varied stuff, like programming, but I require no more performance. If I didn't specifically need a laptop, I could easily replace my Macbook with one of these iMacs as well.
Thing is, I think that people who don't need much performance are not even a minority, but the majority. 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.
From this viewpoint, what's the point of the new low end iMacs compared to the three year old ones? A better quality, 3" larger screen. And that's about it. Apple has failed to deliver value even compared to its own old products, never mind a random PC on sale.
To fix the value problem, I'd do a price drop, axe higher spec 20" model and in its place, add a low spec 24" model to have a viable upgrade for the non-performance crowd.
20", 2GB memory stock, nevermind processor speed and graphics (edit: sub $1k)
24", same specs and a small price differential to the 20"
two more models with higher performance
Gamers don't care much about processor speed, either, so being able to BTO the 8800 graphics onto a 24" whose price wasn't inflated by processor and fluff specs would result in a reasonably interesting machine. You'd see more people going for a loaded iMac instead of a slower Mac+console/gaming PC combo. This would mean a decent saving for the user, and bring some more money Apple's way, which sounds like win/win.